We agree on most things except on the terms relative and absolute. How strange that we should disagree precisely on those terms! This is the proof that the meaning of these terms is relative to our mental states and that our frame of reference must be different!
OK let's agree at least that our terminology should be consistent with Einstein's. For example when Einstein says that length is a relative quantity he means that two observers occupying inertial frames of reference in motion relative to each other perceive the length of an object differently. On the other hand, such observers perceive a charge as an absolute quantity because in spite of their motion, the charge of an object appears identical to both observers. A third person in yet another frame of reference would perceive the charge exactly the same as those first two obsevers. Hence length is relative and dependent on the observer's frame of reference, and charge is absolute and independent on the observer's frame of reference. In the context of relativity, first person = subjective = relative and third person = objective = absolute.
I agree. I mean I see your point. It means I should better avoid the use of the term "relative" and "absolute". Perhaps there is some duality hidden here. I cannot a priori decide to be consistent with Einstein, giving that he does not really tackle the subjectivity, but at least I see why you don't want to classify the subjective as absolute. I did it, (but will no more do that), due to the (generally accepted) incorrigibility of the knower. I should have use "incorrigible" instead of absolute.
Now let's move on to a Q-suicide experiment that parallels Einstein's scenario: two observers occupy different frames of reference because their continuing existence is differently contingent on a particular event (such as winning a lottery ticket). They perceive this particular event differently. As length in Einstein's relativity, this event is relative to the observers: its value or occurence depends on the observers' frame of reference. On the other hand, another event such as the movement of the moon, that has no effect or an equal effect on the life of these observers, is perceived to be absolute: like charge in relativity, the value of this event is the same for both observers or for a hypothetical third person.
Are you ready for some definition? (We can abandon for a while the "absolute"/"relative" opposite view giving that we agree on the 1/3 distinction and on the subjective/objective opposition, and that's what counts in the interview of the Universal Machine (and its Godelian "Guardian Angel").
I still wish to resolve our disagreement of the terms relative and absolute because it may indicates some roadblocks in narrowing the gap.
I don't think there are roadblock; at least to see how does "my theory" (the platonist UTM's theory) work.
Remember, you begin with an absolute formulation
Yes. In your sense. (Don't hesitate to recall me I must swap the definition!).
but end up with a relative one
Not really. The whole things belongs to the third person discourse. Unless you mean I end up to the doctor and say "yes" for an artificial digital brain.
and I argued that you had no justification for starting with the third person (absolute?) formulation. My goal was to (help you?) achieve the ultimate relativization.
At first I thought that an "ultimate" relativization should be somehow absolute, but then I rememeber your relativity-theory inspired definition of "absolute", ok then. And thanks for the help. You make me realize that the words "relative" and "absolute" are again words used in opposite sense by logicians and physicists. We should one day write a logic/physics dictionnary:
Where logicians say: physicists say:
model theory
theory model
absolute relative
relative absolute
...
However, yes I am ready for some definitions. :-)
Asap. I need to make drawings with my MAC at home, and then put it in my web page with my PC in my office. More easy to say than to do ;-)
Bruno
