Defining Truth: The Broken Clock Analogy

[Antone]

I'd like to present an analogy that I think illustrates how TRUTH should be defined--then I'd like to get feedback on my comment, as well as on how other people believe TRUTH should be defined. So, here goes:

The Broken Clock Analogy
Consider the following saying:

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

To most of us it seems pretty obvious that a working clock, even if it does not keep very accurate time, is still a lot more accurate than a broken clock with hands that don’t move at all. But ironically, this is only true when you look at the world in relative terms. In a strictly absolute world—one in which there is only [true] or [false] and nothing else is possible—saying, “Something is very close to being right,” is just another way of saying, “It’s wrong.”

In such an absolute world, it is either [ten o’clock] or it is [not ten o’clock]. And the clock is either [accurate] or it is [not accurate]. There are no subtle distinctions between these two extremes. Thus, in the strictest absolute sense, it doesn't matter if the clock is [1/10,000 of a second] off true time or [six hours] off true time. Neither time is [absolutely ten o’clock] so neither time is [absolutely accurate]. Furthermore, since there are only two choices—[right] or [wrong]—[working] or [not working]—there aren’t any choices that can be understood as [more right] or [more wrong] than another.
Ironically, when we understand truth in such a strictly absolute way, a broken clock is [right] more often than any working clock could ever be, even if the working clock keeps exceptionally good time. In fact, the better a clock keeps time the less often it will typically experience [absolutely accurate time].

For example, if the hands do not move at all, the clock experiences absolute accuracy once every 12 hours, as the correct time passes through the position of the clock’s hands. If the clock’s hands move exactly one hour every day, (meaning that it is a little better at keeping time) then the clock experiences moments of absolute accuracy approximately once every 12 1/2 hours. If the clock’s hands move 12 hours every day then the clock experiences absolute accuracy about once every 24 hours. And if the clock’s hands move 22 hours every day the clock experiences absolute accuracy about once every six days.
I won’t try to figure times for anything more accurate, but from what we’ve already looked at we can see a distinct pattern: the closer the clock comes to keeping [absolutely accurate time] the longer the [period of time between moments of absolute accuracy]. Or in other words, the more the clock becomes [relatively right] the less often it experiences being [absolutely right].

No matter where the hands have stopped, a broken clock experiences absolute accuracy twice a day, every day. These moments of accuracy may be infinitely short in duration, but they none the less occur twice each and every day. The only time a clock that is [slightly slow] or [slightly fast] is absolutely accurate is that [rare occasion when the hands pass through the correct time before once again being inaccurate on the opposite side], and since this is most likely to occur shortly after the clock has been reset, it stands to reason that the more accurately a clock keeps time the less often it will need to be reset.

The Compound Nature of Truth
The Analogy of the Broken Clock has two reciprocal aspects at work—the absolute nature of a given thing, and the relative nature of a given thing.

In this case, the reciprocal aspects are used to define the accuracy of a clock, but we can also use these same reciprocal aspects to define the truth of a statement, such as the following:

(AC)... This clock keeps accurate time.

It is not possible to simply say “(AC) is [true]” or “(AC) is [false]”, for which truth value is assigned to (AC) is entirely determined by how we interpret the statement.

If the statement is meant to reflect the following proposition:

(AAC)... This clock keeps absolutely accurate time.

Then no matter what clock we’re talking about, the statement will invariably be [false].

Even the most accurate clock in the world is only capable of keeping time that is accurate to within certain parameters. It may only loose [1/1,000,000] of a second every 10 billion years, but that is not absolutely accurate—and so it is not accurate enough to make proposition (AAC) absolutely true. Thinking in the strictest absolute terms makes the [idea of an accurate clock] entirely meaningless—no such thing can physically exist—and so by extension, proposition (AAC) is necessarily trivial. It will always be false.

We can use the same basic logic to deduce that virtually any statement about any physical object will always be (in some way) slightly less than absolutely true.

We encounter a similar (if reciprocal) problem when we think in strictly relative terms—and this is true regardless of whether or not we restrict our answer to bi-valent values, such as [true or false]. For example, if we insist on a [true] or [false] answer, then the proposition:

(RAC)... This clock keeps relatively accurate time.

Is true for every clock, since even [a clock with hands that don’t move] occasionally reflects the correct time—and thus expresses some relative degree of accuracy. The measure of truth may be extremely small, but even an [infinitesimally small measure of truth] means there is a [relative measure of truth]. In fact, as we saw earlier, there is at least one sense in which the broken clock is more accurate than a working clock. For any given clock scenario, there is at least some sense in which the clock can be said to keep some [relative degree of accurate time]. And so, once again, our answer becomes trivial. It will invariably be [true], in some possible sense, for every clock we encounter.

Turning it into a Question: One possible way of trying to work around this problem is to turn (AAC) and (RAC) into a relative question, such as:

(QAC)... How accurately does this clock keep time?

Now, we can give a relatively accurate answer for each specific clock we encounter. For instance we might say, “clock [x] is accurate to within 1.341 second per week,” or “clock [y] is accurate to within 1 minute and seven seconds every ten years.”

The problem with this strategy is that we haven’t actually solved anything—we’ve simply delayed the resolution by moving the problem to a new location. Instead of making a [determination of truth] about a [statement], we’re making a [statement] about which a [determination of truth needs to be made]. So once again, we’re faced with virtually the same problem as before. If we think in strictly absolute terms, the answer to (QAC) will always be [false], since the answer can no more be absolutely accurate than a [clock can be absolutely accurate]. And, if we think in strictly relative terms, the answer will always be [false], since every answer will have at least some small amount of truth, no matter how far it is from being [absolutely true].

We can try to hide this recursive problem in successive layers of camouflage, but these vicious circles will never lead us away from the original problem regardless of whether we think in [absolute] or [relative] terms; or how deeply we bury it in successive layers.

Harnessing the Vicious Circles of Reality
Fortunately, we can rise out of this quagmire by using each reciprocal property to define the other.

For example, when a stranger asks, “what time is it?” I might reply, “It is exactly twelve o’clock.” Intuitively, I know that (in the strictest sense) it is not possible for my answer to be [absolutely true]. But I know that in all probability my watch is keeping reasonably accurate time—because I know that I have not forgotten to wind it.

Given this assumption, I might ask myself the relative question, “How accurately is my watch keeping time.” My answer, of course, will only be relatively accurate—but it will be close enough for practical purposes, for I know my watch is typically accurate to within approximately [30 seconds per month]. Since I’ve recently adjusted the time (using a more accurate clock), I have every reason to assume that, at the very worst, my watch is (in a strictly absolute sense) accurate to within less than 45 seconds of true-time; and since it takes me less than [15 seconds] to say, “It is exactly twelve o’clock” I can assume (with a very high degree of confidence) that my [statement about the time] is [accurate to within 60 seconds].

