I'm having some difficulty following as well, although I'd like to think that I am following...
Anyway, I think people have always been like this, Grey. Just trying to figure things out for the sake of knowing.
And if they can't figure things out, they make stuff up. 
[ QUOTE ]
I'm having some difficulty following as well, although I'd like to think that I am following...
Anyway, I think people have always been like this, Grey. Just trying to figure things out for the sake of knowing.
And if they can't figure things out, they make stuff up.
[/ QUOTE ]
And there my friend, I think you have just defined "science"
Seriously though, as with rats and sentience and thought. Well, wouldn't that fall under how you defined "sentience"?
Websters defines sentience as
1 : a sentient quality or state
2 : feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought
ok, so now we have to define "sentient". Again, Websters
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentient beings>
2 : aware
3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling
Multiple meanings to one word. If we were to take just the first meaning of sentient, then it would stand to reason that rats are sentient. If they smell food, a sense impression, they get hungry, a response to a sense impression.
Are they "aware". again, define aware. are they aware of their surrondings? yes, are they aware of self, and here I am going to have to say, I don't know. I don't know enough about the rat psyche to make that claim. I do know that a great many animals that were thought to be NOT sentient because they had no self awareness were found to be showing attitudes and behaviors similar to pride and narcissism. Two traits thought to be only found in sentient creatures. (mind you I saw this report/documentary a few years ago and do not remember the origional source. I will be scouring the net trying to find information to either support or disprove my above statement. What ever I find, I will post my results.)
My point though, is many of our beliefs and ideas stem from what and how we define things. And that, Webster's dictionary aside, is very subjective. To me, a peacefull day is one spent at home with my son. Which is to say, chasing him around the house as he learns to walk, changing diapers, calming tantrums, etc. To many other people, that doesn't sound peacefull at all and would be counter to their ideal of a peacefull day. So how do we choose who's defination of what belief do we use?
Can I still enjoy buttkickin ?
[ QUOTE ]
Can I still enjoy buttkickin ?
[/ QUOTE ]
most definetly, I heartily recommend it. Enjoying something as pure and beautiful as laying waste to those who wronged you is a good thing 
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why rats wouldn't have "fuel" and we do, the concept of a soul or some such here is one we can neither perceive or prove.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's why I said fuel, and not soul. And I'm not saying rats don't have it for a fact, but that they do not show any evidence of thus. At the same time, their biological building blocks are the same as a human's, only yours are scaled up in size. Since size does not equal power, and yet humans are still sentient, that suggests a human has something a rat does not: fuel.
[ QUOTE ]
Aside, rats have displayed the ability to learn beyond basic instinct, as for culture, wouldn't that really weigh on what you define as culture? They have life cycles and have communal interactions even if they are different from ours. Not even our own race is consistent in cultural design and behaviors, not even all groups have culture as you may find in major civilizations, so to make such a remark is more a display of personal bias.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ouch, I thought we were having a logical discussion here, not a personal attack. Furthermore, I did not use the term civilization. You grabbed that one up from somewhere. A culture and a civilization are very different things.
A culture is anything that goes beyond solely survival of the species. In beings with auditory senses, a good indicator of culture is generally music, but it can really be just about anything that does not directly and intrinsically affect the biological survival of the species. Rats display no such thing - they are concerned with nothing beyond ensuring the survival of their species, and every behavior of a rat directly reflects this.
[ QUOTE ]
On the math thing, wouldn't that be introducing separate variables that then wouldn't be an actual pure remark of "2+2=4"? That would kinda be going against my prior stated them being directly the absolute concept of "2" in about a blunt and simple as it can be, same with 4 and +/=.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it would be - which is exactly why it is not an absolute truth. It will only hold if certain conditions are present. If they are not present, 2+2=4 can be as false as 1+1=10, even though both can be true. They just aren't true under all conditions, and therefore are not absolute.
"If I had Force powers, vacuum or not my cape/clothes/hair would always be blowing in the Dramatic Wind." - Tenzhi
Characters
Size and complexity do equal power. Do monkeys have "fuel"? They're able to reason, puzzle and even speak of themselves in the first person. What about dolphins?
Insects simply do what they're told, they don't even learn, most of them. They don't have brains so much as clusters or "sections" of them that "think".
It's all the same process. Input through the senses, output through the muscles. From ants to humans. There is no "fuel". There is only the power of the engine.
