INTJs and Playing Devil's Advocate

[Uytuun]

I've just had this discussion with a friend of mine and I noticed some interesting recurring dynamics.

*Since I acknowledge the validity of virtually all perspectives, my own opinion is so broad and nuanced that it can't really be called an opinion anymore.

*I'm reduced to trying to explain to people that their opinion is only one of many and automatically start playing devil's advocate.

*A result of this multi-facetted "opinion" and merely picking an opposing theory to defend for the sake of the discussion is that I can't argue with the same zeal some other people seem to be able to argue with.

*When I acknowledge that they have a point, they consider it "winning" the discussion.

I'm a there's no absolute truth, even the fact that there's no absolute truth is not absolute, a statement which is again not absolute etc. kind of girl. And even that's not absolute. :p Well, at least when I really start thinking.

I'm very bad at convincing people and people never really convince me of the superiority of their one theory.

Sound familiar?

[thod]

You should practice playing devils advocate. It is a skill and it hones your own thoughts on a subject when you take the opposite stance. Its fun too, try arguing for something you dont believe, say creationism, and just see the bigots come flocking who realy dont understand the position you normaly take.

The idea of these forums is not to win discussions but to learn. It may be an INTP thing. But if I lose I am still happy. I have learned about arguing that issue and obtained some new facts. Never be afraid to troll, trolling is the best way to get opinions out of people. I forget who it was that said if you want to find out what somebody realy thinks contradict them. If you are up against feminists advocate female slavery. If you are against socialists advocate libertarianism. You will rapidly be able to ascertain the mood of the thread and pick the trolling postion.

[Jgib5328]

I'm on my colleges debate team and have always loved debating and arguing. I always play the devil's advocate especially when my friends give me their opinion, even if I agree with it completely, I argue the opposing case for fun. I think it helps you develop yourself more intellectually and is just fun. I'm generally a better debater than most so I usually end up winning, but it is still fun (well winning usually is).

[aexis]

I'm a big fan of playing Devils Advocate. Not only is it fun, but it also often yields new insights into areas you'd not previously considered.

An ex-coworker of mine was a militant-vegan, feminist and enviro-cop. I'm sure you know the type. I had endless hours of fun debating reasons to not recycle, over-fishing, animal testing, and why eating meat is great.

Just don't be an asshole about it. I wasn't, and I'm still relatively good friends with her.

[Jgib5328]

lol, we all pretty much gave the same response within minutes. Maybe it really is an INTJ and maybe an INTX thing in general, seems like it.

[Kotetsu]

I enjoy taking the opposite view during debates where there is no discussion. I distinctly remember a devout anti-abortion teacher of mine take me outside after I gave a presentation discussing the causes and consequences of abortion in a positive light (we'd been asked to prepare a presentation conveying our views after reading an anti-abortion article, but since I didn't have any strong opinion on the matter I chose to pick the opposite side). I'm almost always the person to take the side that is not being supported (every class debate degenerates into the repeating of arguments for one side and universal agreement) and argue it. I wish more people could look at an issue and accept that there exist arguments for both sides and refrain from seeking to belittle and defeat those who bring up other viewpoints.

[Lucid]

I was raised in a family of lawyers. We've been lawyers for 3 or 4 generations now. Arguing is how we communicate. And while it can be tiring at times, it does sharpen one's mind, force one to consider alternate perspectives and to critically examine one's own positions in detail.
Also it's fun :)

A friend of mine once asked me, "Why do you have to argue with everything? You're not going to change people's minds."

My response was that a conversation in which everyone was just agreeing with one another was supremely boring.

[ElstonGunn]

A friend of mine once asked me, "Why do you have to argue with everything? You're not going to change people's minds."

You should have said, "Why did you tell me that? You're not going to change my mind." ;)


My guess is that the term "Devil's Advocate" wasn't created by an INTJ. I don't see anything demonic about it. I would have called it "A good way to test ideas and see if they're any good." What it lacks in snappiness, it more than makes up for in accuracy.