Now, I have a quantifiable way of defining the precise nature of my statement. Since there are 1440 minutes in a 24 hour period, and the watch is apparently accurate to within one of those minutes, I can say that the watch has an error potential of less than [1 in 1440]. I can convert this error potential to the decimal [.0006944]. Now, if [0.000…] stand for absolute accuracy and [1.000…] stand for absolute inaccuracy, then the approximate value [.0006944] obviously stands for a very high degree of relative accuracy. Clearly, my watch is much, much closer to being [absolutely accurate] than it is to being [absolutely inaccurate].

Thus, (without being trivial) I have a way to evaluate in a relatively-absolute sense the truth of the statement, “It is exactly twelve o’clock.” And I can honestly say that the statement is absolutely true, because I have redefined (in a distinctly [relative] way) exactly what it means to be absolutely accurate.

Using the [relative aspect] to define the [absolute aspect] in this way is a tremendous advantage because:

1. It allows us to break the chain of triviality that is necessarily inevitable in all [strictly relative] or [strictly absolute] patterns of thinking, and
2. Because it produces a reasonably accurate way to assign weighted, relative values to the various factors that we must use to make our decisions.

By defining TRUTH using reciprocal aspects, we can avoid the difficulties inherent in either aspect alone.

[Keith Russell]

Sure, if you change what "absolutely true" means, you can define "absolutely true" any way you like.

(You may not be able to convince others to agree with you, quite as readily, however!)

Further, although a stopped clock is right twice a day, you can't know when the two times occur, without a clock that is working correctly.

[Antone]

Sure, if you change what "absolutely true" means, you can define "absolutely true" any way you like.

I'm not sure what this refers to or what you're trying to say. Please expand your comments into a coherent argument.

I think it's pretty obvious that there is not "change" involved in the way I've defined "absolutely true". I've defined it in the common sense way that is the only meaningful way it can be defined.

If you disagree, please give an actual counter-argument.

Further, although a stopped clock is right twice a day, you can't know when the two times occur, without a clock that is working correctly.

The fact of whether or not the clock expresses the right time does not depend on whether or not someone knows when those times are. So while your comments are certainly true, it has no bearing on my arguments at all. For this reason, it seems to me like a somewhat frivolous comment.

Again, if you believe otherwise, please explain why it should not be considered a throwaway comment of no meaning or importance.

[Keith Russell]

I think it's pretty obvious that there is not "change" involved in the way I've defined "absolutely true". I've defined it in the common sense way that is the only meaningful way it can be defined.

Well, what is "absolutely true" about "noon"? "Noon" can be defined to mean "the time when the sun is directly overhead", but the sun isn't directly overhead at the same time throughout a single time-zone.

So, even when the sun is directly overhead, a completely accurate clock might not report the time as "noon".

Clocks aren't used to tell the "absolute truth" about what time it is, they're used to allow people to schedule events with relative synchronicity. (And, events can be scheduled with a very high degree of accuracy, without needing to be "absolutely" precise--as you've defined "absolutely true".)

The fact of whether or not the clock expresses the right time does not depend on whether or not someone knows when those times are. So while your comments are certainly true, it has no bearing on my arguments at all. For this reason, it seems to me like a somewhat frivolous comment.

It wasn't a "throwaway comment" because, again, you posite an "either/or" mentality whereby one can only choose between either a "stopped clock" or "absolutely true" time.

A working (but hardly "absolutely precise") clock is extremely useful; it can point out (again, with relative accuracy) when that stopped clock is (coincidentally) correct.

We don't need "absolute truth" to manage quite well...

[Antone]

Well, what is "absolutely true" about "noon"? "Noon" can be defined to mean "the time when the sun is directly overhead", but the sun isn't directly overhead at the same time throughout a single time-zone.

So, even when the sun is directly overhead, a completely accurate clock might not report the time as "noon".

Clearly, 'Noon' in not an absolutely accurate term. Nor is it a time on a clock. Unless you define 'noon' as 12 daylight. Then there is an absolute way of deciding when noon is. Even then, there is the problem of deciding who decides what the 'absolute' time is. Even the 'official' time, is only an imprecise approximation of [absolute time]. And any translation of that approximation to another clock increases the approximation significantly, due to the lag time in speaking the time and getting it fixed in the second watch etc.

None of this, however, suggests that there isn't a theoretical "absolute time" which the clock with stopped hands sits on for two infinitesimally brief instances every day.

So again, what is your point?

Clocks aren't used to tell the "absolute truth" about what time it is...

Well duh... In a way, you might say that's one of the essential points of the whole analogy I presented.

So again, what is your point?

It wasn't a "throwaway comment" because, again, you posit an "either/or" mentality whereby one can only choose between either a "stopped clock" or "absolutely true" time.

You know, I'm inclined to wonder if you're trying to be humorous, or if you really are as oblivious to the point of the analogy as you seem to be.

It seems to me that what you are implying that I was saying is about 180 degrees in the opposite direction of anything that I actually did say.

First of all, I was not positing an "either/or" mentality of any kind. I was pointing out why a person should avoid such a silly perspective.

Secondly, if you're going to suggest that I was suggesting any kind of "either/or" mentality then the division would most certainly NOT be between a 'broken clock' and 'absolute time'. It would be between [absolute time] and [relative time].

The whole point of the analogy is to show that both types of time are not only valid perspectives but that both are absolutely necessary if we are to turn time into any sort of meaningful concept. The [relative aspect of time] defines the [absolute aspect] and vice versa. In this way, we can break the vicious cycle that makes [relative truth] also a [relative falsehood], and turns [absolute truth] into something which is necessarily either [unknowable] or [trivial].

A working (but hardly "absolutely precise") clock is extremely useful; it can point out (again, with relative accuracy) when that stopped clock is (coincidentally) correct.

Again, Duh! Nothing here worth saying, or commenting on. And certainly nothing that appears to be about my Broken Clock Analogy in any meaningful way.

[Keith Russell]

Clearly, 'Noon' in not an absolutely accurate term. Nor is it a time on a clock. Unless you define 'noon' as 12 daylight. Then there is an absolute way of deciding when noon is.

Well, what would that "way" be?

Even then, there is the problem of deciding who decides what the 'absolute' time is. Even the 'official' time, is only an imprecise approximation of [absolute time].

Well, which is it? You've claimed that there is a way to decide when noon is. You've done nothing to show that this is so.

And any translation of that approximation to another clock increases the approximation significantly, due to the lag time in speaking the time and getting it fixed in the second watch etc.

None of this, however, suggests that there isn't a theoretical "absolute time" which the clock with stopped hands sits on for two infinitesimally brief instances every day.

Actually that is precisely what it suggests. The earth doesnt stop moving, so there is no "brief instance" when it is (present tense) noon.

Further, by the time I realize that it might actually be "noon", it's over, since it takes a measure of time for the information to pass from my eyes to my brain, and be processed into awareness.

