Everything is Relative.

[sweetnpetite]

That's right- I said it. Everything is relative. And I believe it too.

But I'd like to clarify. "Everything is Relative" is not the same as "Everything is arbitrary" which is the usual arguemnt against the idea that "everything is relative"-- It doesn't mean "anything goes" in fact, I think it's far more restrictive than that. Because what 'goes' in one instance doesn't automtically go in another.

Anyway, feel free to agree or disagree. I'm just babbling away.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I disagree.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I disagree.

I knew without a doubt you'd be the first to say so.

But unless you elaborate, I'll have to interpret it as nothing more than playground hairpulling.

 

[Dar~]

I disagree, Incest is bad.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Only if we are saying that "everything is relative" is saying "everything relates to something else", can I get behind the accuracy of the claim. Past that, the very notion of non-contradiction would say that not everything is relative, as there are some things (even if they are abstract ideas) that are impossible... impossibility is a great confounder for the absolute relativeness of the universe.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Only if we are saying that "everything is relative" is saying "everything relates to something else", can I get behind the accuracy of the claim. Past that, the very notion of non-contradiction would say that not everything is relative, as there are some things (even if they are abstract ideas) that are impossible... impossibility is a great confounder for the absolute relativeness of the universe.

Things that are impossible are not things- or at least not things that are.

Things that are are relative. Things that are not aren't anything because they are not.

The subject deals with that which is, not that which is not.

I am not talking about things which are not things because they are not because they are imposible. I'm just talking with things that are. And that which is is relative to and of all else that [/is].

 

[elsol]

*burp*

I'm a relativist... which pisses most people off.

As to impossible... still relative; there are things that are impossible to a cockroach, but not to me, and likewise things that are impossible to me but not to God.

See... all is relative.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[sweetnpetite]

*burp*

I'm a relativist... which pisses most people off.

As to impossible... still relative; there are things that are impossible to a cockroach, but not to me, and likewise things that are impossible to me but not to God.

See... all is relative.

Sincerely,
ElSol

You rock

 

[Liar]

I disagree, Incest is bad.

And everyone is a relative.

Oh, sorry, "everything". My bad.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

speed o'light.

Non-relative.

 

[elsol]

speed o'light.

Non-relative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

Of course... they're wrong though.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[NoJo]

Things that are impossible are not things- or at least not things that are.

Things that are are relative. Things that are not aren't anything because they are not.

The subject deals with that which is, not that which is not.

I am not talking about things which are not things because they are not because they are imposible. I'm just talking with things that are. And that which is is relative to and of all else that [/is].

Can I have an audio of you reading out that post , or more sort of breathing it?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

In that there are things that are impossible (arguments about things impossible to a cockroach are not arguments about impossibility... they're arguments about improbability, of which I have nothing intelligent to say; logical impossibility is much more clearly defined), we have an objective and imposed limit on reality--as no preference will make those impossible things possible. Given that there is an objective and imposed limit on reality, not everything--conceptually--is relative. Given that conceptual things, at the least, aren't necessarily relative, then "everything is relative" is an absolute claim that isn't necessarily true. I am forced to disagree with it.

 

[elsol]

In that there are things that are impossible (arguments about things impossible to a cockroach are not arguments about impossibility... they're arguments about improbability, of which I have nothing intelligent to say; logical impossibility is much more clearly defined), we have an objective and imposed limit on reality--as no preference will make those impossible things possible. Given that there is an objective and imposed limit on reality, not everything--conceptually--is relative. Given that conceptual things, at the least, aren't necessarily relative, then "everything is relative" is an absolute claim that isn't necessarily true. I am forced to disagree with it.

"We have an objective and imposed limit on reality"

As perceived by the flawed and imperfect understanding of reality that is the human mind.

So if I accept that a flawed and imperfect thing can conclusively state that in one area its understanding is flawless and perfect than I can 'give' that there is an objective and imposed limit on reality.

I don't know... sounds a little relative to me.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[bg23]

In that there are things that are impossible (arguments about things impossible to a cockroach are not arguments about impossibility... they're arguments about improbability, of which I have nothing intelligent to say; logical impossibility is much more clearly defined), we have an objective and imposed limit on reality--as no preference will make those impossible things possible. Given that there is an objective and imposed limit on reality, not everything--conceptually--is relative. Given that conceptual things, at the least, aren't necessarily relative, then "everything is relative" is an absolute claim that isn't necessarily true. I am forced to disagree with it.

if you're going to go into such nitty gritty as that, i might suggest that "logical impossibility" is a concept as defined by the human mind, which, i might suggest further, does not have a perfect understanding of everything.

having said that, i will agree with the first post in that while everything is relative, this does not mean that all is acceptable, and there are historical reasons for that.

 

[NoJo]

if you're going to go into such nitty gritty as that, i might suggest that "logical impossibility" is a concept as defined by the human mind, which, i might suggest further, does not have a perfect understanding of everything.

having said that, i will agree with the first post in that while everything is relative, this does not mean that all is acceptable, and there are historical reasons for that.

I'm sure as hell not going to argue with someone with 20,000 posts.

 

[bg23]

I'm sure as hell not going to argue with someone with 20,000 posts.

why?
the number of my posts says nothing about my intelligence, only about the ungodly amount of free time i have at my disposal.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

Of course... they're wrong though.

Sincerely,
ElSol

On the possibility of the speed of light being relative: It's pretty cool what they've done. In 1983 they defined length as the distance light travels in a given unit of ime. Thus, both distance and time are defined by c, the speed of light.

That means that the speed of light cannot change. It's a logical impossibility. Time and length could change, but the speed of light is always the same for everyone by definition.

 

[NoJo]

why?
the number of my posts says nothing about my intelligence, only about the ungodly amount of free time i have at my disposal.

ungodly? don't tell me you've also disproved the existence of god too?

I think, as you don't know me, and I don't know you, the time has come for me to explain my post with a .

 

[bg23]

ungodly? don't tell me you've also disproved the existence of god too?

I think, as you don't know me, and I don't know you, the time has come for me to explain my post with a .

lol
i've tried
but i've always believed the onus of proof was on those who would claim his existence in the first place.

and yes, very sorry...i seem to have lost my sense of humour.
i've had a number of snarky remarks in such a vein before, however, and it has become almost habit to react defensively.

 

[NoJo]

lol
i've tried
but i've always believed the onus of proof was on those who would claim his existence in the first place.

and yes, very sorry...i seem to have lost my sense of humour.
i've had a number of snarky remarks in such a vein before, however, and it has become almost habit to react defensively.

Don't worry, My snark is worse than my snite.

 

[bg23]

Don't worry, My snark is worse than my snite.

certainly that is a relief. =)

 

[NoJo]

certainly that is a relief. =)

Did you just take your top off?

 

[bg23]

yes.
i was so relieved about your snark and your snite that i felt the inexplicable urge to strip.

 

[sophia jane]

yes.
i was so relieved about your snark and your snite that i felt the inexplicable urge to strip.

That happens to Sub Joe alot.

SJ