[ghyspran]

I'd agree that it probably wasn't an INTJ who came up with the term because i'd think most INTJs would consider that someone "playing the Devil's Advocate" is just a normal conversation and wouldn't need a special term

[Lucid]

You should have said, "Why did you tell me that? You're not going to change my mind." ;)

Good point. I will use that one next time!

[burazekun]

I'm a there's no absolute truth, even the fact that there's no absolute truth is not absolute, a statement which is again not absolute etc. kind of girl. And even that's not absolute. :p Well, at least when I really start thinking.


So you're not absolutely a girl?

Sorry had to pick that out of context, I dont mean to offend.

[coffeeloverfreak]

I play Devil's Advocate all the time. Sometimes it's just for the mental exercise. Sometimes it's just to piss off people who I find smug or annoying.

In any case, I find it excellent practice. Arguing something you wholeheartedly believe is rarely as strong as finding a rational argument for something you don't believe. Why? Because arguments you don't have to make to yourself will rarely be as strong. You'll fall into the trap of assuming that you're preaching to the choir, so to speak.

It's also a great way to open your mind to things you might not have considered before, or to better understand the point of view of your opponent. When you are forced to argue the opposing side, you can better anticipate its arguments, and form better counter-arguments.

[lordrrr]

I like to do it to piss people off and because I like to argue a lot (it's excellent practice for an up and coming defense attorney).

[Antares]

I find it fun to argue points that I don't really believe in, and often, when considering an issue, I consider both sides. I'm against racism, sexism and genocide, but I can argue for them any day, and people are usually appalled. They seem to think that just because I'm arguing for them, I really believe that; even if I clarify that my intention is for the sake of the argument. I can agree with their views completely, but picking them apart is just so much fun.

[Uytuun]

So you're not absolutely a girl?

Sorry had to pick that out of context, I dont mean to offend.

No, I'm not absolutely a girl that believes "there's no absolute truth, even the fact that there's no absolute truth is not absolute, a statement which is again not absolute etc." It referred to the entire preceding sentence.

[The Many]

No, I'm not absolutely a girl that believes "there's no absolute truth, even the fact that there's no absolute truth is not absolute, a statement which is again not absolute etc." It referred to the entire preceding sentence.

Your argument is actually a logical fallacy known as The Lier's Paradox - you even seem to be aware of its paradoxical nature but you still argue for it. Of course, you are right in that there is an element of subjectivity to understanding, but this does not at all mean that there is no such thing as an absolute truth. Not to imply I'm some sort of objectivist either, but there is truth, even though we can only observe it to various degrees.

As to playing the Devil's Advocate (which I suppose I am partially doing here - I apologize if the argument above came across in a somewhat blunt way, but I thought you might be interested in knowing), I despise it. Usually I don't get along very well with people who like to do it all the time either. Most often they seem to be pretty insecure and have to constantly prove themselves and how intelligent they are. Personally I usually don't enjoy arguing or discussing things, I have done it so many times already and I have have usually also thought through most of the points which will be brought forth from the opposition, which makes the entire discussion pretty tedious. I prefer getting drunk and joking around instead, and not to bother with serious discussion when serious discussion is too serious for the context.

[Uytuun]

What part of that post are you referring to? The sentence you quoted is slightly confusing (apologies) and I don't know what you read into it.

AFAIK I haven't been arguing for anything in this thread. I'm quite aware of the paradoxical nature of the claim.

[errrzarrr]

Playing Devil's Advocate is, at least, very funny. In fact, I am laughing while reading you because I remember things I did arguing with people.

Now i am going to play more the D's A.

[The Many]

What part of that post are you referring to? The sentence you quoted is slightly confusing (apologies) and I don't know what you read into it.

AFAIK I haven't been arguing for anything in this thread. I'm quite aware of the paradoxical nature of the claim.