I didn't see any personal attack. Him claiming that the statement implies bias is not a personal attack. He's calling into question the absoluteness from which you made the statement and quite rightly pointing out that it is subjective at the point of saying what is a true culture and what is not a true culture. Unless you're going to introduce some axioms or definitions.
Speaking of which, he already gave definitions and axioms in terms of 1+1=2. Thusly, 1+1=2, always, it's always right under those conditions. Therefore, it is eternal and certain.
Hm, not sure there...'imply' and 'display' carry different meaning, at least in my opinion. Doesn't mean that I couldn't have misunderstood, of course. 
As for monkeys, I don't know. I wasn't aware they could do these things. And I've got even less of a clue about the behavioral patters of dolphins. I've done my research on rats and humans, though.
But I guess the age-old wisdom that a human will not consider something until it is actually encountered still holds true. So I'll file this away until the day you run across an intelligent being with a really tiny brain or a something with a really big and complex one that runs on pure survival instinct. Should happen sometime, assuming no suicide of the species. 
Still, I have to say I'm surprised that people here still can't see there's no such thing as an absolte, something that is valid no matter what. I mean, you even wrote:
[ QUOTE ]
Speaking of which, he already gave definitions and axioms in terms of 1+1=2. Thusly, 1+1=2, always, it's always right under those conditions. Therefore, it is eternal and certain.
[/ QUOTE ]
Under those conditions. Not under all. The conclusion of certainty is erronenous, not to mention self-contradicting. Quoad erat demonstrandum.
"If I had Force powers, vacuum or not my cape/clothes/hair would always be blowing in the Dramatic Wind." - Tenzhi
Characters
Green cannot always be green if you change the definition of green. One plus one, cannot be one plus one, if you change the definition of one and plus.
Given that the conditions are set, you can have absolute truths. In this gravity well, when you drop something heavier than air, it falls. All things heavier than air. Now if you change the conditions, then we're not talking about the same thing.
Absolute truth doesn't mean I say something and then it's absolutely true here, there, everywhere and with all the definitions of all the words changed and redifined. Our definitions are subjective, truth is not.
The universe continues to work the same way absolutely all the time, just because we flawed humans suck at expressing it, doesn't change that fact.
I'm suddenly reminded of the rhetoric:
"A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet..."
You guys are haggling over semantics and the definition of 1, 2, 3...
These things are NUMBERS! They aren't A, B, C, X, N, or any different variable. Numbers are used as because they are accepted as specific values of amount.
One, for instance, is a single noun. I use "noun" because it means person/place/thing/idea.
Two is the double of One.
Three is the triple of One, or Two plus One.
I'm not going to define every number in such a way. It's unnecessary, and (apologies, Acid) it's ludicrous to demand that people do so.
We're not saying n+n=4, we're saying 2+2=4. In all of mathematics, how in the Hell can 2+2=5? How can you possibly alter the definition of "2" in such a way that doubling it will equal "5" and still maintain the basic principles of mathematics? On top of that, why would you alter the definition just to arrive at that amount?
My Stories
Look at that. A full-grown woman pulling off pigtails. Her crazy is off the charts.
Nope, but to someone without B cones, green will look very different indeed.
[ QUOTE ]
Absolute truth doesn't mean I say something and then it's absolutely true here, there, everywhere and with all the definitions of all the words changed and redifined.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, yes it does. That's what absolute means. What you are describing is a relative, or partial, absolute. A perfect example is an inertial reference frame - you can have one relative to something, but an absolute does not exist because everything in this universe is moving.
Now, about this universe's workings being temporally static...hmm, you might be right there, as I don't think local deviations factor into an observation based on a mean. Well, not within our lifetimes, anyway - or so I'd hope.
As for the definition of numbers, I wasn't demanding anything except that the possibility of such be acknowledged. Conventional mathematics will only hold under certain conditions; if these conditions are not met, it falls apart. And it wouldn't be the definitions of the numbers that are altered (although you could, I'm not sure why you would), but the surroundings that determine the result.
For example, add two pairs of atoms in your hand. Get four, right? Add two pairs of atoms in a relativistic setting, and you might get who knows how many. And that's just one example. There are more than I care to think about because the hugeness of that number would probably scare me right outta my hide. I'm just happy with the prospect that in this universe, it'll generally hold. But it's indeed very useful to know that if I hop over to another, it might not.
