What is real is whatever most of the people believe most of the time. Therefore, in India, the Ghanges is a sacred river. In America, Tom Cruise is hot. All women will sleep with Brad Pitt after watching Thelma and Louise. Someone is going to argue with me. Because MOST of the people believe they can argue about anything MOST of the time.

Somebody had a logic class. Good Job CreativeSoul

Thanks.

And I realize I left out another common meaning for absolute: as a synonym for "universal".

In this sense, things like "change" and "space" and "time" would be absolute. That is, everything changes and everything occupies space and everything has duration.

Ahha! Gotcha Jane,
Every interaction has a purpose. What if mine was not only two-fold, but three-fold? Would you like me to explain? Ok, I'll just take a chance you do. First, I did see an obvious flaw in Wax's ability to attract women. Please excuse me, WAX. His overly verbose synopsis of what constitutes a worthwhile argument explicitly excludes the element of emotions. Women, and all humans, but especially women, may think quite logically, but act upon their emotions 95% of the time. Why did you call me Darling? For lack of a nicer word, or as a backhanded slap, no matter. I am calm and cool, working on collected. And now I see a kind of psychotic reverence for the Waxy old dude. Try to identify the underlying purposes in every word you have printed here. Sorry WAX, but you see what I'm saying.

Note to the fiesty: Waxy old dude is not meant an insult. Just a nice sounding phrase that means little to nothing, such as "My Old Man" Just gives a little punch to the reference, no harm intended Wax. If I didn't think you're writing was worth reading, I wouldn't.

Cool. I never thought of that distinction. You politely corrected my word usage. Thanks Sky.

But does everything have duration?? Really? Or is it all about an endless continuum of changes, which we decide to stop-gap, if you will, in order to identify the processes in an intelligible way?

Now you've got me looking up the difference between universal and absolute...
Absolute
One of Websters answers: Unrelated and unaffected by anything else
Unaffected by circumstances of time, space or material.

Universal: Any general or widely held concept or principle. Applying to all members of a particular class or genre.

So, it looks like the difference here is mainly in its usage. Absolute is used for as a basis for measurements in science,
whereas Universal is used by orators in philosophical discussions or gross generalizations of people, places and events.
Right?

Well, in the strictest scientific sense, there is no such thing as an absolute measurement, since space and time themselves are relative (ref: The Theory of Relativity.) But in general, I'd say that is a workable distinction.

hhhmm sometimes an arguement for say is a heated differing in opinion or point of view. When an agruement begins it is important to remember that compromise, reasoning, and understanding msut come into play and recognize the beginnings of esculation..Finally, in relationships remember why you are together....cos you love one another..

Everything physical has duration, even if that duration is almost infinitessimal, such as with some sub-atomic particles, or virtually infinite, such as the univers as a whole.

But you do touch on an interesting thing about "change" itself. That is, if something "changes", is it still "the same thing", or is it actually "a different thing"? It is axiomatic that "change" requires "time", and thus "space" as well. But what else does it require? Quantum non-locality points to some interesting possibilities here. If two things separated by space instantly "change" sychronously, are they really "different"? Or are they actually the same thing?

One could actually say that things themselves don't change - all that really changes is "relationships between things".

In "The Holographic Universe" hypothesis, it is just as you say - we, as the viewers of the Holographic Univers, are the source of the "stop-gaps" that produce the intelligibility.

Just some mind games. It all depends on your viewpoint.

In terms of "ultimate purpose" I see all communication (or attmpted communication) as having the purpose of achieving agreement and/or understanding. (Understanding here meaning "comperehension" as opposed to something like "compassion" as I believe it is meant above.)

Warm greetings to you Trunner. Thanks for joining us here. Fantastic insight. The best arguments are an art, artful in the way we actively listen, interpret at best value, and dissolve impending conflict when feelings may come into play.

Everything physical has duration, even if that duration is almost infinitessimal, such as with some sub-atomic particles, or virtually infinite, such as the univers as a whole.

But you do touch on an interesting thing about "change" itself. That is, if something "changes", is it still "the same thing", or is it actually "a different thing"? It is axiomatic that "change" requires "time", and thus "space" as well. But what else does it require? Quantum non-locality points to some interesting possibilities here. If two things separated by space instantly "change" sychronously, are they really "different"? Or are they actually the same thing? --Sky

I'm clipping out some pieces here, as it's the only way I can manage to understand where you are going. If you say everything physical has duration, then how do you incorporate the finding that energy is actually matter and matter is actually compressed energy? For these I have come to believe (discovery channel) are one and the same. It's only a question of taking on different forms. Some are perceptible to the human eye, and those that are not are translated through graphics and so forth, in order to be comprehended conceptually.

Hi Everyone

Let's see, what is absolute - change, at least in our universe.

The only absolute is change because the nature of our universe is energy and energy is either a potential action (waiting for a nudge) or it is in flux.

What we think of as change is a product of motion and the laws that dictate the nature of our universe are gounded in motion.

Evolution of all things within the universe is merely the product of the emergent qualities attributed to the universe.

Time is not absolute, but rather a product of motion because time denotes a position within space. Our concept of time is the product of action or potential action witch is the only constant and therefore the only absolute we can be sure exists in our universe.

Oddly, it is the nature of this absolute that makes it impossible for other absolutes to exist, because nothing is ever in exactly the same space at the same time more than once.

Maybe I don't understand the question...

Both matter and energy are physical and they both have duration.

Or we conould create a new word, "mattergy" (contraction of matter and energy) to incorporate their one-and-the-same-ness, and say the same thing using that new word...

Mattergy is physical and has duration.

Note that, in the strictly scientific sense, energy, space and time are just as "physical" as matter.

Excellent explanation Redy. I'm jealous.

Oh thanks Sky. by the way - about that designer thread - I sure can be dense - and your last couple posts to me in the original thread finally sunk in and I realized we were totally discussing two different things (science & philosophy) - sorry about that. No wonder we weren't making progress. OH well, at least now I think I have a much clearer picture of how you internalize experiences. Thanks for your patience.

No worries.

It started out as scientific, but around page 40 or so we realized the paradox inherent in that approach, so it switched over to philosophical.

I have recently learned the difference (and problems) with arguments where science vs philosophy too. No wonder there is so much misunderstanding going on.

Is there any way to coax a scientific minded person to think or discuss things in a more philosophical manner, or do they think all philosophers are "delusional and ridiculous?"

Just wondering.

I think that, like any other subject(s), it is necessary to be able to change viewpoints/perspectives. If someone is solidly entranched in any viewpoint, it is difficult to assume a different viewpoint or see things from a different perspective.

And I don't even think that's necessarily a bad thing. There must be some reference point for the evaluation of any information. It's only when people start ridculing other viewpoints or insiting that others viewpoints are invalid that it becomes a problem.