No worries. I referred to "there's no absolute truth, even the fact that there's no absolute truth is not absolute, a statement which is again not absolute etc."

That was the argument, and it is, as mentioned, a paradox. Hence I got confused as to why you are/were using it.

[pavman]

I'm a there's no absolute truth ... kind of girl. And even that's not absolute. ... Well, at least when I really start thinking.

:idea: Not to play Devil's advocate, but there is absolute truth.

1+1 = 2 is an absolute truth. :thumbsup: Gravity is an absolute truth. :thumbsup: Your existence is an absolute truth (well, while you exist, not sure about after... I wouldn't think so if you stopped existing, although this can lead us down all sorts of does she still exist if...roads, so I'll leave it there).

*waits for someone to pull some obscure mathematic-geek theorem on my a$$*

And for the record: I love Devil's advocate. And I am usually enthusiastic about it...but people don't tend to like me, so there's always a price! Almost no one ever admits I've won the argument; however, I've had friends say I was rather convincing, so I'm thinking I do tend to win, they just won't admit it...

I do admit that I tend to find flaws in my own arguments while making them, then sometimes supplying those flaws to my opponent....yes, I'm too dam nice.

[coffeeloverfreak]

Pavman:

1+1 = 2 is an absolute truth.

No it's not. It's a convention. All mathematics is merely convention. Like rules of a game, we define math conventions because they're internally consistent, useful, and they work. But, as is especially evident in higher-level mathematics, there are infinite different ways of defining these conventions. We've simply picked ones that seem elegent or useful to us, or that people have become accustomed to. It's like how most people use PCs because they're compatible, but that doesn't make them any more "right" than Macs.

Gravity is an absolute truth.

Again, no it's not. Even an intro physics student will be able to tell you that. Gravity only seems absolute on earth, but in the context of space, it is extremely relative.

Your existence is an absolute truth.

Yeah? Prove it. I dare you.

[lordrrr]

I agree with coffee I believe we can never be 100% positive with anything, but we can be like really close like 99.999999999% positive.

[coffeeloverfreak]

It's all about defining the frame of reference. We can be close to 100% positive that something works in close to 100% of the cases within our frame of reference. But we're taking certain things as a given.

For instance, most of what we "know" about natural sciences applies only to our world; we're holding certain things like gravity, general climate and polar magnetic fields constant.

If we were to try to get at something "absolute", it would have to be true in any possible situation. It's precisely our lack of ability to define limits by defining a frame of reference that makes the concept of absolute truth such a difficult one to fathom.

[MNRon]

I like to do it to piss people off

That goes over so well with jurors ;)

[Provoker]

I find that playing devil's advocate sharpens me and strengthens my procedural intelligence. However, many people take it to extreme levels and get so caught up with being right rather than doing right. To the devil's advocate, it's just a game. But to a person who has been exploited, or had genocide committed against their people or anything serious, it's not a game and it can be rather cruel to play devil's advocate (when you don't even believe in what you're saying) in this sort of context. Moreover, most people play devil's advocate with the motivation of attaining a higher level of truth, but they become spineless in the process when they become habituated to criticizing and detstroying the opinions of others and offering nothing edifying or constructive themselves. In this respect, Socrates is a perfect decadent as he lived like a parasite who criticized the beliefs of others while offering nothing constructive himself.

At the end of the day, even the devil's advocate must work, eat, live, and exist in society, and there will be definitive interests despite arguing (in vain) in favor of opposing interests. When this occurs, the d.a. becomes mcdonalized or what I prefer to call 'paper mache' - maybe that's the truth they're after?

[Lucid]

No it's not. It's a convention. All mathematics is merely convention. Like rules of a game, we define math conventions because they're internally consistent, useful, and they work. But, as is especially evident in higher-level mathematics, there are infinite different ways of defining these conventions. We've simply picked ones that seem elegent or useful to us, or that people have become accustomed to. It's like how most people use PCs because they're compatible, but that doesn't make them any more "right" than Macs.

