Talk:Absolute truth

I am intrigued by this statement: 'It is worth remembering that we do not live in Euclidean space. We live in space-time.'

I guess there is some intended reference to Einstein, to Relativity, to theoretical physics, and to that degree, I'm hip. But is it actually coherent to say that 'we do not live in Euclidean space'? That would be three-dimensional space. I think actually, I live in Euclidean space, the moon above me, etc. So I wonder what, actually, you take yourself to mean, here.

Round Squares exist

A boring, rule-abiding, and lame person who is also portly. I'm using other definitions for the same words. However, that does mean that it is not always true in all places to say "there are no round squares".

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" Do I Seriously Have To Explain This (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

We don't live in Euclidean space

In physics, We could only say "we live in Euclidean space" if everything is at rest. Granted, when speeds are small, the effects are unnoticeably small. Even when speeds are high on a human scale, effects would take sophisticated instruments to measure. But real space is relativistic. You can't represent cosmic space as Euclidean without introducing distortions. Since this article is about "Absolute truth" it is inappropriate that is should use false statements in its description.

Along the same lines, a circle is not by definition "round", even in Euclidean geometry. It is defined as a co-planer set of points equidistant from a center. In taxicab geometry, that shape is square. An obscure and minor point, perhaps, but again, the article is called absolute truth. Bob3141592 (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)