Quoted message said:Kevin Aylward wrote: F = d(mv)/dt, defines force and mass in a circular way. For example, what is
inertial mass. wee, its a measure of how must it resist smotion when a force is applied. Well,
what is a force, its something that accelerates a mass... This is a basic issue absolutely
inherent in any science. The fundamental defining equations are pretty much always circular.
Quoted message said:JE:- You must identify a general term that represents an absolute assumption...
KA:- Nope. There are no absolute assumptions, as I have previously discussed.
JE:- Yes you did write THAT didn't you! In a free society (which I can only conclude you do not
support) anybody can assume anything they wish as long as they are prepared to take the
consequences. I am, are you?
The phase: "there are no absolute assumptions" is an absolute negative assumption. You _must_
rewrite what you said to read:
There are no absolute positive assumptions but absolute negative assumptions can exist.
There are two absolute concepts under discussion with two sub categories for each:
1) Absolutes.
i) Positive absolutes which includes "infinite" ii) Negative absolutes which includes
"nothing".
2) Absolute assumptions. iii) Positive absolute assumptions. iv) Negative absolute assumptions.
Mathematics employs 1) absolutes,
e.g. the mathematical concept of a universal set: "the set of all possible sets". However, science
can only employ absolute _assumptions_, e.g. nominate a universal set of nature as just an
_assumption_. In evolutionary theory this is one Darwinian population. Such a concept is fully
testable. Before Darwin it was just, "one species". The species concept was and remains
arbitrary, so it cannot not be tested. Beliefs only employ non testable absolute assumptions.
It was Darwin who moved biology from a belief to a science, i.e. one giant step.
Absolute assumptions 2), are the keystone of any view. It does not matter how old the view is, how
modern it may be, or how much you like or dislike it. The view can only be identified by its
absolute assumptions. In mathematics these are constant/maximal values. Absolute assumptions are not
relative to _any_ other concept within the view. Thus they alone, can stand alone so they must be
defined. Relative assumptions are not just relative to each other, they are ALL relative to the
absolute assumptions within the view. An absolute assumption is never relative to them, no
exceptions. In mathematics relative values appear as variables and absolute assumptions appear as
maximal or constant values. An equation or inequality of _science_ must contain both as _general_
algebraic terms. Quite often, the absolute assumption is only implied. This is OK for non scientific
use. Within science absolute assumptions must be _explicit_ so the view can be _tested_.
_________________________________________________
If you refuse, as you _have_ done, to rewrite what you wrote, then you are proven to just be telling
lies: you misrepresented nothing at all as something. As I mentioned the con you used has been
around for a few thousand years but it always remains effective because people are so gullible. This
is because they are so badly taught. The paradox you used has a name: Epimenides paradox. This
classic paradox is caused by any absolute self contradiction. Like the Mohawk haircut, it pops up
almost every generation. It is mostly shouted by young ignoramuses who think they invented
everything
to "shock and awe". Unfortunately, it can be a very effective ruse. When used to sustain or to
attack another argument Epimenides Paradox is just intellectual thuggery. You should apologise to
sbe reader's for your use of it and rewrite what you wrote to mean exactly what you were only
_implying_.
________________________________________________
With regard to positive absolutes, the view that there are no positive absolutes can only be
justified by a god,
e.h. somebody who knows everything about the universe. Unless you claim to be god you do not have
any justification to say no positive absolutes exist.
Epimenides paradox is an intellectual black hole. Anything that falls into it cannot come out and is
compressed into a singularity of absolutely nothing at all. Anybody who employs the paradox to
sustain a view or attack another view is simply mugging the process of rational thought.
If KA is not a god then, like the rest of us mortal beings he can only guess. This means KA can only
ever say that there may or may not be absolutes within this universe, period. Any guessed absolute
is termed an absolute assumption. We all have to make them! The challenge is to make testable ones.
This requires real intelligence and not just a high IQ or street smart, mugging. Is KA an all
knowing god or yet another intellectual thug, (with or without the Mohawk)? Either way he is of no
use to science unless he simply, grows up.
My Kindest Regards,
John Edser Independent Researcher
PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia
[email hidden]