No, 2+2=4 is a necessary truth. Like "a bachelor is an unmarried man" is a necessary truth. Another is that you cannot be both a member of this forum and not a member of this forum at the same time. These are logical constraints. Sorry. :undecided:

[lordrrr]

That goes over so well with jurors ;)

Really? Cool. I hope I can get them all to speak at once in outrage while the Judge is banging his/her gavel and the prosecutor keeps yelling objection but only gets the "overruled" response and the audience starts whispering loudly to everyone around them and the cameras start flashing with that POP the lightbulbs make and the witness/defendent is in the chair looking confused/appalled/irritated as hell and I'm up there having my mouth spout out point after point after point until everyone faints from too much awesomeness :cool:





lordrrr added to this post, 4 minutes and 21 seconds later...

No, 2+2=4 is a necessary truth. Like "a bachelor is an unmarried man" is a necessary truth. Another is that you cannot be both a member of this forum and not a member of this forum at the same time. These are logical constraints. Sorry. :undecided:


His point is that we could be imprecise in our measurements/how we define our measurements. What if we went to another planet and they have developed a completely different number system? Is 2+2=4 going to matter? Nope. What if, on Mars or some other farwaway planet, the extra terrestrials are considered under marital status from the moment they are born, and they instead strive to be unmarried men but while they are married they are bachelors? Then the predicament has to be changed, thus we have no proof that throughout the entire Universe 2+2=4.

[coffeeloverfreak]

Actually, my point was that 2+2=4 is only true within the logical framework we have developed for mathematics, which makes it true. It's not an absolute truth; it's a convention we have defined, which is only true relative to the rest of the rules of math. "+" is a defined operation. "2" is a defined symbol.

And for the record (again), I'm a "she".

[Uytuun]

See, I intuitively agree with coffee - despite the paradox.

[coffeeloverfreak]

Like "a bachelor is an unmarried man" is a necessary truth.

Just one more nitpick about that statement. You're confusing absolute truth with definition. A bachelor is simply an English word that we have defined to mean "an unmarried man". But words are merely symbols, and they're only true within a context.

For instance, for the above statement to be true, we have to have a commonly accepted definition for "married" and "unmarried" (varies heavily from one society to the next), for "man" (just ask transgendered or intersex people about this one), and the definition of "bachelor" stems from those.

No words are absolute truths. Words are conventions, just as math is a convention. All are merely collections of commonly-understood symbols, used to facilitate human interaction and understanding.

[Uytuun]

BTW, can someone give me a fancy word for the study of truth? The closest I've come so far is epistemology, which isn't really about truth per se.

[Lucid]

Just one more nitpick about that statement. You're confusing absolute truth with definition. A bachelor is simply an English word that we have defined to mean "an unmarried man". But words are merely symbols, and they're only true within a context.

For instance, for the above statement to be true, we have to have a commonly accepted definition for "married" and "unmarried" (varies heavily from one society to the next), for "man" (just ask transgendered or intersex people about this one), and the definition of "bachelor" stems from those.

No words are absolute truths. Words are conventions, just as math is a convention. All are merely collections of commonly-understood symbols, used to facilitate human interaction and understanding.

That's why it's a necessary truth. If the definition of a bachelor is that he is an unmarried man then a bachelor is necessarily an unmarried man. There is no situation in which a man is both married and a bachelor.
The number thing is a bit more complicated. One way to look at it is that numbers are contrivances that we have developed and set up rules for, as you mentioned, and that other people might possibly have a different version of mathematics. However, many people view numbers as concepts in themselves. The theory of numbers I am most familiar with is that while the words themselves we use to describe the numbers are societal contrivances, the idea of numbers and what they symbolize is a priori knowledge. You can never add the concept of two things to the concept of two things and get the concept of five things.
If you're interested in this concept (what exists) and have not already done so, you might be interested in reading Quine's On What There Is. Whichever side of the debate you come down on I think it's an interesting read. :)





Lucid added to this post, 14 minutes and 33 seconds later...

