Is change the only absolute?

[Buffalo Souljah]

Can we imagine a universe in which there is no matter, or where matter has come to a rest (say at zero Kelvin)? If such a state is conceivable, is it not possible, and if it is possible, does that not undermine the basis of dialectical materialism, that change is constant and that things are always in a state of becoming?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Why are so many of you confusing an over-active imagination with philosophy? Go set up a science fiction group if you must post this sort of stuff here.

And, we do not have to indulge in science fiction to confound the dialecticians: there are countless things that do not change, and they 'do' this for billions of years.

[black magick hustla]

We can certainly imagine a world in absolute zero. Matter would approach Bose-Einstein condensation.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

You can certainly form these words, but I seriously doubt whether you can imagine it.

[black magick hustla]

You can certainly form these words, but I seriously doubt whether you can imagine it.

we can imagine it for tiny bits of matter because we have measured it. matter condenses and clumps. i dont know exactly how it is going to look, but we can atleast picture some of it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dada:


we can imagine it for tiny bits of matter because we have measured it. matter condenses and clumps. i dont know exactly how it is going to look, but we can atleast picture some of it.

Well, we can measure all sorts of things we can't imagine. What about these: the speed of light; the charge on an electron; the specific heat of water?

[black magick hustla]

Dada:



Well, we can measure all sorts of things we can't imagine. What about these: the speed of light; the charge on an electron; the specific heat of water?

yet, we can imagine matter in condensed state.

[Hit The North]

Can we imagine a universe in which there is no matter, or where matter has come to a rest (say at zero Kelvin)? If such a state is conceivable, is it not possible, and if it is possible, does that not undermine the basis of dialectical materialism, that change is constant and that things are always in a state of becoming?

I think even the most ambitious/grandiose/pretentious/metaphysical version of dialectical materialism only makes claims for this universe; not ones conjured up in your imagination.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dada:


yet, we can imagine matter in condensed state.

Tell us, what does plain ordinary matter look like in your imagination?

[We'll worry about it's condensed state in a minute.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


I think even the most ambitious/grandiose/pretentious/metaphysical version of dialectical materialism only makes claims for this universe; not ones conjured up in your imagination.

And, as we know, these 'claims' are far too confused for anyone to be able to tell if they are true or false.

[black magick hustla]

Dada:



Tell us, what does plain ordinary matter look like in your imagination?

[We'll worry about it's condensed state in a minute.]

Right not it looks like a computer?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Eh? What does that mean?

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Dada:



Well, we can measure all sorts of things we can't imagine. What about these: the speed of light;

You've obviously never seen Star Wars (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsNv6c6chBA).

[Lynx]

At absolute zero all Brownian motion ceases?

Wouldn't radioactive decay continue for billions more years?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Culture:


You've obviously never seen Star Wars.

Unfortunately I have, but I fail to see how that allows us to imagine the speed of light.

[Belisarius]

You've obviously never seen Star Wars (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsNv6c6chBA).
i wouldn't really use hollywood as a philosophical or scientific reference.

[Meridian]

Change being the only absolute... This type of idea seems to me to be of the ones that dispel themselves quite obviously.

If change is the only absolute, doesn't that mean everything "must" change? Then that would entail that even that fact (that change is the only absolute) changes. But, then it wouldn't be an absolute. :p

[ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR]

Change is absolute because indeed we live in a physical world composed of matter, which is in constant motion. The concept of "change" is universally applicable and observable, it is not peculiar to specific sectors of the world, it is universal.

[Buffalo Souljah]

Change is absolute because indeed we live in a physical world composed of matter, which is in constant motion. The concept of "change" is universally applicable and observable, it is not peculiar to specific sectors of the world, it is universal.That's what I'm saying! If change is the only absolute, then that would have to apply to change itself as well, but I think, as we discussed, you can not mush up a priori analytical or synthetic statements (ie, "time is the measure of change" or "change is the only absolute") with empirical matters of fact. This is what Rosa pointed out: the truth of an a priori statement is based solely upon its understanding and has no need for qualification by experience. This is what allows so much liberty for epistemologists and allows so much into the door in the first place. A priori science is just bullshit, plain and simple. Epistemology is comlicated: there's all sorts of relations between how knowledge relates to how we come about our knowledge, and if you look into coherentist views of knowledge, then everything has to "fit" as well, so if you get some measurement off somewhere, your whole system goes into question! A priori assertions are just the ones furthest from the edges of experience, and don't have to be proved as readily as empirical matters, but their truth is still a matter of question. This is what Quine talks about in The two Dogmas of Empiricism. Check it out and perhaps your understanding about how we formulate our ideas will change. Quine is really interesting, especially when he gets away from his logical positivist roots.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Revolutionary Brother:


Change is absolute because indeed we live in a physical world composed of matter, which is in constant motion. The concept of "change" is universally applicable and observable, it is not peculiar to specific sectors of the world, it is universal.

Except we now know that there a trillions of changeless objects in each microgram of matter -- protons.

They are so stable they never change (unless violently interfered with).

[ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR]

That's what I'm saying! If change is the only absolute, then that would have to apply to change itself as well, but I think, as we discussed, you can not mush up a priori analytical or synthetic statements (ie, "time is the measure of change" or "change is the only absolute") with empirical matters of fact. This is what Rosa pointed out: the truth of an a priori statement is based solely upon its understanding and has no need for qualification by experience. This is what allows so much liberty for epistemologists and allows so much into the door in the first place. A priori science is just bullshit, plain and simple. Epistemology is comlicated: there's all sorts of relations between how knowledge relates to how we come about our knowledge, and if you look into coherentist views of knowledge, then everything has to "fit" as well, so if you get some measurement off somewhere, your whole system goes into question! A priori assertions are just the ones furthest from the edges of experience, and don't have to be proved as readily as empirical matters, but their truth is still a matter of question. This is what Quine talks about in The two Dogmas of Empiricism. Check it out and perhaps your understanding about how we formulate our ideas will change. Quine is really interesting, especially when he gets away from his logical positivist roots.


Nothing in this physical matter world is absolute, because everything changes. Change itself must change, if you what know I mean.

[ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR]

Revolutionary Brother:



Except we now know that there a trillions of changeless objects in each microgram of matter -- protons.

They are so stable they never change (unless violently interfered with).


Absolutely comrade, but I was talking from a different context.

[Meridian]

Nothing in this physical matter world is absolute, because everything changes. Change itself must change, if you what know I mean.
I would be careful with throwing metaphysical claims around, like "change is the only absolute", universal, etc.

A valid (as far as I know) claim is that most matter we know of is in a constant state of change. A claim that is not valid is that change is the only absolute, because if everything must change then even that fact must change (i.e. causing a contradiction).

[ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR]

I would be careful with throwing metaphysical claims around, like "change is the only absolute", universal, etc.

A valid (as far as I know) claim is that most matter we know of is in a constant state of change. A claim that is not valid is that change is the only absolute, because if everything must change then even that fact must change (i.e. causing a contradiction).



Absolutely correct my brother, I apologize for saying it incorrect. Most matter is in constant motion.