"If I had Force powers, vacuum or not my cape/clothes/hair would always be blowing in the Dramatic Wind." - Tenzhi
Characters
Ah...that's why then. :P
I'm the kinda person that won't give humanity more credit than I think they really deserve, meaning my views on culture is that they are more of an arbitrary abstraction of survival and comfort seeking that simply came about due to society. As such I can't really consider humans all that far up there, realistically we have no hard evidence that places us that high up. Can we really tell what a rat's thinking when it doesn't emote, communicate, or have the same behavioral patterns as us?
I just made reference to civilization because it has many cultures within it, not that it was in any way culture.
I really wouldn't consider that too much of an argument against at least theoretical absolutes there...you are still appealing to things external to the basic and pure concept, diluting it's meaning with further abstract thought to which we currently really have no ability to tangibly apply...
Ah well :P even if the absolute truths things doesn't work, it was just there as a logical limiter to the concept of this null entity. All that happens without them is that it can dictate anything and everything about ....everything...without argument. >.>
[ QUOTE ]
Ah well :P even if the absolute truths things doesn't work, it was just there as a logical limiter to the concept of this null entity. All that happens without them is that it can dictate anything and everything about ....everything...without argument. >.>
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, isn't that what religion tells you? At least the really big, monotheistic ones with lots of followers?
[ QUOTE ]
I'm the kinda person that won't give humanity more credit than I think they really deserve, meaning my views on culture is that they are more of an arbitrary abstraction of survival and comfort seeking that simply came about due to society. As such I can't really consider humans all that far up there, realistically we have no hard evidence that places us that high up. Can we really tell what a rat's thinking when it doesn't emote, communicate, or have the same behavioral patterns as us?
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, that there confuses me just a little. Did you mean a culture in general, as in anything above mere survival behavior, or did you mean human culture specifically?
And yes, there are a good many ways to determine what a being very unlike you is thinking. It's not easy at times, I'll give you that much, but it's certainly possible. However, that doesn't belong here yet, so I'll just sweep that under the proverbial rug until the time's right.
"If I had Force powers, vacuum or not my cape/clothes/hair would always be blowing in the Dramatic Wind." - Tenzhi
Characters
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, yes it does. That's what absolute means. What you are describing is a relative, or partial, absolute.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, no, it does not. Absolute means that it does not change. Absolute does not mean that it is semantically unchallengeable.
No one is arguing that if you drop a rock on Venus it will fall toward the Earth, therefore gravity is an absolute. Gravity is an absolute because everywhere in the universe (as far as we know), smaller bodies move toward larger bodies unless there's intervening force of greater power. That's an absolute. It doesn't mean that humans will fly toward the Chrysler building, that's redefining terms. It doesn't mean that the earth will slam into the sun, that's redefining terms. Redefining terms is a semantic argument. The universe doesnt care about you or your semantics, it cares only about the rules that are absolute.
So when someone says 1+1=2 and your only counter argument is "what about 1+1+x because you added them in a windstorm", that's not what we're talking about. 1+1=2. It is an absolute. That is what we're talking about. We're not talking about 1.231423 +1.2534232, we're talking about 1+1. If you want absolutes in reality, look at counting people or livestock. Look at counting houses. The purpose of language is to try to get the meaning across, of course if you deliberately try to not understand the meaning gets lost. That's not the point. The point is for you to TRY to understand.
I see it this way: Whether or not we could agree about so called "absolute truths", the thing which seems to define being Alive and being Human is the sheer fact that we try to define the Universe around us in such profound esoteric terms. I consider myself an "Existential Idealist", which basically means that I see the Universe through Idealistic eyes tempered with the experiences of life that color my perceptions. I also am fully aware that as Socrates said, "I know that I know nothing" when it comes to all the knowledge of the Universe, and I know I have much still to learn.. so I listen and I ask questions and I ask more questions.
This is my journey, my path that Confucius told us we all must be willing to walk on that path that lies before us.
The answers are few, but I hope that I have found a few and learned a bit in this life.. I dont care about mathematics or what is an "absolute truth", what I care about is trying to make sense of the Universe around me with the help of those I come across in this life.. maybe that is the real purpose of living? Fascinating nonetheless.
Great thread, keep this going!!!
I am trying to understand, but you keep contradicting yourself. You argue that absolute means 'it does not change'. Good. Then you argue that reations such as 1+1=2 are not subject to change. Bad - because such relations can and do change, and indeed do so all the time. And no, I do not mean their semantics.
Only if you lock down the conditions at the precise location of the original outcome can you say for certain that said outcome will never change. Since you of course can't do that, that means the outcome you get next time may well not be what you got last time. Ergo, it is subject to change, and therefore not absolute.
"If I had Force powers, vacuum or not my cape/clothes/hair would always be blowing in the Dramatic Wind." - Tenzhi
Characters
Again, I reiterate my point about the rose...
1+1 will always equal 2, regardless of what you assign to 1, because changing the value of 1 will change what is assigned to 2 appropriately.
That is why it's being referred to as an infallible truth.
1 is 1. Not just the 1=1 equation I mean that regardless of what you assign to the number 1, it will retain its purpose as the number 1.
2, regardless of what you assign to it, will remain the number Two, and it will always be the double of one because that is what it was designed to be, and it is reliant on only the definition of One to determine its purpose.
Once you attempt to alter the definitions of the numbers outside of these parameters, you're simply turning the visual numbers into symbols, no different than A, X, or N, and we're no longer dealing with the original values. At that point we're simply dealing with a different type of problem, but one that is still subject to the same rules as normal mathematics.
These may be some of the patterns we humans have gleaned from the universe, but our limited scope doesn't make them any less true.
My acceptance of 1+1=2 as an infallible truth aside, however, I fail to see how this has anything to do with the OP's points about "null space" or the concept of eternity presented. I must also point out that the true main point, rather than this mechanic we're so hung up on, has a number of similarities to the Hindu concepts of Brahma, an energy force that goes on forever that all spirits may one day become a part of. I would like to see more on this, in fact, rather than nittering over details you need education in quantum physics in order to even begin to understand (I should clarify: I need the education in quantum physics before I can begin to understand).
My Stories
Look at that. A full-grown woman pulling off pigtails. Her crazy is off the charts.
I have yet to contradict myself. You said [ QUOTE ]
You argue that absolute means 'it does not change'. Good. Then you argue that reations such as 1+1=2 are not subject to change. Bad - because such relations can and do change, and indeed do so all the time. And no, I do not mean their semantics.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is no contradiction in this. Relations such as 1+1 are not subject to change in the theoretical, which is what the OP was saying.
He said: [ QUOTE ]
Infallible truths is not any form of worldly knowledge, but understanding of the unbending laws that construct what we know. Examples of such would be understanding the form of a cube, 1+1=2, etc.
The other two things we will appeal to is the perceivable truths and extensions of those truths based on reason.
So, starting in, the first thing to do is set aside the infallible truths for now and look at perceivable truths. There is the ever present issue that we can not prove that what we are experiencing it "real" and not just a fabricated reality caused by an external or internal force.
As such, we can only assume that which we perceive to stay consistent. Though the perceived truths may change, we shall not be as aware of such, reason stating that any change bound to occur and alter rules of existence shall extend likely beyond what we know as "now", meaning the change that took place never actually took place in a way we could perceive.
[/ QUOTE ]
Interpreting it any other way than the way he has written it is a semantic argument. Conditions change in the real world, not the theoretical world. Conditions not being "locked down" applies to experiments meant to further our theoretical understanding of the rules of the universe. Just because gravity doesn't pull the five supposedly identical balls the exact same because they're not really identical, doesn't mean that gravity is not absolute. It is, even though the experiment or application may always be different in ways we can and cannot perceive.
In one word: zilch. Since the OP's 'experiment' is a theory (which I didn't notice at the time of my first post here, remember?) it doesn't depend on absolutes. But someone started discussing, so I went with it.
And Averick, if you can't see your negation...well, than I can't help you. 
We'll just have to acknowledge that our points of view differ, which was to be expected anyway. Gonna be a fun day once humans wise up a bit. Or at least it will be for me.
Feh, I probably shouldn't be asking this, but I can't help it, and I won't tell if yalls won't. What do you guys think is humanity's relation to your world? As in, how much do you know, how much do you think there's left, and where do you fit into it all - you know, stuff like that.
"If I had Force powers, vacuum or not my cape/clothes/hair would always be blowing in the Dramatic Wind." - Tenzhi
Characters
I have to ask how much you think you know? It will be a fun day for you when humanity wises up? Sounds a little high and mighty to me.
Your examples of 1+1=? are a little hard to understand. Are you talking about quantum physics? Quantum physics has absolutes and doesn't at the same time. Double Slit experiment should be all I need to say. It is not fully understood. Using theories to disprove laws doesn't work.
Things on the quantum level get a little strange, and it is not fully understood. Now string theory I like. It makes sense to me.
For those who have never seen the double slit experiment, here it is. Observe two absolute rules. Waves make interference patterns. Particles make regular patterns. Electrons do whatever the hell they fancy.
Not that this is helping the OP.