You know, I will say that there's a time and a place for playing devil's advocate.
My ex boyfriend is also an INTJ and plays devil's advocate all the time. This could be a problem when, for example, I had a huge fight with my brother and was really upset about it. I was talking to my ex about the fight and explaining what happened. He started arguing my brother's side (I wasn't trying to argue, just vent!). When I said, "Listen, it's ok if you agree with my brother, but right now I really don't want to have the argument again," he responded by saying, "I agree with you, I'm just playing devil's advocate!"
Bad timing.

[Antares]

I've always wondered about absolute truth. I absolutely have a brain. Argue this.

[coffeeloverfreak]

You know, I will say that there's a time and a place for playing devil's advocate.
My ex boyfriend is also an INTJ and plays devil's advocate all the time. This could be a problem when, for example, I had a huge fight with my brother and was really upset about it. I was talking to my ex about the fight and explaining what happened. He started arguing my brother's side (I wasn't trying to argue, just vent!). When I said, "Listen, it's ok if you agree with my brother, but right now I really don't want to have the argument again," he responded by saying, "I agree with you, I'm just playing devil's advocate!"
Bad timing.

Well that's one of the down sides of INTJ-ness. The tendency to argue instead of to empathize. :laugh:





coffeeloverfreak added to this post, 20 minutes and 55 seconds later...

I've always wondered about absolute truth. I absolutely have a brain. Argue this.

Someone's been reading Wittgenstein, I see. :)

[pavman]

For instance, most of what we "know" about natural sciences applies only to our world; we're holding certain things like gravity, general climate and polar magnetic fields constant.

Actually, gravity is a pretty big constant. We don't know *why* it exists, but it exists in space relatively constant with all bodies. And as others have pointed out:

"Gravity does not exist like the frosting on a cake, embedded in some larger arena of space and time. Instead, the 'frosting' is everything, and matter is embedded and intimately and indivisibly connected to it. If you could turn off gravity, it is mathematically predicted that space and time would also vanish!"

So, I'm willing to say that gravity is an absolute truth, within the framework of our universe, as much as space and time are absolute truths. Gravity does not *just* exist on our planet. Every mass has gravity and the amount of mass defines how much effect that gravity has on other masses. Hence why we orbit the sun and the moon orbits the earth.

As for convention, regardless of our, or some other alien race's, convention to define a truth, the truth exists. I know we're on the verge of speculating about quantum mechanics and if an observation changes the outcome (which, IMHO, is total BS...but that's a totally different thread); realistically, mathematics is the purest form, even the language or blueprint, of the universe. Just because we happened to have figured it out doesn't mean it doesn't exist outside of our symbolic definition.

So again, I state, 1+1 = 2 is an absolute truth. Not the symbols, the underlying sentiment of the universe.

[Lucid]

Someone's been reading Wittgenstein, I see. :)

Wittgenstein?? I thought this was Descartes.

[pavman]

Wittgenstein?? I thought this was Descartes.

Speaking of Descartes.... I think, therefore, I am, I think. ;)

[Lucid]

Speaking of Descartes.... I think, therefore, I am, I think. ;)

Well that's what I thought she meant by stating that she absolutely had a brain. Although I suppose it's possible to have a brain and not think (we see evidence of this all around us).

[The Many]

Actually, gravity is a pretty big constant. We don't know *why* it exists, but it exists in space relatively constant with all bodies. And as others have pointed out:

"Gravity does not exist like the frosting on a cake, embedded in some larger arena of space and time. Instead, the 'frosting' is everything, and matter is embedded and intimately and indivisibly connected to it. If you could turn off gravity, it is mathematically predicted that space and time would also vanish!"

