Three Posted July 5, 2015 Posted July 5, 2015 Okay, but if everything is relative and subject to our interptepation, then that would also include the statement everything is not relative and subject to interpretation. So, you can't say I'm wrong, only that what I'm saying is relative and subject to interpretation. 2
Guest Gee Posted July 5, 2015 Posted July 5, 2015 Two people can experience the exact same event from a different perspective and observe completely contradictory laws of physics. The theory of relativity states that the laws of physics are the same in all frames of reference, it is an impossibility to observe contradictory laws. If this is a mistake because of lack of understanding, please educate yourself or refrain from using that which you do not understand as it can bring no insight or clarity to a discussion. If not please do not deliberately misrepresent physical theory so as to further your personal agenda. 1
J. D. Stembal Posted July 5, 2015 Posted July 5, 2015 I'm always right, and you're always wrong. Where have we all heard this brand of relativism before? I'm always right, and you're always wrong. Where have we all heard this brand of relativism before?
_LiveFree_ Posted July 5, 2015 Posted July 5, 2015 It makes me ecstatic to see a thread which was started concerning forum downvoting has turned into a discussion on relativism. Perfect.
thebeardslastcall Posted July 5, 2015 Posted July 5, 2015 It makes me ecstatic to see a thread which was started concerning forum downvoting has turned into a discussion on relativism. Relativism? I think that's giving what GuzzyBone is saying too much credit. Guzzybone seems to be skewing relativism into irrelativism and negating everything. Relativism is saying things are judged relatively. Irrelativism is saying nothing can be judged because relative to something else everything is relatively nothing or the opposite of what it means to the person making the point. This is a thread about downvoting and he's trying really hard to make a case for its use with this useless logic. So I can't exactly say GuzzyBone is off-topic. He's just on topic in a relatively obscure way you could say.
GuzzyBone Posted July 5, 2015 Posted July 5, 2015 Okay, but if everything is relative and subject to our interptepation, then that would also include the statement everything is not relative and subject to interpretation. So, you can't say I'm wrong, only that what I'm saying is relative and subject to interpretation. I didn't argue against this, that was the point I made. Our perception makes us believe that the things we experience are real and concrete outside of perception, and yet they are real. I didn't say you were dead wrong, I just offered it's counterpoint. You are only proving my original point that 2 parties with seemingly contradictory statements can be both right and wrong simultaneously. The theory of relativity states that the laws of physics are the same in all frames of reference, it is an impossibility to observe contradictory laws. I fail to see how the first part truly contradicts anything I've stated, nor how it implies the impossibility of observing anything. The second statement that it is an absolute impossibility to observe contradictory laws, I wonder if this is your own addendum. You have no possible way of truly knowing whether or not if one day gravity will simply reverse itself or change in some bizarre fashion. You can try to predict the probability, but unless you have omniscience you shouldn't absolutely declare something like this impossible. Furthermore, all frames of reference simply means the ones that are available to us now. Fluctuation and inconsistency can be observed in nearly all things on the quantum level (see: "String Theory"). The better the instrument, either the more noticeable the inconsistency or the more things become indistinguishable. If time and space are in perpetual flux or at least subject to the possibility of flux, so are all physical "laws". scientific laws are no more than human observations and annotations of perceived consistency. The theories and language of Science itself are inconsistent, and there's nothing wrong with that. It is the various and diverse observations and theories of many different people, based on critical reasoning and hypothesis (fancy word for "educated guess"). Are you to say that Scientific laws and theories never contradict each other? I beg to differ. Science is just a language and tool, not an authority. The same applies to religion, philosophy, etc... If space and time are relative to each other and measured relative to the observer, then there is not necessarily any actual constant or "same"-ness beyond the perception of consistency measured in relation to our ability to observe it. Lacking the tools to discern incremental variations in physical "laws" or constants does not make the case that they are actually constant in anything but our perception. They seem constant, so we declare it so. All things are subject to the possibility of change and time, perception, space, existence, these experiences all derive from things changing (inconsistency) and we compare them to the things that seem to stay the same. 1
_LiveFree_ Posted July 5, 2015 Posted July 5, 2015 Relativism? I think that's giving what GuzzyBone is saying too much credit. Guzzybone seems to be skewing relativism into irrelativism and negating everything. Relativism is saying things are judged relatively. Irrelativism is saying nothing can be judged because relative to something else everything is relatively nothing or the opposite of what it means to the person making the point. This is a thread about downvoting and he's trying really hard to make a case for its use with this useless logic. So I can't exactly say GuzzyBone is off-topic. He's just on topic in a relatively obscure way you could say. lol oh god! My grey matter!
Guest Gee Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 I think this thread is a fantastic use case for down voting. 1
thebeardslastcall Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 I listened to podcast 3015 last night. I didn't realize GuzzyBone had called in trying to argue the ideas he was saying here. It was an entertaining call.
PatrickC Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 I listened to podcast 3015 last night. I didn't realize GuzzyBone had called in trying to argue the ideas he was saying here. It was an entertaining call.
shirgall Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 I listened to podcast 3015 last night. I didn't realize GuzzyBone had called in trying to argue the ideas he was saying here. It was an entertaining call. I was kinda detached, myself, as I don't get emotionally invested in these discussions. I was interested to hear Stef whack the same examples that had already been attempted here.
PatrickC Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 I was kinda detached, myself, as I don't get emotionally invested in these discussions. I have no problem admitting I felt emotional about the latter discussion in this thread from this poster. I've been pretty reasonably insulted by the insinuations that have been made against this community. As my previous song suggested, 'like a kick in the balls', with no reason. In fact if I hadn't felt emotional about it, I would be wondering at what point could I actually hold someone accountable for their poor arguments and continued insulting.
shirgall Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 I have no problem admitting I felt emotional about the latter discussion in this thread from this poster. I've been pretty reasonably insulted by the insinuations that have been made against this community. As my previous post suggested, 'like a kick in the balls', with no reason. In fact if I hadn't felt emotional about it, I would be wondering at what point could I actually hold someone accountable for their poor arguments and continued insulting. I'm sorry. I should have made it clearer I was being ironic. When certain thread topics and questions came up I couldn't help but take them personally. My recollection of the thread is one of being constantly baited. And when bad examples get brought up again, I certainly felt deja vu. I also felt deja vu because my podcast reader downloaded the same episode twice. One especial place where baiting goes on is the concept of "Science was wrong". Uh, no. Science is a methodology. A hypothesis can be wrong. Even a theory can be wrong. It's not randomly flinging things at a wall to see what sticks. When Newton's predictions didn't match with the evidence from observations of the orbit of Mercury, it took Einstein's improved theory of gravitation to adequately explain what was being seen. https://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/orbits/New evidence leads to improved theories. Science loves new evidence. What's more disappointing is that Stef didn't use my counterarguments. I always hope.
Recommended Posts