Anyway, you are all wrong. There are only four rules in the universe. Charm, Persuasion, Uncertainty, and Bloody-mindedness.
For example, the planets orbit the sun because they are persuaded not to fall down, and don't fly away because of Uncertainty.
Charm allows the trees to grow, and Bloody-mindedness keeps them up, and so on.
These are Pratchett's rules of the universe.
How much do I think I know? Oh come on, that's an easy one: nothing. And I dare say that doesn't sound a little high and mighty, but very high and mighty - from your point of view, of course. From mine, I think most of humanity's behaviors are downright silly, so of course I consider the potential ramifications of realizing this amusing.
As for quantum physics; partially. One can see the beginnings of these things within quantum physics, but they stretch a whole lot further. Nope, I haven't got a clue where to. I'm only up to understanding 6 1/2 of the however-many dimensions there might be. Thankfully, I know people who are further ahead there than I, and I'm allowed to ask.
And yeah, you're probably right. We are shameless. Poor OP.
EDIT: I have to say, I like Pratchett's rules of the universe. Like the Theory of Darksuckers, but better.
"If I had Force powers, vacuum or not my cape/clothes/hair would always be blowing in the Dramatic Wind." - Tenzhi
Characters
My relation to my world...
I suppose I'm currently in the middle of my own Taxi Driver scenario, out of the military, grappling with sleep problems, trying to find some kind of work to make some semblance of order in my life and worried that I'm likely to spiral out of control at any moment. Then the question becomes "Will I do something to uplift my fellows, or will I go to war with the system and try to take out as many as I can before they gun me down?"
Sadly, more people choose the latter in that question, as evidenced earlier this week. before we had serial killers, now we have maniacs. One day, we will have super heroes, and they will, of course, be a reaction to super villains, but that is neither here nor there, just an observation based on the spiral that seems to be happening in society.
I feel rather displaced, to be honest. I'm definitely not a part of my local society. I barely identify with my own mother, and I've stopped trying to wrap my head around my father's drunken philosophies. My younger brother has an absurd notion burrowed in the back of his head that the world revolves around him, and my elder continues to make life decisions while under the influence of mind altering substances. My friends fall somewhere between the perspectives of my brothers, save one.
That one is about to do what I believe is the smartest thing anybody could do in this area, and that is get the Hell out of here. He got married, and they've decided it's time to move on to somewhere else. Some people wonder at what he's going to be able to do in the world, since all he's ever been is a carpenter. Perhaps that's all the skills he'll ever need. Besides, just because he hardly says anything, it doesn't mean he doesn't know anything.
Me, I can't stop talking. Though I keep telling myself, I can't seem to accept that I truly know nothing. Instead, I try to fit the pieces together until the puzzle I've mashed up is a horrid abomination unto the Creator, and I am forced to start again. I learn from my mistakes, but that form of learning is slow.
To define in a single word what my role is in the world currently, both in the societal and ecological sense, I would have to say that it is first and foremost, a burden. I may do some things to mitigate the stress I cause, but the fact of the matter is, there are people out there who would have it easier if I weren't around.
Of course, that doesn't mean I'm ready to give up just yet. My life has truly only just begun. My body is as ready now as it is ever going to be to weather the rigors of the rest of my limited time. All I have to do is pick something and do it. I have the advantage that nobody is going to try to stop me, they've got no reason to.
The question, then, is what am I going to do?
Humanity's role in the world? Well, there's a good argument against evolution. Most creatures fit into an ecological niche and their environment maintains a particular equilibrium. Humans do not fit into that equilibrium.
We have the anti-Midas touch in this world. Everything we touch turns to Hell. Our cities are choked with smog and our wildernesses are torn apart for resources to make our ever-expanding population comfortable. Concrete, glass and steel boils fester wherever there has been the corrupting touch of man and we show no signs of stopping.
It is sad that it would take an extreme event to make people realize the extent of the damage we cause. Perhaps this is why we're told not to make scenes in public... Nobody wants to have their eyes opened, not to how ludicrous their rules of etiquette are, not to the homeless on the streets, and certainly not to the problems they leave in their wakes with their self-centered lifestyles.
Humanity's role on this world is much like the one I presented earlier. Are we going to do something uplifting, or are we going to wreck the place? We fall somewhere in the middle, with our uplifting capabilities drawing heavily from wrecking that which is around us. As we are now, we are most certainly not gearing for ascension, nor are we clamoring for descent. We pretty much want things to stay as they are, just make it all more convenient and cheaper, to Hell with the cost to others.
