do humans have value?

FiveB247x wrote:

Cosmo it's all perception and perspective. Nothing in the world is exact and perfect, science has taught us that.

Also, wasn't it discovered that larger mountains are around but solely under the Atlantic ocean (mid-atlantic ridge)?

scb wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

No... we are not talking about perspective in regards to 1+1=2.
If I were to say, "1+1=2 is a true statement"... there is no arguement against that. That is an absolute truth.

I don't know.... I think there could be an argument against such a simple, non-qualified statement. If you and I define any of the variables differently, the equation could possibly cease to be true - or at least could have different meaning to each of us.

FiveB247x wrote:

I'm not a mathematician so I can't digress any further but instinctively I believe nothing is absolute. Math is something we prove, but in some sense, it's something we have in balance and order, cause we made it up to equate things in life and the world.

And in regards to Mt. Everest, this isn't an absolute either. Sizes of earths features change all the time due to Plate-tectonics. So your current statement is correct, but at some future point it will not be.. whether do to erosion, eruptions, sea levels, or current rising mountains surpassing it. It may not be anytime soon, but it is true. It is not absolute.

FiveB247x wrote:

I'm not saying it's not correct necessary, but math is something we invented. It's something man-made and in many respects it's artificial and contrived. So of course it's going to come out correct as extremely close to it. Time is an example of that - even if by a fraction of a second, the time it takes for the earth's rotation around the around varies from year to year. We don't really acknowledge it, but the reality is that it's not absolute. And the main reason is because it suits our purposes to have a set frame of measurements of time, length and similar to compare, contrast and put things in perspective. So yes 1+1=2, but in a philosophical sense, it means very little, it's just ways and means that we humans designate things to our liking. And just as we invented it, it will go back to being meaningless and irrelevant to anything else just as it was before we were here and after we we're gone.

And your Mt. Everest statement is currently correct, but will change, so it is not absolute. Absolute is forever. The only thing people in our world truly believe is absolute are some basic scientific principles. I know am contradicting myself here a bit and can admit as much. I actually found this article online and it's quite interesting even though I disagree and it undermines what I've said..haha. I guess I just fully believe everything in life is elastic and ever-changing. http://www.gotquestions.org/absolute-truth.html

Cosmo wrote:

...
A. Explain to me how and why the statement, "1+1=2 is true"... is a false statement.
B. 'Mount Everest is the highest mountain peak on the surface of the planet Earth when using elevation as the scale, with sea level defined as 0... at this time, 17June2010, 6:20:13 PDT.'

Cosmo wrote:

That whole thing about, "if a tree falls in the woods..." thing... it places too much emphasis on Mankind and our importance in the Natural World and surrounding Universe. We may think we are the shits... truth is, we ain't shit.
...

Cosmo wrote:

redrock wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
Now... back to time. Time is applied to my cat. She has no concept of clocks or calendars. But, time is still applied to her life. She may not be aware of it... but the clock is runnig on her life, too. She may be aware of daytime/night time, but no awareness of the number of days. Her's is just right here, right now.
But, just because she is unaware of time... does not mean time is not counting down her remaining days.
The same thing for math... even if she is unaware of the concept of numbers... does not mean numbers do not exist. I gve her 2 cat treats.. she eats two of them... there are no more for her to eat. The reality and truth in thae math is there... she just doesn't know it.

Time, numbers, maths, etc. are all conventions decided by man to be able to try and make sense of the world around them and organise themselves in relation to this world. Time... a day... based on the time it takes the earth to rotate on it's axis (moons for the ancient people); a year.. based on the time it takes for the earth to orbit the sun (though some early 'calenders' were different). Maths/numbers - 2+2=4. That's what man eventually decided. Numbers were not always there just like language as we know it was not always there. Again, conventions to be able to organise and communicate.

All these are 'later' concepts. And, depending on how man saw these at the time, they could have been very different!

...
No... time and math exist with or without us. I think people get hung up on the manner in which we define time. Time is a linear reality that is dependent on where you are in space.
True, we dechipher time based upon the cycles of our home planet. Does this mean time does not exist on other planets... in other solar systems... in other galaxies? It does exist, and we apply our units of measure to the other planets... to the other celestrial bodies. Jupiters days are measures in time, relative to Earth days... distances are measured in light years.
For example... let's pretend the Big Bang was a factual event. From the point of origin, matter has been hurtling through space, away from the point of origin... right. Time passes as the objects move away. We may measure the relative to our own interpretation of time, but, there is a period of time that elapsed from moment the bits of matter that formed our planet left the point of origin of the Big Bang, to it's present location, here on this planet. Time, by what ever measurement is used, moves on.
Same thing with math... SCB proposed that the two of us have different interpretations of the same thing, 1.0000 or 1.0001. I'm saying that the 1, stated in the 1+1=2 equation is just that, the whole number 1. Like 1 dinosaur, because you cannot have 1.0001 dinosaurs. That simple statement, 1+1=2 is an elegant and simple truth.
So, absolute truths do exist. It is when we claim absolute truth in man made concepts, such as religion, that the thing falls apart. The absolute truth about God? The absolute truth is, "we don't know". We can't prove or disprove whether God exists or not. And using the arguement that not being able to prove God exists must mean He does not exist (and vice versa) is a false claim. The Truth is... we don't know.

Cosmo wrote:

catefrances wrote:

i agree time exists without us.and always has. however being the only creature that uses math, im gonna say without us it wouldnt exist. i doubt the lion king thinks wow! i bagged me 3 impalas today.

...
I understand what you are saying... but, even if the lion does not understand the concept of math... the fact is.. if he bagged 3 Impalas... he bagged 3 Impalas. The lion does not use math... but, 3 Impalas equals 3 Impalas. Math exists, when when the subject is oblivious of its existance.
There are probably more examples of absolute truths than time and math... death, for example. Death is an absolute certainty for all living creatures. From paramecium to complex forms, such as humans and whales... we are all going to die. Even the great Sequoias are going to eventually die. The statement, "Death is a fact of life" is an absolute truth, when death is defined as the end of physical life sustaining functions.

scb wrote:

I tend to agree that absolute truths exist. But I think our knowledge of them can be subject to perspective & our expressions of them can be subject to interpretation.

For instance, your 1 may be 1.000... but mine may be 1.0001. Do my 1 plus your 1 equal the same 2?

Or, 1.5 may be 1 to you and 2 to me. (Yes, we generally all agree to round up in this situation, but that agreement is man made, not absolute.) So you would say that this number plus itself equals 2 and I would say it equals 4, but really it equals 3 - until we move to the next decimal place and the next, which are infinite in number (and therefore in possible interpretations). I'm sure you've seen this in math or physics or epidemiology classes, where each person doing a calculation gets a different result but they are all right.