"Conservatives only use hate & fear while Liberals use logic & reason."

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun


Dear Asswipe:


I don't give an iota what you think of this.


Sincerely,

MrFun

Dear MrPixie,

That particular phrase should have read, "I don't give an iota about what you think of this." Even then, the sentence is much too awkward to be effective. Your continuing misuse of grammar only serves to further mar the Grammar Nazi trademark. Prepare for a jackboot up the keister.

Ever yours,

BG

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Dear MrPixie,

That particular phrase should have read, "I don't give an iota [b]about[/i] what you think of this." Even then, the sentence is much too awkward to be effective. Your continuing misuse of grammar only serves to further mar the Grammar Nazi trademark. Prepare for a jackboot up the keister.

Ever yours,

BG

But I don't like going by the rules.

[Whaleboy]

A definition is an absolute truth.

No, a definition is "defining" a set of paramaters that hold for a given situational context. Be that a war, a punch up, or our universe.

Now you could argue the old fallacy against relativism, that an objective is linked to its context and when specified, that is an absolute truth. That is of course true, but then, keep taking it to different dimensions, so one has to specify infinte dimensions to keep it absolute, otherwise it has no effect. For example, dot on piece of paper is 4 cm from either side. Then one metre up from the ground. In Northampton. England. Earth. Sol. System. X,Y,Z coordinates in space. T time. U 5d time.... and we can go on forever, so you can't in fact specify a a finite term that is infinitely absolute. The same dimensions things goes for more abstract (non cosmological) concepts, like wars, or politics etc etc. Put simply, "think out of the box" (though there are problems with that term as a description, its a good analogy).

[Whaleboy]

We need a spelling/grammar nuremberg on OT! I cant talk... I been going Hermann Goering on you all this thread!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by elijah
No, a definition is "defining" a set of paramaters that hold for a given situational context. Be that a war, a punch up, or our universe.

Since we don't know anything outside of our universe, anything that anchors on it will be absolute. Say, Planck's constant, or absolute zero.

[Whaleboy]

Since we don't know anything outside of our universe, anything that anchors on it will be absolute. Say, Planck's constant, or absolute zero.

Black holes, tachyons, variations in background radiation from the BB that can only be explained by externel influences (COBE) etc efc? Even within this universe, its conceivable for these absolutes to change. Cognetive relativism requires the mere possibility.

[Urban Ranger]

Black holes are a theoretical construct of GR. Thus far their existence has not been verified.

Tachyons are also still theoretical.

Variation in background radiation can probably be explained by something else, and I haven't looked closely at it.

Even within this universe, its conceivable for these absolutes to change.

No. These constants were formed early during the Big Bang and remain fixed from then on.

Cognetive relativism requires the mere possibility.

1. Relative to what? It's not that there's another universe that we can compare to.

2. If cognitive relativism requires such possibility, there is something wrong with it. Philosophy is fun and all, but it's also fuzzy and squishy.

3. If you hold that cognitive relativism must hold true everywhere, it becomes an absolute, forming a contradiction that causes it to collapse.

[Whaleboy]

Black holes are a theoretical construct of GR. Thus far their existence has not been verified

Hawking Radiation (also proving uncertainty princ.) The latter shows that there is no point of zero energy in the universe, thus it must have a value. It shows that one particle of antimatter, and a corresponding one of matter will appear, then annihilate each other.

Near or on a black holes Schwartzchild radius, one particle will get sucked in, leaving the other free to wander off. This causes the black hole to lose mass, as each particle on its own has negative mass and only returns to zero when they annihilate. Hawking showed how this would cause a black hole to "evaporate", increasing the intensity of the hole (as small ones are obviously more powerful), and accelerating the evaporation. We dont know what happens when they reach zero mass. Either nothing or a pretty groovy fireworks display.

This radiation (X-rays IIRC and deduce) has proven the existence of black holes.

Not that they needed proving this way, simply observe (via IR of course) the motion of stars at the centre of the galaxy, and you see their angular motion. The mass at the centre, due to possible size (and the Chandraskhar (sp?) limit) can only be what is enigmatically termed a "supermassive black hole". Of course, one can never, in physics or philosophy, have any complete degree of certainty, but of course, that would defy the point!

No. These constants were formed early during the Big Bang and remain fixed from then on.

There is evidence from the horizon problem that this is not the case. For example, the speed of light in a vacuum is dependent on the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum. At an early stage in the universe, it is highly possible that these were both less than what they are.

1. Relative to what? It's not that there's another universe that we can compare to.

Can you be absolutely certain? . Cognetive relativism is metaphysics. I suppose the only relativism (invents ) would be cognetive cosmological relativism.

2. If cognitive relativism requires such possibility, there is something wrong with it. Philosophy is fun and all, but it's also fuzzy and squishy.

Whats wrong with it? The fuzziness and squishiness makes it great!! There seems to be a movement in science to remove the philosophy and understand an ultimate truth, whereas we both know there is none! (me and cosmology), but you need us dammit!!

Metaphysics is really just science where science dare not tread yet

[Whaleboy]

3. If you hold that cognitive relativism must hold true everywhere

Which I dont!

[Whaleboy]

Variation in background radiation can probably be explained by something else, and I haven't looked closely at it

An initial explosion in 5d would result in a homogenous 4d, but externel influences would start to affect the latter. The other theories explain that this stuff occurs, they dont explain why.

[Whaleboy]

To think this all started because someone doesn't like liberalism

[Drogue]

To think someone posts 4 times when editing the first will do

Isn't it about time we gave this thread a rest? Its so OT now it's becoming silly

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drogue

Isn't it about time we gave this thread a rest?

Finally -- someone said something sensible in this thread.