Well, the thing is, there *could be* absolutes. But discernment isn’t always so simple.
For example, if you hold to an absoluteness of True and False, you’ve just replaced one supernatural thing for another, artifacts of Platonism as expressed via Aristotle: definer of Western Civ, but even as expressed as far in the future as Aquinas, he STILL held to Platonic idealism, as did 500+ years of Philosophers and thinkers since in the West for the most part.
This doesn’t invalidate them. That’s the point – what’s to invalidate?
Some people put Logic as foundational. But it’s not.
Some people put mathematics as foundation. But it’s not.
Differences-between is what keeps everything from being the same. Most differences between things are minor, which is why analogies and metaphors work so well. Some differences are much larger, in such cases it is harder to find analogies/metaphors.
But there’s always some sense that one can make one between any word pairs – if nothing else, that they ARE word pairs, but usually one can do a little better than that.
Point is: It’s not that there’s necessarily no absolutes but as long as we have to put conditionals in place to keep the absolutes in place, they’re not absolutes.
e) then, for a few years, I think I went from the assumption that mathematics is modeling and the modeling is performed by and for human use and our machines and works for us at our scale
i tried very hard to meet mathematical platonism half way:
“i’m attempting to justify a form of mathematical platonism from a computational perspective.
its not easy for me because i don’t believe in the platonic realm per se
but i think i can meet it half way”
my conclusion so far:
I accept time. what flows forth will necessarily have a time or event-change basis. our need to find abstract structures is an artifact of how our brain simplifies information. we can’t handle the uniqueness of all things.
but thankfully, when there are “groups of”, new affordances emerge so new configurations and possibilities occur.