I've been thinking about it, wouldn't the truth of "I" existing be only absolutely true to that "I". You may truly exist, but you only truly exist relative to yourself. On the outside looking in you could be a figment of my imagination, a computer program, a dream, a illusion, a creation of an all inclusive bi-cameral mind, a false memory even. Although, I guess the experience of you would still exist; I just couldn't tell what that experience is. So perhaps whether or not another exists, or anything really, is the same thing as weather or not "I" exists. However if the other is just a mental creation of my unconsciousness, a false memory, a dream etc it isn't something which can experience rather it is an experience. So we can not say for sure if others exist. we can only say the experience of them exists. It seems the only thing that could be said to be for sure is our personal raw unannotated experience, yet this experience is only experienced though one reference point making it some type of absolute yet relative truth.

your "argument" assumes they know the absolute truth. Its also not really an argument. Do you have anything to back up your position?

speed is a change in position, a change of your coordinate points.

Math is like a story. It may be true that a character in a story did something, but is that story true? Are these two different types of true? Can we ever really have a circle in reality?

water could be nothing more then "signals" sent to our "brain" by some type of "machine" in a difficult to imagine universe where everything is fundamental(except the universe) and not made of other things. I'm thinking the signals being some type of field force or something. Alternatively the concept of "something" may be a incorrect model of the universe and maybe the idea of fields, connections etc are more accurate.

I like the idea of truth being an adjective. your correct, if there is absolute truth we may not and probably do not know it. If there is always uncertainty about what might be true, can we really say that there is something absolutely true and not relative/dependent on something? At best we could say, there might be absolute truth; not that there is correct?

hmm... This is difficult to counter. What if thought, is thought from something besides ourselves which we can so intimately experience it is hard for us to perceive the difference between ourselves and that experience. Maybe the thoughts we have do not originate from us.

yea, they are different laws. They just seem similar and related to me, and the law of non-contradiction is more familiar so some how my brain replaced one for the other.

In your example of the helicopter, both the car and helicopter can be said to observe 0 horizontal ground speed, but vertically it will either seem like they are being lowered to the ground, or that the ground is coming up to them.

hmm, if the rate of moment = 0, is it moving?

Perhaps Moment is best described not as a property of an object, but a relationship between two points; maybe we could leave all of these questions about weather something is or isn't, by not considering things as objects; but as some type of relationship. Mass can be conceived as a resistance to force, shape can be conceived as the relationship among particles and outside forces, color as a double relationship between a "thing", photons, and our eyes etc. If we turn every property into a relationship though, what is left that is being related? All the universe would become nothing but relationships, and objects would be where enough relations come together in such a way to form one. I try to view this model of reality as a web, with each relationship being a strand of web, and where those strands connect being "objects".

I looked that up real fast, it seems funny. Why it can't go in a comedy section, if a school library has a comedy section, is beyond me. Yea it has cuss words in it, etc. Why shelter our kids from that? Its not like their using them behind our backs already...[sarcasm]

The school could just say that it doesn't provide any educational benefit, except in rare cases, and thus resources should be spent on other books.

Those would all be excellent ideas for a child to disagree with; kids are impressionable but not that way; their parents, society, and culture would all point them against those things. There is a reason why the bible is still popular...

Knowing how to make one is going to help disarm one. There are positive ways to handle any curiosity which might come about by reading a book on bomb making; like having the school's chemistry teacher drop some sodium in a lake or have the city/military bomb squad visit the school. Curiosity is more often a positive thing then negative. If "channeled" improperly curiosity can lead to issues, its a powerful and dangerous thing, but its something that should be encourage. Banning a book is only going to make kids more curious about it, and it'll attain a "forbidden fruit" appeal, and it will increase the likely hood a child will keep his interest secret and thus exercise his curiosity without supervision.

If you do not know it, then how do you know it exists? There is always truth, but what kind of truth is there? absolute, relative or both?