So, I'm willing to say that gravity is an absolute truth, within the framework of our universe, as much as space and time are absolute truths. Gravity does not *just* exist on our planet. Every mass has gravity and the amount of mass defines how much effect that gravity has on other masses. Hence why we orbit the sun and the moon orbits the earth.

As for convention, regardless of our, or some other alien race's, convention to define a truth, the truth exists. I know we're on the verge of speculating about quantum mechanics and if an observation changes the outcome (which, IMHO, is total BS...but that's a totally different thread); realistically, mathematics is the purest form, even the language or blueprint, of the universe. Just because we happened to have figured it out doesn't mean it doesn't exist outside of our symbolic definition.

So again, I state, 1+1 = 2 is an absolute truth. Not the symbols, the underlying sentiment of the universe.

I think this discussion just turned more interesting than I thought it would turn... I hold that mathematics is a concrete abstraction of the way that the human brain processes information (i.e. to think you have to think of something, but you would not be able to think about it if you only had experienced one phenomenon, for instance complete blackness; hence if you also experienced a certain note you would be able to distinguish it from the blackness, thus forming the basis for the abstraction that is mathematics, in that one perception plus another perception necessarily equates more than one perception, at least as far as the human brain is concerned). This does however not at all imply that the human brain is able to fully comprehend its perceptions, just look at the problem with Pi, which I would consider us very unlikely to fully comprehend - not to say it cannot be completely understood, however - of course we should try to fully understand the universe, but it is very possible that our ability to understand is, from an evolutionary perspective, not sufficient to fully understand it. But even if we cannot fully understand, further research will grant us more understanding, which perhaps is sufficient.

So what we have is this system of mathematics and logic, which we quite necessarily have to apply to the world to get even the slightest amount of sense out of it - and hence, 2+2=4 is an absolute concept as far as our understanding goes, but it is very possible that an alien consciousness would be able to interpret these conceptions in another way. The same goes for mathematics - there are most definitely laws behind the motions of the universe, such as gravity, but the question is which interpretation of these is the correct one.

Also as for metaphysics and what truth is necessary, first of all we are aware of our own thoughts, then "I", as a mind, must exist. Secondly we also know that when thinking, one has to think about something - hence, we know that there is a form of reality outside our minds. This does however not mean that our percieved world is the objective one; far from it, for we are, after all, limited to our perceptions (and our theories concerning these perceptions). Hence this reality could be divided into the Noumenon/a (i.e. the underlying structure/s which we cannot understand) and Phenomena, which are the perceptions to which our understanding is limited. I have developed a concept called approximate truth, which really is the only thing human beings are able to use - but as far as I personally am concerned, I am interested in finding an approximate truth that reaches as deep as possible.


------------

And yes, this borrows pretty heavily from Kant (and some from Quine, I have after all dismissed for instance the analytic/synthetic distinction), so I apologize if my vocabulary gets a bit messy at times.

[lordrrr]

And for the record (again), I'm a "she".

Oh I'm sorry :embarassed:

[coffeeloverfreak]

Oh I'm sorry :embarassed:

No need. Just clarifying.

Actually I think it's interesting how gender roles are so defined that people automatically assume I'm male just from the way I write or argue. But that's for another topic altogether.

[lordrrr]

No need. Just clarifying.

Actually I think it's interesting how gender roles are so defined that people automatically assume I'm male just from the way I write or argue. But that's for another topic altogether.

I don't know. From my experience of posting on message boards, I can honestly say that 90% of the posters are male, most likely more, so I always slip up on gender specification with that assumption. It seems there are quite a few females on this forum though that sort of eases out all the male domination.

[MacGuffin]

Oooh devil's advocate! Fun times!

Sometimes it can really backfire. Do it often enough and people don't take you seriously when you are serious.

P.S. "absolute truth" is a concept.

[Jughead]

I think it's an INTX thing, although my INTJ friend doesn't particularly care for arguments and keeps changing the subject when I try to argue about things.