So, from my observation, humanity is currently in the same state as I am right now. A burden upon the world, with the capability to do better, but the likelihood to continue plodding along as it always has. How frightening a thought.
My Stories
Look at that. A full-grown woman pulling off pigtails. Her crazy is off the charts.
I cannot see the contradiction because no one can see the contradiction, not even you. If you could, you would point it out. But you can't, so you don't. 
Sorry, that's just an absolute truth.
I hope humanity one day rises to your level as well. 
Remember to get a job now, while you still know everything!
Why was our point of view expected to differ again? I didn't get that memo. This is supposed to be a logical discussion, your opinion doesn't mean anything. My opinion doesn't mean anything. I put my two cents in about absolutes, you've yet to counter it, only push around semantic arguments.
I'm really interested in hearing a real argument, or at least you acknowledging that absolute truth is a repeatable and dependable force pervasive throughout the known universe that operates at a predictable rate. For example, gravity, friction, mathmatics, chemical bondings at various temperatures, etc.
That was what I came in on. I wasn't trying to be a jerk and draw attention to where you missed the OP, I was just relating my topic to the OP and making sure you and I were on the same page.
[ QUOTE ]
I cannot see the contradiction because no one can see the contradiction, not even you. If you could, you would point it out. But you can't, so you don't.
Sorry, that's just an absolute truth.
[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't? Do excuse then. As Dr. Kaba would say, here it is..or they are, in this case:
[ QUOTE ]
Speaking of which, he already gave definitions and axioms in terms of 1+1=2. Thusly, 1+1=2, always, it's always right under those conditions. Therefore, it is eternal and certain.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Absolute truth doesn't mean I say something and then it's absolutely true here, there, everywhere and with all the definitions of all the words changed and redifined.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Absolute means that it does not change.
[/ QUOTE ]
I do wonder why some keep referring to others as no one, though. Are your fellow beings that insignificant to you?
But if you don't want to acknowledge negating yourself, that's fine. Just please don't push it off on me.
[ QUOTE ]
I hope humanity one day rises to your level as well. Remember to get a job now, while you still know everything!
[/ QUOTE ]
That was uncalled for. I may not get a paycheck, but you know I have a job. And I enjoy it very much. Also, I'd appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth. At no point did I say I knew everything.
[ QUOTE ]
Why was our point of view expected to differ again? I didn't get that memo. This is supposed to be a logical discussion, your opinion doesn't mean anything. My opinion doesn't mean anything. I put my two cents in about absolutes, you've yet to counter it, only push around semantic arguments.
I'm really interested in hearing a real argument, or at least you acknowledging that absolute truth is a repeatable and dependable force pervasive throughout the known universe that operates at a predictable rate. For example, gravity, friction, mathmatics, chemical bondings at various temperatures, etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
Because our ways of thinking differ greatly. To simplify, you see the world in blue, we see it in red. So of course what to you is blue is red to me. Everything is relative and depends on the point of view you're looking at it from - relation of observer to observed. It is this same logic that does not allow me to acknowledge anything as absolute. Because from what I've seen, the world is not as predictable as you claim. if this is not a logical discussion to you, I really don't know what is.
"If I had Force powers, vacuum or not my cape/clothes/hair would always be blowing in the Dramatic Wind." - Tenzhi
Characters
I don't see why rats wouldn't have "fuel" and we do, the concept of a soul or some such here is one we can neither perceive or prove. So for all observable purposes we do operate on the same principles and designs, just being a more complex system with more variables.
Aside, rats have displayed the ability to learn beyond basic instinct, as for culture, wouldn't that really weigh on what you define as culture? They have life cycles and have communal interactions even if they are different from ours. Not even our own race is consistent in cultural design and behaviors, not even all groups have culture as you may find in major civilizations, so to make such a remark is more a display of personal bias.
On the math thing, wouldn't that be introducing separate variables that then wouldn't be an actual pure remark of "2+2=4"? That would kinda be going against my prior stated them being directly the absolute concept of "2" in about a blunt and simple as it can be, same with 4 and +/=.
Oh and x0Four, I was just setting it aside at that moment because they were necessary ,but wouldn't directly help with what I was looking for at the time. I didn't just forget them though, need them as a ground or logical limit to the non-being. If we removed the concept of infallible truths in total it wouldn't disprove the being, but it would make the situation where it is the true dictator of all existence even with things as mathematics, which I thought was a little odd as it wouldn't have any necessity behind existence to drive towards entropy.