Clocks aren't used to tell the "absolute truth" about what time it is...

Well duh... In a way, you might say that's one of the essential points of the whole analogy I presented.

No, not at all. The point you presented is that there is an absolute measure of "noon", and a way for us to know precisely when that "absolute noon" occurs.

You also repeated that claim, in this, our most recent exchange.

I believe that there is an "ideal" of noon, that roughly corresponds to something that actually occurs between the position of observer on earth and the earth's relation to the sun. But that "ideal" is only an absolute as a concept, not as an actual/absolute entity in reality.

It wasn't a "throwaway comment" because, again, you posit an "either/or" mentality whereby one can only choose between either a "stopped clock" or "absolutely true" time.

You know, I'm inclined to wonder if you're trying to be humorous, or if you really are as oblivious to the point of the analogy as you seem to be.

Then, perhaps you've either been unable to present your actual point clearly, or you want to have it both ways, and have contradicted yourself (perhaps more than once.)

First of all, I was not positing an "either/or" mentality of any kind. I was pointing out why a person should avoid such a silly perspective.

Then why all the references to "absolutes"? If you're arguing that "noon" (or any measure of time, or any attempt to measure anything in reality) cannot be measured with "absolute" precision, but only with (at best) an extremely accurate, but nonetheless relative precision, this seems 1) rather obvious, and 2) rather pedestrian.

If, rather than being an idealist, your argument is with idealists, I think you're going about it the wrong way.

Secondly, if you're going to suggest that I was suggesting any kind of "either/or" mentality then the division would most certainly NOT be between a 'broken clock' and 'absolute time'. It would be between [absolute time] and [relative time].

I think it's clear that even that division is a mistake. Time is quite relative...

The whole point of the analogy is to show that both types of time are not only valid perspectives but that both are absolutely necessary if we are to turn time into any sort of meaningful concept.

I disagree, but you've shifted your argument away from "absolute time" to a "concept" of a "perspective of absolute time"--and the two are very different. "Absolute time" only exists as an ideal, as a concept, and I remain unconvinced that it is "absolutely necessary" in order to have a "meaningful concept" of time...

The [relative aspect of time] defines the [absolute aspect] and vice versa.

This is an unsupported claim, you know.

In this way--

In what way? You'r claiming that this is so, and you're claiming that this is "the way", but you've not shown either to be the case.

--we can break the vicious cycle that makes [relative truth] also a [relative falsehood], and turns [absolute truth] into something which is necessarily either [unknowable] or [trivial].

[Antone]

Well, what would that "way" be?

12 daylight didn't give you a hint? Well, okay, I'll spell it out.

The instant that the [clock which we are using to define absolute time]reaches [12:00:00.000...] and it's daylight time, then we have [absolute noon].

Obviously, any actual clock which we were using as our "unit of measure" would have a FINITE number of decimal places. So it would NOT be capable--even theoretically--Of representing 'absolute time' on its face... that is why we must specify that [absolute noon] is the very instant--that timeless fraction of time--when the clock turns over from [11:59:59.999...]. Obviously, again, it happens so fast that we cannot meaningfully observe this occurrence, even if we're sitting there watching the clock as it happens.

We can also do away with the actual physical clock... and imagine a purely theoretical clock... (this time, notice the use of the key word: theoretical) which, because it's an imaginary object, is capable of having an infinite number of decimal places and which we can also freeze, so that we can observe a given time.

When this clock shows [12:00:00.000...] with all of its infinite decimal places reading [0]... then it is showing [absolute noon].

Even then, there is the problem of deciding who decides what the 'absolute' time is. Even the 'official' time, is only an imprecise approximation of [absolute time].

Well, which is it? You've claimed that there is a way to decide when noon is. You've done nothing to show that this is so.

I've claimed that we can define when [absolute noon] is. I haven't said that we can decide [which moment in a particular day] is [absolute noon]. Absolute noon happens too quickly to be able to identify, so obviously we can't arbitrarily decide which of the infinitely many moments of time around it are [absolute noon]. Such an idea is absurd.

In addition, each person who defines [absolute noon] is likely to define it somewhat differently. For Instance, the U.S. standard is a clock which is kept on some military base. Other countries use their own clocks. So each one is ever so slightly different.

I can perform the same function by looking at my wrist watch. And for the purposes of my little mental exercise, [absolute noon] becomes the instant that my watch turns from [11:59:59] to [12:00:00]. My watch doesn't have any decimal places, but my relative definition of [absolute noon]is still the instant that it turns over. Within the framework, of whatever mental experiment I'm carrying out, it doesn't even matter if my watch is several minutes different from the official US standard, because [absolute time] is a concept--it's literally impossible that it could be anything else, so perhaps I kind of assumed too much that this went without saying.

We can also go the other way, and conceptualize a theoretical standard that is more universal... One way we might do this is by choosing an arbitrary instant in time... (say the birth of Christ) and an arbitrary unit of time (say a second) and define a day in an arbitrary way (say a day is 24 units of 60 minutes which are each 60 seconds long) then we can add up (conceptually, of course) all the seconds that have occurred since the birth of Christ, and [absolute noon] is every time the day cycles back to the same point which we have designated as [12 noon]. Since all the defining parameters are arbitrary, it really doesn't make make a whole lot of difference when that moment is, as long as it doesn't conflict with our broader definition that [noon] is when the sun is highest in the sky.

There are numerous ways to define [absolute noon]. All of them are equally valid, because they are all concepts that accurately define with infinite precision, what someone means when they specify [absolute noon]. The only important thing to understand, is that the definition (whatever it is) must give INFINITE PRECISION.

But even here, we are often limited by the necessity of defining absolutes using relatives and vice versa, for example, how do we define the moment of Christ's birth. Is that when his head shows? Is that when his feet are out? Is that when they cut the Fallopian tube? And as for the physical clocks which are used as standards for [absolute time], even the most accurate of them are only accurate to a few tenths of a second every million years or so. So again, each second that passes is not an 'absolutely identical' unit, and the differences accumulate over long periods of time. So again, we are defining [absolutes] using things that are relative.

There are also other methods, which we can use to determine a physically real definition for [absolute noon].

For instance, we can average the position of the sun over the course of the year and use the averages to pin-point the exact moment when the sun is closest to being exactly overhead for the largest number of days. This provides uis with an actual, physical time.

The problem is that while we can define this time, we cannot know when it occurs. And if we move even a fraction of an inch in any direction, that exact time will change ever so slightly. So again, we have no way of knowing when the moment actually occurs--and we are again stuck with defining the [absolute] using [relative factors].

This is basically the same idea as the Uncertainty Principle. Just as we can look at sub-atomic particles as either a particle or a wave, but we can do both at the same time, because the more we know about one, the less we know about the other. In the same way, we can look at [absolute noon] as a concept or as a physical entity. But if we think of it in purely physical terms we know very little about it conceptually. And if we think about it in purely conceptual terms we know very little about it physically.

