Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able ...

[Juvenal]

Do you have kids?

About 300 at present, but I'll be trading them in in January.

[klaus54]

Remember that mathematics cordons off an abstract universe with axiomatic statements that lead to statements that are either are true or false in the language of that system.

The application to the "real" universe is not necessarily significant.

K54

[robrecht]

We all have hangups. You can comfortably lose this one. While relative comparisons require a rule, they do not require an actual referent, relative or absolute.

We measure size, for instance, or cardinality more formally, by simply matching members until one one set plays out in the finite cases, or by using diagonal arguments to show elements that must be missed in such a matching in the infinite and transfinite cases. There is no largest infinity, and hence there can be no absolute largest, yet we can make valid comparisons regardless.

In practice, we base most of our decisions on comparison to known examples, either accepting a previous solution or looking for one that's better. Neither the known example nor the contemplated replacement need be absolute.

Or I would not use the qualifier.

I'm not convinced that either absolute truth or absolute morality exist. I know of no examples. Your earlier foray struck me as merely rhetorical, as I don't imagine you were sure a priori or without question.

As ever, Jesse

I think I forgot the question. It seems to me there are spiritual intuitions of greatness or goodness that are appear unfathomable. For us to say that a truly limitless goodness actually exists, with any kind of demonstrable certainty, we would need to be rather limitless ourselves I suppose. But I accept my limitations and have learned to be reasonably content with my place in the universe.

Do you have kids?

[Juvenal]

I'm still a little confused. True or not, I'm still kind of hung up on the belief that relative truths ultimately or logically require the existence of (at least the idea of) absolute truth.

We all have hangups. You can comfortably lose this one. While relative comparisons require a rule, they do not require an actual referent, relative or absolute.

We measure size, for instance, or cardinality more formally, by simply matching members until one one set plays out in the finite cases, or by using diagonal arguments to show elements that must be missed in such a matching in the infinite and transfinite cases. There is no largest infinity, and hence there can be no absolute largest, yet we can make valid comparisons regardless.

In practice, we base most of our decisions on comparison to known examples, either accepting a previous solution or looking for one that's better. Neither the known example nor the contemplated replacement need be absolute.

When you say relatively useless, you do not mean useless, correct?

Or I would not use the qualifier.

I'm not convinced that either absolute truth or absolute morality exist. I know of no examples. Your earlier foray struck me as merely rhetorical, as I don't imagine you were sure a priori or without question.

As ever, Jesse

[robrecht]

In the language of mathematics, every global extremum is a local extremum.

That which is absolutely true, like that which is absolutely right — begging the existential question — is also relatively more true, and relatively more right, than any alternative. Relative truth and relative morality do not thus require their absolute analogues, in contrast with those absolute analogues which cannot, even in principle, recognize their relative confreres except to exclude them from consideration.

As you agree, relative truths are much more common than absolute truths, and hence must exist, independent of the existence of absolute truths, with apologies to Alice and her tea party. Absolute truths are thus doomed to miss most if not all of the human experience.

They are neither necessary nor sufficient.

Making them relatively useless.

As ever, Jesse

I'm still a little confused. True or not, I'm still kind of hung up on the belief that relative truths ultimately or logically require the existence of (at least the idea of) absolute truth.

When you say relatively useless, you do not mean useless, correct?

[Juvenal]

I absolutely agree that relative truths are much more common, ubiquitous even, but this still does not explain why you think that absolute truths are relatively useless. This one for example, but there are more interesting ones, relatively speaking that you might like to address.

In the language of mathematics, every global extremum is a local extremum.

That which is absolutely true, like that which is absolutely right — begging the existential question — is also relatively more true, and relatively more right, than any alternative. Relative truth and relative morality do not thus require their absolute analogues, in contrast with those absolute analogues which cannot, even in principle, recognize their relative confreres except to exclude them from consideration.

