Graham Cooper <email@example.com> wrote: > On May 29, 7:00=A0am, c...@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote: > > > EXISTS(x) > > > > > there exists something. > > > > That seems to me to be the most absolute of the non-absolutes. =A0It > > can = > be > > taken as the foundation by which all other near-absolutes can be > > measured= > . > > > > Yes I think of it as a STEP 1 or FACT 1 > > When we solve for an equation we say > > EXIST(x) x+1 =3D 6 > > If we INVENTED A DISTINCT WORD > > ESIST(x) x+1 =3D 6 > > where is the problem? > > --- > > You call all sentences in language NON_ABSOLUTES > > We call them CONCEPTS > > IF THE UNIVERSE RUNS TO A RULE SET > > RULE-SET PHYSICAL-UNIVERSE > a b <=3D=3D=3D> atoms gravity > c d <=3D=3D=3D> me you ladders nail-polish > z q > > Things ESIST THINGS EXIST > > What makes the PHYSICAL-UNIVERSE real and the RULE-SET Imaginary? > > You don't have and can NEVER *prove* that Concepts are not absolute.
That is because you are using "prove" to mean "in the game of logic, we can never prove if our axioms are truths".
But we can deal with the problem outside the game of logic. Concepts exists as physical events and effects of the universe and we can use objective measurements as our starting axioms to create proofs about what is knowable and whether the concept of an absolute concept has any merit when held against the objective evidence that defines it. That objective evidence will be found in the evidence that explains how the brain operates and what it's abilities and limits are.