Again, that's the whole point. We use the physical aspect to define the conceptual and the conceptual to define the physical. Or, in other words, we use the relative to define the absolute, and vice versa.

I believe that there is an "ideal" of noon, that roughly corresponds to something that actually occurs ... But that "ideal" is only an absolute as a concept, not as an actual/absolute entity in reality.

Yes, this would be a pretty good description of [absolute noon], much as I've said.

Then why all the references to "absolutes"?

It occurs to me that you may be having difficulty with the fact that I described a person saying “It is exactly twelve o’clock.” And maybe you somehow got the impression that this means they are telling us when [absolute noon] is occurring.

This, of course, is not the case at all. The person can say it is "exactly" noon because they have defined what it means to be "exact" in relative terms. We have not located [absolute noon] we have redefined the true concept of [absolute noon] into a relative term that turns it into something that is distinctly "not absolute". This relative definition allows us to say when "exactly noon" is, because we are no longer dealing with the absolute concept of noon. The [absolute noon] concept lies somewhere at the center of this new relative concept [exactly noon]. By making sure that our definition allows for enough error to cover any possible mistakes, we can be very nearly absolutely certain that our definition of [exactly noon] is correct.

I'm not certain, but this may be where confusion is coming into our discussion.

If you're arguing that "noon" (or any measure of time, or any attempt to measure anything in reality) cannot be measured with "absolute" precision, but only with (at best) an extremely accurate, but nonetheless relative precision, this seems 1) rather obvious, and 2) rather pedestrian.

I can't disagree entirely. The basic ideas behind what I'm saying seem pretty obvious and trivial to me too. I would never have bothered writing them down if any well-known philosopher had ever bothered to accurately expressed them.

Still, the extremely obvious nature of the ideas leaves me a bit puzzled when people seem to have so much difficulty understanding the basic of the principles when I explain them.

But the point is to show how we can make sense out of things that in every other -ism lead directly to non-sense of some kind or another.

If ... your argument is with idealists...

My argument is not with idealists in particular, it is with every other -ism that exist... in general. They all choose a perspective and try to make the world fit into that single point of view.

My strategy is to use all perspectives. Using one perspective to define the other, and vice versa.

We define [exactly noon] by using the relative perspective to cushion [absolute noon] in its center. And we use [absolute times] to define the relative perspective, as well. After all, if we had no way of defining when [absolute noon] occurs, there would be no way of determining if a relative time was before or after that theoretical moment, and so there would be no way to define [exactly noon] in relative terms. Both perspectives are essential to avoid the problems of inaccuracy, unknowability and triviality.

Again, that is the whole point of the Broken Clock Analogy.

[Keith Russell]

Well, what would that "way" be?

12 daylight didn't give you a hint?

No.

Well, okay, I'll spell it out.

Good idea.

The instant that the [clock which we are using to define absolute time]reaches [12:00:00.000...] and it's daylight time, then we have [absolute noon].

You're kidding, right?

What if the clock is displays "12:00.00.000" at an hour after sunrise? It's still daylight--but it's nowhere near "noon".

Shouldn't the sun be close to overhead, before we claim that it's "noon"? (And, that still depends on the time zone. If we're at the "edge" of the zone, an accurate clock could display "noon", but the sun might be several degrees from zenith...

Obviously, any actual clock which we were using as our "unit of measure" would have a FINITE number of decimal places. So it would NOT be capable--even theoretically--Of representing 'absolute time' on its face... that is why we must specify that [absolute noon] is the very instant--that timeless fraction of time--when the clock turns over from [11:59:59.999...]. Obviously, again, it happens so fast that we cannot meaningfully observe this occurrence, even if we're sitting there watching the clock as it happens.

Yes...

We can also do away with the actual physical clock... and imagine a purely theoretical clock... (this time, notice the use of the key word: theoretical) which, because it's an imaginary object, is capable of having an infinite number of decimal places and which we can also freeze, so that we can observe a given time.

I would argue that, being imaginary, it still cannot actually have an "infinite number" of anything. Our minds are finite, after all...

When this clock shows [12:00:00.000...] with all of its infinite decimal places reading [0]... then it is showing [absolute noon].

Without any consideration of the position of the sun relative to the observer on earth, the above statement is not nearly good (accurate) enough.

Even then, there is the problem of deciding who decides what the 'absolute' time is. Even the 'official' time, is only an imprecise approximation of [absolute time].

Well, which is it? You've claimed that there is a way to decide when noon is. You've done nothing to show that this is so.

I've claimed that we can define when [absolute noon] is. I haven't said that we can decide [which moment in a particular day] is [absolute noon].

Then we can't really define "when" noon is, can we?

Absolute noon happens too quickly to be able to identify, so obviously we can't arbitrarily decide which of the infinitely many moments of time around it are [absolute noon]. Such an idea is absurd.

Yes...

In addition, each person who defines [absolute noon] is likely to define it somewhat differently. For Instance, the U.S. standard is a clock which is kept on some military base. Other countries use their own clocks. So each one is ever so slightly different.

You're far too hung up on clocks. "Noon" has a meaning completely unrelated to clocks...

I can perform the same function by looking at my wrist watch. And for the purposes of my little mental exercise, [absolute noon] becomes the instant that my watch turns from [11:59:59] to [12:00:00].

Again, not if it dispalys "11:59:59" an hour before sunset! (Also, your watch probably displays "11:59:59" twice per day, but "noon" only occurs once.)

My watch doesn't have any decimal places, but my relative definition of [absolute noon]is still the instant that it turns over. Within the framework, of whatever mental experiment I'm carrying out, it doesn't even matter if my watch is several minutes different from the official US standard, because [absolute time] is a concept--it's literally impossible that it could be anything else, so perhaps I kind of assumed too much that this went without saying.

Yes...

We can also go the other way, and conceptualize a theoretical standard that is more universal... One way we might do this is by choosing an arbitrary instant in time... (say the birth of Christ) and an arbitrary unit of time (say a second) and define a day in an arbitrary way (say a day is 24 units of 60 minutes which are each 60 seconds long) then we can add up (conceptually, of course) all the seconds that have occurred since the birth of Christ, and [absolute noon] is every time the day cycles back to the same point which we have designated as [12 noon].

If you don't relate this to the movements of the earth relative to the sun, you're eventually going to end up with time having no relation to daylight--something you continually forget.

"Noon" is (as a basic starting-point) when the sun is directly overhead, adjusted for the size of the various time-zones.

Since all the defining parameters are arbitrary, it really doesn't make make a whole lot of difference when that moment is, as long as it doesn't conflict with our broader definition that [noon] is when the sun is highest in the sky.

But, it's going to. Once we factor in the time-zones, the sun might not be anywhere near zenith, and we could still have our clocks set to "noon"...

There are numerous ways to define [absolute noon]. All of them are equally valid, because they are all concepts that accurately define with infinite precision, what someone means when they specify [absolute noon]. The only important thing to understand, is that the definition (whatever it is) must give INFINITE PRECISION.

Nonsense. I got along fine in kindergarten with no notion of "infinite precision", and I still made it home for lunch "on time"...

But even here, we are often limited by the necessity of defining absolutes using relatives and vice versa, for example, how do we define the moment of Christ's birth.

Given the fact that Christ is a syncretic myth based on earlier, similar myths, well, goodl luck!

Is that when his head shows? Is that when his feet are out? Is that when they cut the Fallopian tube? And as for the physical clocks which are used as standards for [absolute time], even the most accurate of them are only accurate to a few tenths of a second every million years or so. So again, each second that passes is not an 'absolutely identical' unit, and the differences accumulate over long periods of time. So again, we are defining [absolutes] using things that are relative.

No, we're defining things which are ideal, based on actual things (which are relative.)

There are also other methods, which we can use to determine a physically real definition for [absolute noon].

For instance, we can average the position of the sun over the course of the year and use the averages to pin-point the exact moment when the sun is closest to being exactly overhead for the largest number of days. This provides uis with an actual, physical time.

The problem is that while we can define this time, we cannot know when it occurs. And if we move even a fraction of an inch in any direction, that exact time will change ever so slightly. So again, we have no way of knowing when the moment actually occurs--and we are again stuck with defining the [absolute] using [relative factors].

Honestly, it's NOT that we can't define the exact moment the sun is at zenith. It's that the moment is so brief, and human beings need not be nearly so accurate!

Again, I can schedule a lunch meeting for "noon", and folks who have wind-up Timex watches can still arrive on time. "Absolute precision" is not necessary for human beings to function in most everyday situations.

And, when we need to synchronize the workings of machines, the extreme accuracy of our machines is usually enough, even though (by your defintions) those machines are not nearly precise enough.

This is basically the same idea as the Uncertainty Principle. Just as we can look at sub-atomic particles as either a particle or a wave, but we can do both at the same time, because the more we know about one, the less we know about the other.

That's debatable...

In the same way, we can look at [absolute noon] as a concept or as a physical entity. But if we think of it in purely physical terms we know very little about it conceptually. And if we think about it in purely conceptual terms we know very little about it physically.

Dude, it's when the sun is directly overhead, offset by the size of whatever time-zone you're in.

Period.

Really, you're way overcomplicating this!

Again, that's the whole point. We use the physical aspect to define the conceptual and the conceptual to define the physical. Or, in other words, we use the relative to define the absolute, and vice versa.

It's only an ideal. We cannot perceive the absolute.

I believe that there is an "ideal" of noon, that roughly corresponds to something that actually occurs ... But that "ideal" is only an absolute as a concept, not as an actual/absolute entity in reality.

Yes, this would be a pretty good description of [absolute noon], much as I've said.

Then why all the references to "absolutes"?

It occurs to me that you may be having difficulty with the fact that I described a person saying “It is exactly twelve o’clock.” And maybe you somehow got the impression that this means they are telling us when [absolute noon] is occurring.

I think you're having difficulty with the fact that, for the most part, "close enough" is good enough.

This, of course, is not the case at all. The person can say it is "exactly" noon because they have defined what it means to be "exact" in relative terms. We have not located [absolute noon] we have redefined the true concept of [absolute noon] into a relative term that turns it into something that is distinctly "not absolute". This relative definition allows us to say when "exactly noon" is, because we are no longer dealing with the absolute concept of noon. The [absolute noon] concept lies somewhere at the center of this new relative concept [exactly noon]. By making sure that our definition allows for enough error to cover any possible mistakes, we can be very nearly absolutely certain that our definition of [exactly noon] is correct.

Well, at this point you might as well drop any pretense of "absolute noon", 'cause (as you're just agreed), for the most part, it really doesn't matter. If someone is meeting me for lunch, and he's parking his car at "noon", and he walks into the restaurant at a minute and a half past "noon", he's not going to get into serious truoble for being "late"...

I'm not certain, but this may be where confusion is coming into our discussion.

If you're arguing that "noon" (or any measure of time, or any attempt to measure anything in reality) cannot be measured with "absolute" precision, but only with (at best) an extremely accurate, but nonetheless relative precision, this seems 1) rather obvious, and 2) rather pedestrian.

I can't disagree entirely. The basic ideas behind what I'm saying seem pretty obvious and trivial to me too. I would never have bothered writing them down if any well-known philosopher had ever bothered to accurately expressed them.

Well known? To whom?

Still, the extremely obvious nature of the ideas leaves me a bit puzzled when people seem to have so much difficulty understanding the basic of the principles when I explain them.

That's 'cause you were very hung up on the notion of "absolute noon", until I showed you that human beings don't usually need "absolutes" to function quite well...

But the point is to show how we can make sense out of things that in every other -ism lead directly to non-sense of some kind or another.

You just said that no well-known philosopher has dealt with this, now you claim that "every other -ism" that has dealt with it ends up mired in nonsense. One of us is confused...

If ... your argument is with idealists...

My argument is not with idealists in particular, it is with every other -ism that exist... in general. They all choose a perspective and try to make the world fit into that single point of view.

My strategy is to use all perspectives. Using one perspective to define the other, and vice versa.

Hmmm.

We define [exactly noon] by using the relative perspective to cushion [absolute noon] in its center. And we use [absolute times] to define the relative perspective, as well. After all, if we had no way of defining when [absolute noon] occurs--

But, the definition doesn't have to be nearly as precise as you're trying to make it. Knowing that it's noon "when the sun is directly overhead" is good enough for most situations, certainly good enough to set a cheap watch and (if you keep it wound) will get you to your meetings on time for at least the next couple of weeks.

--there would be no way of determining if a relative time was before or after that theoretical moment--

Sure there would be. Look up, and see what the sun has done since the last time you looked.

--and so there would be no way to define [exactly noon] in relative terms. Both perspectives are essential to avoid the problems of inaccuracy, unknowability and triviality.

I don't think you're avoided them at all...

Again, that is the whole point of the Broken Clock Analogy.

Hmmm.

[Antone]

What if the clock is displays "12:00.00.000" at an hour after sunrise? It's still daylight--but it's nowhere near "noon".

If that's how you define [noon], then obviously it is [noon].

Suggesting otherwise is a bit like saying, "What if what we're calling a man isn't really a man?" The problem with this argument is that: if you define something as a [man] then for you it is a [man]. If you choose to define [noon] in such a way that it is an [hour after sunrise], then for you that's when [noon] is.

Shouldn't the sun be close to overhead, before we claim that it's "noon"?

Obviously, if you want your definition of [noon] to be compatible with others definition of [noon] then it should bear a close resemblance to how they define it. And clearly, one hour after sunrise is not compatible. Which is why your counter argument isn't valid.

I would argue that, being imaginary, it still cannot actually have an "infinite number" of anything. Our minds are finite, after all...

I disagree.
Can your mind grasp the notion of what it would mean for something to continue on, without ever ending? Can it grasp the idea, that for any actual decimal number, no matter how long, another decimal place can be added to it?

If so, then (intuitively at least) you understand the concept of infinity, and you can grasp the concept of what it would mean for a clock to have an infinite number of decimals.

You don't need to grasp all the individual decimals. That's part of what makes it a concept instead of something actual. To understand the idea of an apple, you don't have to have a first-hand experience or understanding of every possible apple that can exist. All you have to understand is the intuitive principles behind what makes something [apple] and what makes it [not apple]. Once this is understood, we can recognize any apple we encounter as being an apple. And because we can do this, it also implies that we understand the nature of all the apples that we never encounter.

In a similar way, we can never encounter something that is infinite--but that doesn't mean we can't understand what it means for something to be infinite.

Then we can't really define "when" noon is, can we?

Why not?
You keep claiming that I haven't shown you anything to suggest my point of view, but you have shown me far less to support yours.

If we can't define when [noon] is then we can't define what a [man] is either. We can't define what the [sun] is, or what a [clock] is... Nothing can ever be defined, and so we aren't really talking here, are we? But if that's true, what are we doing? This is one of those necessary absurdities that my way of thinking is designed to prevent. For if you can't define things, then there can't be any meanings. And this is just stupidity, since we know that there are meanings.

Our goal is to figure out how this slippery sense of meanings can co-exist with the fact that there are states-of-being which are devoid of meaning.

"Noon" has a meaning completely unrelated to clocks...

[Noon] means whatever you want it to mean. However you define [noon], that's what [noon] is. The same is true for every other word. If we define [eclipse] as the moon hiding part of the sun, then that's what it is. If we define it as a type of car, then that's what it is.

Similarly, if I chose to define [noon] in terms of a clock, then that's what [noon] is for me. If I decide to define it in some other way, that works too. We are, however, dealing with [absolute noon] as opposed to [relative noon] and clocks offer a very simple way to delineate an [absolute instant of time].

Again, not if it dispalys "11:59:59" an hour before sunset!

You're repeating yourself, without saying anything. Or without making any attempt to use common sense, it would appear.

Obviously, I set my watch so that it approximates the time when we understand noon to be. Your argument that I haven't spelled this out in infinitely fine detail every time I describe the exact same process is a bit asinine, if you ask me.

I set my watch so that it matches to noon with relative accuracy... then, for me, whatever time I've set my clock to, that becomes [absolute noon] for me, with respect to this clock. Come on... it's really not that difficult to fill in the obvious details, is it?

If you don't relate this to the movements of the earth relative to the sun, you're eventually going to end up with time having no relation to daylight--something you continually forget.

No, I didn't forget. [Noon] has no relationship to daylight unless that's the way you define it.

There is one point (which is overly nit-picky, as most your comments seem to be) which is that if a person wants [noon] to correspond to the idea of being when the sun is highest in the sky, (and thus tied to daylight) they have to give the day the correct number of hours, minutes and seconds. And we all know that this isn't 24:60:60--which is why we have to adjust our clocks every so often.

So yes, in order to define [absolute noon] in this way, and have it maintain it's connection to "sun highest in sky" we would have to specify the exact length of the day with infinite precision. This means that the day we have specified is also necessarily a concept that cannot be actualized--just as [absolute noon] is a concept that can never be entirely actualized.

We can shift which aspect of the [absolute definition] that we chose to actualize, but part of the definition will always necessarily be a concept, which is defined by relative parameters.

"Noon" is (as a basic starting-point) when the sun is directly overhead, adjusted for the size of the various time-zones.

This is one way to define [noon], but it also implies that [absolute noon] changes every time you move. And for the same infinitely small spot, it also changes every day of the year and every year as well.

I got along fine in kindergarten with no notion of "infinite precision", and I still made it home for lunch "on time"...

Nonsense. You made it home in [relative time] for dinner. Absolute time was no-where involved in this scenario--except in the fact that you used it to define when the [relative time] for dinner was.

You had a watch, perhaps. Or you looked at clocks. Or your teachers did, and they told you, etc. Each time you encountered one of these scenarios, you recalibrated your definition of [absolute noon] to this new scenario--and because they all shared a relative sense of agreement, you were able to use them effectively to gauge when you needed to be home in order to make your [relative dinner appointment].

Notice, that every [absolute time] is also "relative" in the sense that each person and each scenario creates a new and different [absolute time] definition. Again, this is exactly as one should predict, given my supposition that all things are defined in terms of both [relative] and [absolute] aspects.

No, we're defining things which are ideal, based on actual things (which are relative.)

You can choose to apply different terms to my definitions if you choose to, it's a free country, as they say.

Honestly, it's NOT that we can't define the exact moment the sun is at zenith. It's that the moment is so brief, and human beings need not be nearly so accurate!

What's the point?

Obviously, there is no way to make practical use of anything that is [absolute]. I certainly have never made such an absurd suggestion. I have merely said that we use these [absolutes] to help define our [relative terms].

We use [relative aspects] to define these [absolutes] and then we use these [absolutes] to define [relative terms] and so forth.

There is an [unknowable absolute] that is (for any spot during any given day] the moment when the sun is at its highest spot in the sky. This is rarely (if ever) exactly 12:00 noon on the clock, even during the summer.

Moreover, it is entirely impossible to pin-point when this [absolute moment] occurs. Factoring it mathematically for each location would take a very long time, even on a super-computer. And if we tried, the moment is still gone before we can recognize it.

Thus, we use relative parameters to turn this [unknowable absolute] into a [knowable absolute], which is relative to each person and each situation. We still can't pin-point this [knowable absolute] for various reasons, but it is more accessible to us that the [unknowable absolute was]. We can utilize it to make further relative assessments, which in turn are used to create new [absolute definitions]--and so forth and so on.

...the extreme accuracy of our machines is usually enough, even though (by your defintions) those machines are not nearly precise enough.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here... it does not accurately reflect anything that I have ever said.

That's debatable...

What's debatable? That there is an uncertainty principle? That it implies what I suggested it implies? That quantum physics is an acceptable scientific model?

Then why all the references to "absolutes"?

Because that's what I'm referring to: the idea the the absolute. The idea of [absolute noon] is obviously [absolute noon] how else would I refer to it.

Well, at this point you might as well drop any pretense of "absolute noon",

There are different senses of the term [absolute noon]... I will agree to that. And because of this, I can see how my comments could have been confusing for you.

[Exact noon] is one of those [knowable absolutes] that I mentioned above. It is not the [unknowable absolute] which is obviously ... well, unknowable. So in the sense of the physical aspect (which is the unknowable absolute) "exact noon" is not an absolute, just as I said. It is an absolute in the conceptual sense, however, because it is a [knowable absolute].

You just said that no well-known philosopher has dealt with this, now you claim that "every other -ism" that has dealt with it ends up mired in nonsense. One of us is confused...

Again, you prove your phenomenal skill at misunderstanding simple English.

What I said was:

...I would never have bothered writing them (i.e. the ideas in this post) down if any well-known philosopher had ever bothered to accurately expressed them... But the point (of writing these ideas down) is to show how we can make sense out of things that in every other -ism lead directly to non-sense of some kind or another.

This obviously implies--if you aren't intentionally trying to find meaningless things to nit-pick at--that the ideas being the Analogy of the Broken Clock discussion are idea that I came up with myself. They are not the ideas of any other philosopher that I am aware of. But these ideas deal with a certain class of problems that many philosophers have addressed--but none have chosen the same strategy for dealing with these problems that I have.

While I may not have perfectly expressed this idea, I think almost everyone with an IQ that isn't extremely marginal, should have been able to figure out what I was trying to say without any problem.

This seems to be a reoccurring trend. Your comments seem to be designed more to will meaningless "points" rather than to make any effort to understand what I'm trying to say or to engage in intelligent discussion of those ideas. This has, on many occasions, left me a little short tempered. And for that I apologize, but frankly, I don't think there's any good reason to continue this debate--if, given this last round of discussions, you still seem unable to grasp even the most basic principles behind what I'm saying.

It seems pretty obvious to me that we inhabit very different mental universes. And so I suggest that you find another thread which is more compatible with your mental universe.

I don't think I'll bother to respond to you further, although I may change my mind if you can offer something other than trivial repetition of the same meaningless complains, and nitpicking at sentence structure.

[Keith Russell]

First, if you believe that "noon means whatever one wants it to mean", then you have no business mentioning "absolutes" anywhere in your posts.

Second, if you don't understand what is wrong when you claim that it's obvious that "noon" means "twelve daylight", then you have no business in a philosophy forum.

Third, if you cannot understand why asking your opponent to forgive your numerous "simple mistakes", and to (what, magically?) understand what you meant, rather than what you actually wrote, then I have no business arguing with you.

I'm sorry I wasted your time. I don't expect you to apologize for wasting mine.

[Antone]

First, if you believe that "noon means whatever one wants it to mean", then you have no business mentioning "absolutes" anywhere in your posts.

You apparently still fail to grasp the notion that I'm describing reciprocal aspects here. And, I would argue that you may also misunderstand what I'm referring to as an 'absolute'. As you suggest in your second complaint below, there are no hard and fast rules in philosophy. An "absolute" doesn't only mean what you want it to mean and nothing else. As far as I'm concerned, I have defined 'absolute' in a way that makes it make common-sense. However you define something, that is your absolute definition of it. This changes from one moment to the next, as your mind continually processes things. There is also, an absolute way things are--but we can say nothing significantly meaningful about that sort of absolute--and so (in most cases) there's no justification for assuming that should be the kind of absolute we have to be talking about--as you seem to be doing.

Second, if you don't understand what is wrong when you claim that it's obvious that "noon" means "twelve daylight", then you have no business in a philosophy forum.

Oh, so I suppose you're suggesting that it's reasonable to assume that I could have been suggesting noon was "twelve midnight" That doesn't make any sense. The only way you can make that make sense is if you aren't using your head for anything but a hair garden. It's not unreasonable to expect you to do a little commonsense reasoning along the way. We do this all the time in common every day speech as well as in philosophical conversations. And if you did that, quite a few of your criticisms would be discarded before you make them.

I'm sorry I wasted your time. I don't expect you to apologize for wasting mine.

No, I don't apologize and I don't think you needed to either. I am happy to discuss things with you if you're making a sincere effort to understand my position and engage in intelligent debate--and if you exhibit signs of being able to do so. As near as I can tell, one or the other of those qualities seems to be lacking from you--I'm not sure which. So I didn't think our discussion was being productive--that's all.

[Keith Russell]

As far as I'm concerned, I have defined 'absolute' in a way that makes it make common-sense. However you define something, that is your absolute definition of it. This changes from one moment to the next, as your mind continually processes things. There is also, an absolute way things are--but we can say nothing significantly meaningful about that sort of absolute--and so (in most cases) there's no justification for assuming that should be the kind of absolute we have to be talking about--as you seem to be doing.

Do you realize that the way you're using "absolute" is almost the exact opposite of the way most other people (esp. in philosophy) use the word--and that this will make it very easy for most people to completely misunderstand you?

It might be easier on you, to use "absolute" in the traditional way...

Oh, so I suppose you're suggesting that it's reasonable to assume that I could have been suggesting noon was "twelve midnight"

No, my point was that daylight often lasts for twelve or more hours. "Noon" occurs only at a specific time during "daylight hours". If my watch says it's noon, and I can see that the sun is shining, but have no idea where the sun is in the sky, there's no way to know for sure that my watch is "correct".

Again, the basic meaning of "noon" is when the sun is directly overhead, adjusted for whatever time zone one happens to be in...

It's not unreasonable to expect you to do a little commonsense reasoning along the way.

It's also not unreasonable to expect you to be able to say what you mean.

[Antone]

Do you realize that the way you're using "absolute" is almost the exact opposite of the way most other people (esp. in philosophy) use the word--and that this will make it very easy for most people to completely misunderstand you?

I disagree. But I encourage you to accurately define how you see the term [absolute], or how you believe others see it, if you wish to make some effort to support your claim.

I will start by excerpting quotes from the 4th Edition of Webster's New World College Dictionary:

absolute 1. Perfect, complete, whole 2. Not mixed; pure 5. not doubted; actual; real 6. not dependent on, or without reference to, anything else; not relative.

I believe the way I define "absolute" (or more accurately, different aspects of absolute) captures all of these definitions with perfect clarity.

In my mind, the only one of these four definitions that is in any way arguably not my way of defining [absolute] is (5). (5) is a pretty good summation of my definition of [absolute reality]--but that's only one part of what "absolute" entails, even in strictly technical philosophical jargon.

Now, the problem with [absolute reality]is that we can say virtually nothing meaningful about it. In fact, the closer we come to thinking of [x] in purely absolute terms, the less we can say that is meaningful about [x]. In fact, about all that we can say with absolute certainty about [x] is that "whatever it is, it is exactly what it is".

We can summarize this as:

x=x

This, however, is only a relative statement about [x], for it is only true if we define it in such a relative way that it is necessarily true. Why is that?

Well, this equation contains two distinctly different things: there is the [x on the left] and the [x on the right] side of the equal sign. Something on the left cannot be the same as something on the right--else, that would imply that something can necessarily be in two physical places at the same time, which is intuitively absurd. Thus, common sense tells us that these are two different things. We can only make them the same by creating a conceptual definition, which ignores the difference between them, and treats these relatively similar things as if they were actually absolutely the same. But in reality, they are not--cannot be the same.

In a literal sense, then, we cannot even state what it is that we absolutely know, without relying on a relative definition. And even that relative definition still tells us nothing about what [x] actually is.

The more "accurately" we define what [x] is--so that we can understand [what it means to be x]--the more we must rely on [relative definitions]. And these relative definitions are decidedly not [absolute x]. They are merely [conceptualizations of x].

The other three definitions, (1, 2 and 6) are pretty good summations of the way I define the [conceptual absolute] aspect. For a [conceptual definition] to be "absolute" it must be sated in such a way that it perfectly captures the meaning of the [absolute reality] being defined.

This is something that is arguably possible, but (at best) extremely rare. [x=x] is probably the best example we have of an accurately expressed [absolute concept]. In a sense, this means that [absolute concepts] are unobtainable ideals. We can never actualize a perfect [absolute concept]--for as we saw, even [x=x] is only able to be absolute because it is so extremely vague.

This goes back to my comments about the uncertainty principle. The more absolute something is, the more vague it must be to be actualized. Anything that is 100% absolute must be 100% vague.

To see how this works in more detail, consider the following definition:

circle: An enclose arc that is equidistant from the center at all points.

This may seem like a fairly accurate definition of [circle] but, in fact, it is not accurate at all. No circle that has ever been drawn fulfills this definition with perfect accuracy. If a child draws a slightly squiggly line that (in absolute terms) only vaguely resembles an enclosed arc, anyone who sees it will recognized the picture as a "circle".

We can change the term, and call it a [geometric circle]... this is the [absolute concept], but it is something that cannot be actualized in any physical way. Still, we use this [absolute concept] to help us determine if something that has been drawn is a "circle". And we do this, by determining how closely the actual physical object which HAS been draw resembles the unobtainable idea which is the [absolute circle].

In other words, we use the "absolute idea" to define what in physical reality is only relative. The physically absolute reality is not a circle in any meaningful way--if fact, we cannot express what it is, because the only thing that can do that is an "absolutely perfect" replication of it--and that is impossible to reproduce. Only what was drawn is exactly what was drawn. We cannot accurately say what it is without relying on something that is relative and thus necessarily imprecise.

Thus, just as I have said,
we define the absolute in terms of the relative
and
we define the relative in terms of the absolute.

And all of this is entirely in keeping with our intuitive (plain English) understanding of what it means for something to be "absolute", for there is never any point at which what we are calling "absolute" is anything other than [absolutely precise]--It's just that at the later stages of the defining process, the [absolute concepts] become increasingly vague.

No, my point was that daylight often lasts for twelve or more hours. "Noon" occurs only at a specific time during "daylight hours". If my watch says it's noon, and I can see that the sun is shining, but have no idea where the sun is in the sky, there's no way to know for sure that my watch is "correct".

Fair enough, but I also think it should have been abundantly obvious that my point wasn't that any time that there is sunlight and a 12:00 appears on the clock it is necessarily "noon". For instance, it is sunny for months at a time at the pole, so this could fit 12:00 midnight as easily as 12:00 noon. Similarly, if I'm setting my watch and it passes through 12:00 that obviously doesn't mean I think it's noon.

As soon as I set my watch by some "unit of measure" that I think is reasonably accurate, however, my watch becomes the new "unit of measure" and so it becomes my new [absolute noon concept]. I have defined this "new absolute" using parameters that are more vague than the ones used to define the clock that I used to set my watch. And it is only a relatively accurate representation of that clock's time. So I defined my "new absolute" in relative terms. However, this "new absolute" is exactly what it is: which can be stated with relative accuracy as [12:00 on my clock when the sun is shining].

Notice that (for the same reasons as previously given) I still can not say when the clock physically actualizes this [absolute concept]--so the "new absolute" does not violate the intuitive meaning of [absolute] in any way. But I use this new [absolute measuring stick] because there is an absolute physical moment (even if I can't pin down when it occurs with absolute accuracy) when the clock strikes 12:00. And whenever that occurs, from my perspective, that is what defines when my [physically relative but conceptually absolute] "noon" occurs.

If 'noon' had to be some absolute time, then every time I said "It is exactly noon," (or anything similar to that) I would necessarily be lying. Not just because my clock isn't correctly set to the "absolute time" but because--as I said, by the time I said it, it's not [absolutely that time] any more.

What makes it possible for this statement to intuitively seem "true", instead of necessarily being a lie, is how I define the words I'm using, including: [noon], [exactly] [is] and [it]. If every single one of these words aren't defined in precisely the (arbitrary) way that they need to be defined in order to make the statement true, then the statement isn't true.

For instance, if "it" refers to my dog instead of the time, then the statement is false. If "is" refers to [equivalence] instead of [being], the statement is again false. If exactly means [absolutely exact] instead of [relatively exact]--implying that it is only correct within a fairly limited range of time--again it's false. And if [noon] means something other than (relatively speaking) "approximately the same time as the appearance of 12:00 (during sunlight on my clock" then again the statement is false.

The statement, however, is not false because: (1) I have set my clock using a reasonably reliable "measuring stick". (2) my watch has kept relatively reliable time in the past and I a reasonably sure it is still doing so. (3) the definitions I give to the words I am using are satisfied by my statement at about the same time that 12:00 appears on my clock. (4) I have given the statement at the appropriate time.

I am not speaking falsely, just because (unbeknown to me) one of the first three necessary conditions has not been meet. I am only lying if I intentionally violate one of these necessary conditions--or if (4) fails to correspond to (3).

[Keith Russell]

Antone, I think you're investing a great deal more effort than this subject requires.

Most people understand that when you ask for the time, and someone glances at their watch and states, "It's noon", that the actual time could be anywhere between 11:56AM and 12:05PM (give or take another minute or two).

(And, the fact that "absolute noon" actually fell between the time when the person spoke the syllables "it's" and "noon", isn't going to matter--at all--in most everyday, human situations.)

If extreme precision is needed, we have methods for synchronizing clocks, and using digital/mechanical triggers that are far more accurate than human operators could ever be.

Most people are not going to feel a need to call someone a liar, who says, "I'll meet you at the restaurant at 'noon'", but shows up at 12:03PM--

--and it really doesn't need to be any more complicated than this!

[Antone]

...Most people understand ... that the actual time could be anywhere between 11:56AM and 12:05PM ... isn't going to matter--at all--in most everyday, human situations.)

You're being redundant again.

What you're saying is essentially: "If I wasn't discussing this with philosophical vigor, there wouldn't be any point discussing it with such philosophical vigor."

True, and trivial. It adds nothing to the discussion. It didn't add anything the first time you said it.