--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > Empty, while I am even more underwhelmed by you > > > spouting dogma than by you acting out your jeal- > > > ousy of Vaj and myself, I perceive the possibility > > > for fun here, so I'm gonna go for it. > > > > > > So I issue you a challenge -- describe for me > > > (and our studio audience) something NON-relative, > > > some "truth" (or anything, for that matter) that > > > can be said to be non-relative or absolute. And > > > you have to do so while using no comparison with > > > anything relative to describe it, and using no > > > relative point of view from which to perceive it. > > > ( Otherwise it's...duh...relative. Right? ) > > > > > > I'll wait. :-) > > > > OK, just messin'... > > > > How about > > > > 1. "In any right triangle, the square of the length of the > > hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the lengths > > of the two other sides." > > First, the example given is *completely* > relative, meaning that it exists in the > relative universe. Second (and I don't > know the answer to this), you are describ- > ing a two-dimensional object. Would this > mathematical axiom still be as "true" in > three dimensions, or four, or five? > > For that matter, just curve the lines of > the three sides of the triangle in two- > dimensional space and you have rendered > the axiom untrue. It's "truth" depends on > the lines being straight.
If you want to play, I'm game to pursue this. No 1 first. In this case I think you're missing out on something VERY interesting. It's the diabolically odd mystery that is Mathematics. When you say "it exists in the relative universe", well...what is the reference of "it"? Triangles? That's the funny thing you see. Triangles as described, do not exist like that at all in the relative universe. They are an ideal, a Platonic 'form' if you like. Does that make Pythagoras' theorem so much eyewash? Not at all! On the contrary we all know the power of mathematics and everything that depends on it (not least of course this Interwebby thing we are using right now). Is the truth of Pythagoras' theorem just a "trivial" truth, just an exercise in the meaning of words? Well no, that seems hardly fair (it's not like the proposition "a bachelor is an unmarried man" for example). Fair enough, we need to qualify this "truth" as being a truth about two dimensions. But qualifying a truth does not in itself make the truth a *relative* one does it? So I put it to you that this theorem is an example of a *Truth* that does NOT depend on your point of view, and is not *a matter of opinion*. Now where's my prize? (That wasn't a picture of the prize in your recent post by any chance?) I notice that you have not responded to Judy, EmptyBill and Alex who have all drawn attention to the paradoxical nature of your doctrine. Let's call the Turq docrine about opinion "TD". TD seems to be something like "Truth is relative to your point of view and there is no Truth (capital 'T')". What does TD have to say about itself? Self-reference is such a peculiar and profound thing. Is TD supposed to be "True"? Duh! I know you might think that this is a tiresome debating point or some such, and you're itching to be done with it. But it's the elephant in the room of TD, or, as I would prefer to put it, the little white dot in the black half of the Chinese Yin/Yang symbol. I recall you have occasionally quoted Bertrand Russell. When he became aware of just such a simple paradox (in some work he was doing on the foundations of Mathematics) it became the single most important thing of his entire intellectual life. He was aware that most folks would find it extremely puzzling that a grown, intelligent man should fret so much about "the set of all sets that are not members of themselves" (as I think it went). Did he have something wrong with him? Or was it more that he had the integrity to follow his ideas to the bitter end, rather than just riffing with them? So here's my point. TD ain't *it*. You will deny it, but it appears to me to be a *refuge* for you. There ain't no refuge.
