Moral Absolutism your opinion?

[Faris]

damn chill, noone said anything serious yet

[Guitarman]

damn chill, noone said anything serious yet

"yet" is the key word. You've been around long enough, you know it's coming

[Faris]

yeah, neo, frodo, and the rest are probably sleeping

[archibaldcrane]

Some hold faith in God, some hold faith in science.

Neo's sure to be all over this shit when he wakes up.

[TheShadyMan]

If you hold faith in science, you're pretty much doingitwrong.

[Guitarman]

Neo's sure to be all over this shit when he wakes up.

You know what i mean. It's almost 4 am, lemme alone

[Not not Mattaru]

Topic title says it all. Do you believe that there are moral absolutes; i.e things that are always considered "good" or always considered "bad" im curious to know what you guys think. :3

Maybe Idk.

I could get into this.

But I won't.

[Woozie]

Good and bad are superficial human creations. You can't pick up good, you can't touch bad, they only are what people imagine them to be. So, to be fair, you could call everything you consider good, bad, and everything you consider bad, good, but that doesn't change anything, just labels them. Truthfully, morality is just conforming to an imaginary set of rules made up by people thousands of years ago, and the ones that worked best to perpetuate humanity and civilization have stuck around for the most part.

When did TSM become smart and start making intelligent, well-thought-out posts that I'm forced to agree with? WTF?

[Woozie]

I beg to differ. You can build many mathematics where 1+1 =/=2 The "+" is an operation you defined in a particular space, and it only give 4 because it was defined in such way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_(mathematics)
Your definition of 2+2= 4 is true is the "classic" one, the modern one is a lot more adaptative.

+, *, dot product, distance function are defined by you entirely. The one we normally use in Rn is one of the infinite option we have (althought, it seem to be the most natural for us in our universe)


And I'm simply arguing on the "space" level, topology is even more general.

The truths in math (and any other logical system) are true given the axioms. 2+2=4 is true given peano arithmatics. You can make 2+2=(anything else) by using a different form of math or operations or casting certain restrictions, but when someone says "2+2" with no other qualifiers, it is generally accepted that they're deriving this straight from peano's axioms.

It's not just a synthax question. You're basically telling me to uses an operation (addition) in a particular space without understanding which axioms allowed me to have this particular mathematical structure.

Maybe it seem obvious to you that scalar "1+1 = 2" in the real world, but find me in the universe two elements that have the exact same nature. 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples is only true when you generalize the concept of apple to include many differents elements, but this concept is something -you- defined. There is no universal truth to apples, because both apples in reality are completely different entity.

I've already addressed the first part, that peano arithmatics are implicit any time someone says 1+1 without any other qualifiers. And the truth of that statement is solid within peano arithmatics. Even people who don't know what peano arithmatics is are using it when they add numbers, they just don't know it.

As for the second part, what about two indistinguishable bosons? Would that not be a physical example where 1+1 is exactly equal to 2? They are the same in every way, afterall.

The truth is you don't, and cannot know what the fuck concerning god, so fucking quit pretending you can prove either right.

Again, when did TSM become awesome? Was he bit by an awesome radioactive spider?

[Faris]

When did TSM become smart and start making intelligent, well-thought-out posts that I'm forced to agree with? WTF?

you agreeing with TSMs opinion doesnt necessarily make it intelligent

[Cream Soda]

Absolute truth Judge Judy > Joe Brown
If you disagree, you're wrong.

[Woozie]

Absolute truth Judge Judy > Joe Brown
If you disagree, you're wrong.

I disagree D:

[aduidarnenye]

I say don't be worried about the truths of others and only worry about your own truths. They are, after all, the only truths you can really verify.

I tend to subconciously follow the anarchist ways of individual mutualism, which tells me that I've read far too many science fiction novels, am easily influenced, have few real life moral structures to follow, and am far too nerdy for my own good.

[Gwynplaine]

If I were to stab you in the face I think most of you would be willing to call that morally bad.

[Chun Liroy]

If I were to stab you in the face I think most of you would be willing to call that morally bad.

Not if you killed my mother

[recuperi]

If I were to stab you in the face I think most of you would be willing to call that morally bad.

That's just it though, it would depend on the consequences, i.e. who the person is, what they've done in the past, what they plan to do in the future. I think there was an episode of House recently that dealt almost directly with that topic.

[Acturus]

There is no right and wrong, only fun and boring.

http://home.earthlink.net/~joeythorne/hackers04.gif

[Chun Liroy]

tbh this is the only reasonable answer to this thread.

http://lolympics.com/files/images/mo...gory-house.jpg

[Demosthenes11]

to the math argument:
read modern cognitive linguistic theory. this is not an argument anyone can make without having a very strong background in the research done in this field on math.

a tl;dr version: math is not an innate truth

[guartz]

a tl;dr version: math is not an innate truth

and yet it is the only objective truth one can impart unto others.