Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Starman
Yet "relative" does have an opposite or at least it means in-relationship to something or other.
However we would not know absolute unless we knew relative, or vice versa, although they are not opposites, they are not dueling concepts.
|
This is the kind of philosophical discussion that's best served with beer and popcorn.
No they're not opposites but they are in a relationship or a dichotomy, and what we're really talking here is not about 'absolute' or 'relative' but our own perspectives from where we choose to put our feet. Einstein said the science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind, and who am I to argue? I guess you can throw Spirituality in there as well. In that case reality is like Schroedinger's Cat that's only alive or dead when we open the box, or the classic quantum physics' slit test where the state changes because we observe it. Then again you could do some Douglas Adams' Deep Thought and spend time trying to find the right question, like "What are the reasons I'm trying to define an absolute reality?" If we are God a some Eastern religions would have us believe, then isn't every perspective of reality absolute?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Starman
I have always thought of permanence as a standard for "reality," and impermanence as illusive and unreal.
My cosmic paradigm views all of creation as an illusive impermanent reflection, an illusion, and sees the one static, silent, unmovable energy, which you refer to as the only reality.
|
Are you talking about God, quantum physics or both?