Posted: Feb 22, 2012 10:49 pm
by Nicko
rainbow wrote:
chairman bill wrote:
Oh dear. Is it not obvious?

No.
If you were obvious, there'd be no need for you to state it.


There is no need to explain it to a person who is prepared to parse the statement themselves. Since you are apparently not, I'll have a go:

Even if there is no universal truth, that fact itself would constitute a universal truth.

The cosmos is as it is. If it was different, it wouldn't be the same as it is now.

That says nothing. You have no way of telling if it is the same from all points of reference.


If the universe were different from different points of reference, that itself would constitute a universal truth about the universe.

If the speed of light is the fastest speed in the cosmos, it's the fastest speed. That would be an absolute truth. If the fastest speed something could move was faster than the speed of light, that would be an absolute truth. We think we know that the fastest a thing can move is at the speed of light, but we might be wrong. Our state of knowledge doesn't negate the fact of there being an absolute cosmic state regarding speed, even if the truth is that there is no upper speed at which something can move.

How can there be an absolute speed, and no upper speed?


That is not what Bill is saying, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to suppose that you could be honestly confused about it.

If there is an absolute upper speed, then that fact would constitute a universal truth whether or not we knew what that speed was.

If there is no absolute upper speed then that fact would constitute a universal truth even if we were under the impression that there was an absolute upper speed.