In modal logic, tools for understanding epistemology have been traditionally known as conceptual models for reality – or – conceptual reality models. This is a form of sub-structural, or, modal, logic.
Here are three pieces to one puzzle –
1) Absolutism
2) Relativism
3) Realism
Absolutism states that truth is absolute and can be fully known.
Relativism states that the truth is relative.
Realism holds that the truth cannot be known.
Traditionally, these have always been seen as contradicting ideas – aside from dualism, which combines absolutism and relativism. If you ask me – this is simply a classic example of man making a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it. These models have always been pieces to the same puzzle.
The challenge is :
Can you figure out how they all fit together?
Catalyst
Cerebrum 
Give it a shot.
This is a learning experience. These truth values have been thought to be in conflict with one another for centuries. I won’t give away the answer, but in the case a proposition cannot work, I will explain why.
To your question.
Can you figure out how they all fit together?
This may be possible…but, it sure can contradict the obvious of measures.
I do think if – we rip a loop whole to re-construct these 3 elements, then it sure will help fit our perspective, help us evolve differently, and of course, master these with an even balance. Then again, I’m just simply trying to observe more or dig deeper into more evolving puzzles.
Great write man…You are an excellent teacher of self-teachers.
~Charlie Z
Great thoughts, Charlie! Keep going, but don’t force it together. Each value has clearly defined boundaries that serve a purpose. If we compromise the integrity of the value function, then it becomes useless…meaningless.
Look at each idea as 1/3 of the entire picture.
Is it possible for absolutism, Relativism, & Realism, to be Zero?
example: Absolutism = 7 Relativism = 7 Realism = 0
I’m not looking at this to being one whole…I’m simply fitting the 3 patterns as what my mind perceive it to be.
Yes, Charlie!
You can pick and plug values for both relativism and absolutism (depending on conditions/parameters), but the realism remains undefined.
My favorite example used to explain the relativity of an absolute is stretching an absolute value on a parabolic plane.
And a quantum brain award for you, sir…
One must first gain a thorough understanding of relativism to determine if absolutism or realism is more suited for that particular instant in time in whatever the environment may be for survival, if realistic survival is absolutely relative to that individual . ;)
I agree, Susie. Understanding the relative value function is key here. Yet, we’re looking for a solution that utilizes all 3 values without exclusion or compromising value integrity.
Nice work!
;)
Ahh!
Then Relativism is the equal sign.
Realism is zero.
Absolutism is one.
And 1 does not equal 0, so it’s not relative. ;)
And here, I thought no one was going to get it. Nice!
AND you explained it with mathematics, too! Brilliant!!!
I am wowed. Now, think of how one relates to zero beyond not equaling it. How does any number compare to zero?
Zero is the absence of a measured value or any number for that matter. It’s negative numbers that really get people, having more nothing than nothing.
Actually, think in terms of undefined instead of zero.
Undefined is pretty much an unknown variable, which is usually either X or Y in two dimensions. And there are already relative guidelines in how to determine the variables. But it all depends on the perspective of which component that you want to evaluate first. But in actuality, the order of evaluation does not really matter, because in the end you add all the calculated solved unknowns together to get the relative answer. However, the order can matter in how long it takes for you to determine the unknown and how relative the truth of that unknown is to your problem.
And she’s got brain!
And Lo – The brain award!
Cat, what’s the absolute answer that is all relative to what you want to be realistic? :D
lol
Are you trying to sneak a peek into my book?
Peak a boo, I see you. lol
Your answer is below…
;)
Welcome to the fundamentals of quantum mechanics…
You can probably interpret this now, Suzie…
I made this to explain how it works.
I probably can. But, I can’t give all my goods away. ;)
Riddle me this –
In my model, what defines an absolute?
Cat, let someone else play. I riddle myself all the time. lol
lol…
Nice work, today…
Thanks…
I will sum this up as simply as I can. Absolutism is the nature of the thing, the “truth itself”. Relativity is the various perspectives through which this “truth” is seen(the “absolute view” being but one of many relative perspectives). Realism is the acknowledgment that we will only ever access or see our perspectives and thus, never quite the “thing”. Therefore, absolutism=x relativity=y and realism basically states that x≠y, or as Korzybski so eloquently put it, “The map is not the territory”. Or as I heard it also put, “before you know it, you’ll be eating the menu instead of the meal!”
In other words, we can try all we want to conceptualize and dissect the reality in which we find ourselves, but that is merely a construct which pales in comparison to the experience of direct contact with life itself.
;)
..missed ya man.
Aeloi, that explanation makes perfect sense to me… I was utterly confused with the other people’s explanations… I thought I was totally missing it. I thought I was brain dead or, something. But this was, perfect in making it clearer than light! lol! I thought, exactly, why couldn’t I think of it in those terms…? duh! :)
Well – it was a puzzle, after all, Mag. And – not a simple one by any measure.
Aeloi did well, but he only explained the value of each component. The values are conflicting.
The puzzle requires one more step – functionality. I’m afraid it would require calculus level language for a concrete mathematical explanation. Yet, I’m going to trim down my audience if I explain it that way.
Everyone did well here, but I’m afraid it’s too involved to be simple.
Calculus? Yuck! Yeah! You can count me out of that one! For sure! I was just thinking this morning I need a refreshment course in math since I have forgotten almost everything including simple stuff…. I was good in math while taking the course only… after that it was all “chinese” ;) to me…
But you can give an explanation and see, maybe people can get it…. :/
I think I get it, more now, as to where you were leading with that, but in an abstract manner which I cannot put into words…or, equations… But like you said, as a functionality with changing values which are highly based on the relativism variable which can be up to an infinite value? :/ I better quit here!… ;)
(Oh, yes, I tried to subscribe before, through the posting notification here, but it did not work… now I see the subscribe window on the right…thanks…)
Well, people r still looking at this.
with enough clues…
;)
Nice work, Aeloi!
It can be stated and understood through very simple terms. It is our ability to understand it that is the variable.
Hope to see you on here, again!
~Cat