Absolutely opposed to Absolutism

The widely held philosophy of Absolutism is impossible for a fully rational agent to believe (sic). Truly it's detractions have recently formed a trend towards it's diametric alternate, that of relativism. As we shall see absolutism works on medium-term calculations utilizing medium-term measurements. However as our collective capabilities progress relativism seems to be emerging as the superior view to take.

Nowhere is this argument more potent than in the field of physics. The Newtonian concept of space as an absolute reference frame that exists independent of the bodies it contains survived for over 200 years. The Einsteinian dual theories of relativism only bested the absolutist philosophy at the limits of modern accuracies for measurement.

Absolute zero is a defined value for a thermal minimum, however nothing has actually been measured to be at absolute zero. How then have we defined it as such? Given a sample of a gas, if you hold pressure constant and plot temp vs volume, it'll make the straight line. If you extrapolate line to a volume of zero the temperature hits at around -273K. I'm unsure how it has been ruled out that there is not another phase transition below that of solid.

No philosophy should therefore be said to be more correct than any other, but rather: that it is more useful. Utility seems to follow relativistic trends as well in that the best theory is only known to be "false" when compared to it's successor. The difficulty with using empirical evidence to validate scientific theories is that, according to the recurrant philosophical theme of the supersensible world (embodied by Plato's Cave allegory) our percepts are at best useful illusions.

No comments: