Depending on your definition of "absolute" proof,
math proofs may be absolute, for they make only specific claims which proceed from relationships between precisely defined terms -- in fact, all the universe's math logics could be as circular --as far as I know
-- or are you saying nothing can ever be absolute? Math, by can be absolute because it only makes limited claims.
A definition is an absolute. Yes, definitions
are conditional. Absolutes can be conditional
-- in fact must be conditional. . . or we would be talking about undifferentiated mush.
Therefore, an "absolute" is a sub-unit of relationships and relativity -- according to the definition I'm living with.

• corrected post - carefuluniverse - November 14, 2001 - 15:05 UTC
  • Physics orientation - yanniru - November 15, 2001 - 14:45 UTC
    • I don't agree with you at all about that - carefuluniverse - November 15, 2001 - 21:04 UTC
      • All there is, is what/ WHO, there IS - dolphin - November 16, 2001 - 09:59 UTC
        • obviously you have escaped being a journalist - carefuluniverse - November 17, 2001 - 05:18 UTC
          • Good point - dolphin - November 17, 2001 - 06:10 UTC
            • When do they reduce -- does relativity make time 'immaterial?' - carefuluniverse - November 17, 2001 - 21:50 UTC
              • Creator creates you WHO is - dolphin - November 20, 2001 - 07:50 UTC
• Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein, and Harry Potter - carefuluniverse - November 21, 2001 - 20:32 UTC