As you agree, relative truths are much more common than absolute truths, and hence must exist, independent of the existence of absolute truths, with apologies to Alice and her tea party. Absolute truths are thus doomed to miss most if not all of the human experience.

They are neither necessary nor sufficient.

Making them relatively useless.

As ever, Jesse

[robrecht]

Like relative right and wrong, relative truths are far more generally available. It's always easier to find an action that is relatively better or a statement that is relatively more true than to find an optimal behavior or absolute truth.

Approximation is ubiquitous.

As ever, Jesse

I absolutely agree that relative truths are much more common, ubiquitous even, but this still does not explain why you think that absolute truths are relatively useless. This one for example, but there are more interesting ones, relatively speaking that you might like to address.

[klaus54]

I think that probably you are definitely right.

[rwatts]

Approximation is ubiquitous.

I definitely think you are probably right.

[Juvenal]

Most truths are relative:

She's pretty.
He's smart.
They're a good couple.
I love my job.

And the rest are relatively useless.

Useless in what way, exactly? Technologically useless, I'd probably go along with that for the most part. But belief in absolute truth(s) is for some people very inspiring, eg, of good moral character and behavior. Note, I am saying it is necessary for such.

I agree, but I think lao tzu is only talking about absolute truth(s) in general, not the Bible specifically.

Like relative right and wrong, relative truths are far more generally available. It's always easier to find an action that is relatively better or a statement that is relatively more true than to find an optimal behavior or absolute truth.

Approximation is ubiquitous.

As ever, Jesse

[shunyadragon]

I did not think Methodists, as a general rule of thumb, we that fundamentalist, but I don't really know that much about them. As a kid, my best friend was Protestant, but I had no idea what denomination, and I don't think they went to church that much. We were very Catholic, but we never talked about groups or individuals going to hell. If we ever thought about it at all, we just figured that was God's business and not our concern. It wasn't until I was a senior in high school that I met my first fundamentalist and he just seemed like a really strange guy, all upset about everything and wanting to argue about everything all the time.

Here is where rural small town churches often differ from the more urban congregations of some denominations such as Methodist, Episcopalian, and Presbiterian faiths. Rural churches tend to very conservative. In North Carolina the Methodist Church that had the Boy Scout Troop my son became an Eagle Scout in refused to allow him to have his ceremony at the church, and arranged an alternate location, because he was a Baha'i.

[rwatts]

I did not think Methodists, as a general rule of thumb, we that fundamentalist,....

Back then the church I went to was small, and most of the congregation were relatives with views ranging from the fundamentalist, through to conservative to liberal.

[shunyadragon]

Very interesting, thank you. If you do not mind my asking, what were these two groups of faithful? I presume both groups were fundamentalists of some sort?

Interesting question. my experience involved my family in the Roman Church, and the Baptists in the small burg, Derwood, near our farm where my friends on the neighboring farms attended. Actually, this did not effect my faith. That came later in Central and South America.

[robrecht]

I don't mind at all.

I was raised a Methodist. The other group was Christadelphian. (They were really beaut folk. We had our argument while enjoying a nice supper at one of their halls(?). It was a friendly but serious discussion, if you know what I mean. And it set in motion the beginning of the end of my faith.)

I did not think Methodists, as a general rule of thumb, we that fundamentalist, but I don't really know that much about them. As a kid, my best friend was Protestant, but I had no idea what denomination, and I don't think they went to church that much. We were very Catholic, but we never talked about groups or individuals going to hell. If we ever thought about it at all, we just figured that was God's business and not our concern. It wasn't until I was a senior in high school that I met my first fundamentalist and he just seemed like a really strange guy, all upset about everything and wanting to argue about everything all the time.

[rwatts]

rwatts --

How do barbecued babies taste?

Like chicken, provided their bottoms have been cleaned.

What kind of sauce?

Mustard.

P.S. And we ALL know that The Pope is The Antichrist.

That was before Gorbachev I believe.