[Reon]

I'm constantly told that I play Devil's Advocate when I try to get people to understand what actually happened and what the other person 'might' be thinking. (I'm super-impartial as well so it pisses off my friends, they think I won't stick up for them and such

[Melchizedek]

I'm not really that big a fan of arguing or debating. I used to be when I was younger, but then I realized I mostly enjoyed showing that I was smarter than everyone else. It wasn't really constructive.

What interests me, and the reason that I like this forum, is discussion. I enjoy the way people here try and elucidate on a matter, even when they're arguing. In that spirit, I'd like to throw wrench into the argument on math. It turns out there's a primitive tribe that has no concept of concrete numbers. They have words for "some" or "more," but there's no word for 2 or 1.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If I get some spare time soon, which I should, I'll try to make a more in-depth contribution to the discussion.

[johnnyz86]

I'm not really that big a fan of arguing or debating. I used to be when I was younger, but then I realized I mostly enjoyed showing that I was smarter than everyone else. It wasn't really constructive.

What interests me, and the reason that I like this forum, is discussion. I enjoy the way people here try and elucidate on a matter, even when they're arguing. In that spirit, I'd like to throw wrench into the argument on math. It turns out there's a primitive tribe that has no concept of concrete numbers. They have words for "some" or "more," but there's no word for 2 or 1.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If I get some spare time soon, which I should, I'll try to make a more in-depth contribution to the discussion.

that just makes it more clear that 2+2=4 is an absolute truth.

take any creature and have a pile of 2 things, a pile of 2 things, and then a bunch of piles (say of 2 things, 3 things, 4 things, 5 things). put the two piles of 2 together and have them match it. they select the 4 thing pile, unless they are stupid.

absolute truth as in conceptual truth, by my definition. you can argue whether or not you believe absolute truth is conceptual truth, of course, but for the purpose of this argument, you must agree to it.

conceptual truth: have someone agree to the framework and have them put 2 and 2 together, so to speak.

arguing is absolutely pointless if the concepts that are being argued about can not be agreed upon. feel free to argue against that.

if i agree with whoever and say that conceptual truth is not absolute truth, then i will say define absolute truth. and well there really isn't any then, is there, and there is no point for the term.

the bachelor argument is more of the same. one must agree to the framework.

there are no truths if nothing is agreed upon.

Actually, gravity is a pretty big constant. We don't know *why* it exists, but it exists in space relatively constant with all bodies. And as others have pointed out:

"Gravity does not exist like the frosting on a cake, embedded in some larger arena of space and time. Instead, the 'frosting' is everything, and matter is embedded and intimately and indivisibly connected to it. If you could turn off gravity, it is mathematically predicted that space and time would also vanish!"

So, I'm willing to say that gravity is an absolute truth, within the framework of our universe, as much as space and time are absolute truths. Gravity does not *just* exist on our planet. Every mass has gravity and the amount of mass defines how much effect that gravity has on other masses. Hence why we orbit the sun and the moon orbits the earth.

As for convention, regardless of our, or some other alien race's, convention to define a truth, the truth exists. I know we're on the verge of speculating about quantum mechanics and if an observation changes the outcome (which, IMHO, is total BS...but that's a totally different thread); realistically, mathematics is the purest form, even the language or blueprint, of the universe. Just because we happened to have figured it out doesn't mean it doesn't exist outside of our symbolic definition.

So again, I state, 1+1 = 2 is an absolute truth. Not the symbols, the underlying sentiment of the universe.

big constant or relatively constant? heh. what about two objects of indescriminant size? what about another universe? does absolute truth apply to other universes? in another universe, there may not be gravity, but the 2 things and 2 things will be 4 things, in their conceptual frame work, as in ours. no, gravity is not an absolute truth, unless you add a qualifier behind it like you did.


Yeah? Prove it. I dare you.

i read enough books in my philosophy classes to know that isn't productive to prove existence to others.