Yes, that seems to be the case, in fact, there is some suggestion that there may be no absolute point of reference. This does not mean that relative systems are invalid, however... only that they are relative
Yes but this relativity suggests a fallacy. When I say invalid, that's what I mean, fallacious. We cannot, by convetional/logical means, say that we understand the universe or existence in its purity. As obvious as it may seem this implies at least two things, we can never understand them and we are destined to be left in the dark, or we can understand the universe and existence but we must evolve our method thinking. The very workings of our brain and consciousness must be improved.
I am quite familiar with this nihilistic reduction; I simply reject it because it is impractical. To take this position means that my mind is the only thing that exists and I am simply dreaming everything (including this conversation). While I cannot disprove this it is of no value
I was not aware of this until quite recently, and I think I need to do a bit more reading on different philisophical ideologies because it does seem I am simply treking on plodden ground. However to me this is realization all based on my own conclusions. I never let myself become a sheep, because I like the way something sounds, I figure it out on my own.
But, it is a shame that you choose to simply REJECT it. This is the shame of society, "reject that which one does not wish to understand and/or is not in agreement with his preconceptions."
I think most of us know that our senses do not reveal everything.
Most... no.
Some...very much so.
But why is it that so many use the exact opposite as refutation.
"I am living, breathing, having converstation, conscious, therefore existence is REAL."
Whatever those last two words may mean....
A curve is a graph of a function on a coordinate plane. A curvature is the act or state of being curved.
Define plane. Define curved.
It truly isn't as simple as you believe it to be. And as I said this will go on ad infintum if you do not see the point I am trying to corroborate. Although I believe you answered with the typical response despite this entire conversation and my main thesis based on your view point, so I am going to leave it alone for now.
The main problem that I see is that you have not really worked out a position; you are going around in circles without really coming to any conclusions
Yes and No. I haven't worked out a postion, simply a starting point. The main reason I come to forums, and debate with people is because it helps me understand what it is I am saying, and come to, though sometimes different, even more elaborate conclusions.
This thread, our converstation, is a small part of a year-long self debate. I began believing that time is static, and existence is the only absolute, but these were the early stages. This conversation is at the intermediate stage of this "theory". I have yet to come to the conclusive one.
However in order to come to an intricate conclusion, I must look at it form all postions, therefore I must take one side that contradicts the other in order to see all manifolds included in the original question...."Is the only asbolute that there are no other absolutes?"
This meeger question has become a perplexing conundrum that upon contemplation subsequently leads to many more.
I will come to a conlcusion eventually, but you must understand that you and many others are an integral part of it. Please, bear with me.
A ball has no concept of motion or rest because it is not conscious not because of your false duality. Motion or rest is a relative measurement between two objects, nothing more or less.
Ah yes, though semi-expected the short-sighted and nearly off prompt response.
....rest and motion....a relative measurement between two objects...nothing more or less....
I presented the Given that this ball has consciousness by originally stating....
Imagine you were a ball moving in space, away from any light, and any particles. How would you know what movement is?? Moreover how would ever even know what rest is?
Equally if you were a ball constantly moving amongst particles and light, how would you know what rest is???? Additionally how would you know what movemement is??
Realtive to you neither one of these things exist.
SO what proof can someone give you that either of them do??? (Hate to say it but "assuming", that you cannot be slowed or stopped)
The "you" means you, Raithere, a conscious being, as a ball. A ball as the observer maybe unecessary, but I began the question with an "aconscious" ball, and changed it after realizing that consciousness itself was not the conlcusive factor.
It's been awhile since I have posted in this thread, and after rereading my previous post I see that I have already presented the answer to both of the questions below. It seems as if you skimmed the post for if you read it, you would have observed that consciousness was NOT a missing factor and you wouldn't have seen it's abscence as refutation for my conclusion.
Now rephrasing the question to be less subtle, and thought provoking, a.k.a to the point (NOT because I doubt your ability, but because it is unecessary at this point).....
Assume that relative to an observer that is in a state of rest relative to yet another observer you were born into a state of Perpetual Motion.
Do you think you are at rest or do you think that you are moving?
Based on what?