You said, "Truth and knowledge are not absolutes,"

Let us take a basic premise that either of us could separately observe: you can only turn a nut on a bolt in one of two directions without changing or damaging threads and cannot turn the same nut in both directions at the same time on the threads.

Please explain how the knowledge and truth of the above information is not absolute.

@Word It is absolute with respect to the context of the turning of nuts on threaded bolts. But nuts and bolts are human things with specific meanings that are arbitrarily assigned. I might define eleven plus two to be thirteen, and within my system that is absolutely true. However, on a clock eleven plus two is one.

In our human model we know what nuts and bolts are, but from a higher perspective it is not so clear. Things like nuts and bolts exist only as modes of thought. According to the ideas of quantum gravity theory, time does not exist and particles of matter are not things but events. From that perspective the turning of a nut on a bolt is a meaningless concept. That is why I think that truth is relative to the context.

@WilliamFleming

#1 "nuts and bolts are human things with specific meanings that are arbitrarily assigned"
#2 "According to the ideas of quantum gravity theory, time does not exist"
#3"From that perspective the turning of a nut on a bolt is a meaningless concept. "

I don't know why I numbered those, must of just been an arbitrary thought.

My point of thought was, nuts and bolts you can touch, taste, see, hear, smell.

You are putting theory as being.... do you understand what a theory is?

Theory means something is not absolutely known. If a theory were to be fully proven or verified, it is no longer a theory it is scientific certainty, or absolute.

So this theory says time does not exist you say. Think about that for just one second and tell me if that theory is absolutely wrong. I thought for one second and determined that for at least one second time does exist.

Maybe I should find a bolt that is 2 foot long and an inch in diameter, then beat it up side of my head. Theoretically, time does not exist. So, it is not absolutely known that time doesn't exist but it theoretically should be true?

@Word Trouble is than the meaning of “exist” is not clear. You are correct that to survive in this world we have to act accordingly to human concepts—that is our reality. I’m just not comfortable saying that those concepts are “true” in an absolute sense. There is an ultimate reality beyond, and for me that ultimate reality is a dazzling mystery.

@WilliamFleming exist defined as #1 have objective reality or being.

Are you being? Do you absolutely know wheither or not you are currently being?

#2 live, especially under adverse condition.

Are you LIVE? Are you under adverse conditions?

How is that not clear to you?

@Word I seem to have life and conscious awareness but I have no idea of what my experience means There is a reality of some sort but the basis of that reality is shrouded in deep mystery.

Many eminent scientists have speculated that reality is mental in character, and that consciousness is primary in nature. They speak of universal consciousness.

On an intuitive level I am very much attracted to the idea of universal consciousness.

@WilliamFleming At what point does matter develop cognition or is something of cognition with or intrinsic in matter that as matter it has some form or quantity of cognition?

You say,"Many eminent scientists have speculated that reality is mental in character, and that consciousness is primary[first] in nature." This sounds biblical.

John 1:1 In the beginning (primary,first?) The logos was with "..." and was "...". John 1:14 ...the logos become flesh.

People are in flesh made of matter

John 10:34 ...you are "...". *referring to people

Logos in original greek was about "word, thought, principle, or speech". This to me is what active cognition is about that does not in and of itself have a state of matter. Yet cognition, words, thoughts are transmitted by ways of physical properties of matter.

consciousness:
the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
the awareness or perception of something by a person.
the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.

Does a light wave crossing the galaxy know it is a light wave and know that it is traveling at the speed of light? Or, is it that cognition capability is traveling with the physics of the light?

@Word I wish I understood it better. Here’s one article that talks about universal consciousness:

[ecstadelic.net]

You appear to be correct at least in part. I am pasting below a copy of my discussion on morality and how it would appear to work. When I had made my original discussion some had said, "... draw their morality from Science" and I said, "Science is the study of nature. People do learn things from observation of nature."

Either way, let's better analyze and make observation of the common definition of morality and then could discuss further how relativity may or may not be related.

Copied from other discussion:
Morality in part (as explained below) is dependent upon rules/laws imposed upon someone and their ability or lack of ability to follow those rules/laws. The issue about this part of morality is that rules/laws can be arbitrary.
arbitrary
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
"his mealtimes were entirely arbitrary"

(of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.
"arbitrary rule by King and bishops has been made impossible"

With rules/laws being arbitrary this means that the fact of non-sense laws can affect the apparent morality level that a person has. I could argue that the traffic laws of a stop sign requiring a complete and total stop is at times not so hard set necessary for a driver given some situations. However, in view of such a law, the law itself does not care if the stop sign is out in the country 20 miles from any other stop sign and only 5 cars a day drive down the road. A local farmer living near the stop sign and not coming to a total complete stop ever time makes for the farmer to have technically a lower level of morality because the farmer "rolls" thru the stop sign because he can see for miles either way to know that no cars are crossing the intersection.

You say, "Richard Dawkins says that some people believe that they draw their morality from Science and some say you cannot draw morality form science."

Morality is defined as principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Principle is defined as a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning. www.lexico.com

Moral comes from the Latin word mores, for habits. The moral of a story is supposed to teach you how to be a better person. If moral is used as an adjective, it means good, or ethical. If you have a strong moral character, you are a good member of society. If someone is a cheat and a liar, you might say, "She is not a moral person." [vocabulary.com]

Moral/morality is viewing the actions, activity, habits, etc. of a person and then comparing those to 2 different things.

1. First, those things are compared to standards, rules, or laws that establishes 'RIGHTS AND WRONGS".

Example: The rules says: no chewing bubble gum while walking. Sue was seen chewing bubble gum while walking. Sue violated the rule. Sue would have low morals in view of the rule of "no chewing bubble gum while walking".

OR

2. Second, those things are compared to good and bad (evil).

Example: Sue walked while chewing bubble gum. While walking works out leg muscles it does not specifically work out facial muscles. Chewing gum gave the added benifit (good) for Sue to get her facial muscles worked out while walking. No one was harmed(suffered an evil) by the fact that Sue chewed bubble gum while walking. Sue would have high morals( good health habit) for chewing bubble gum while walking.

Sue was immoral for violation of the rule but was moral in view of a health benefit.

etymology moral(adj):
mid-14c., "associated with or characterized by right behavior," also "associated with or concerning conduct or moral principles" (good or bad), from Old French moral (14c.) and directly from Latin moralis "proper behavior of a person in society," literally "pertaining to manners," coined by Cicero ("De Fato," II.i) to translate Greek ethikos (see ethics) from Latin mos (genitive moris) "one's disposition," in plural, "mores, customs, manners, morals," a word of uncertain origin. Perhaps sharing a PIE root with English mood (n.1).

From late 14c. as "of or pertaining to rules of right conduct" (opposed to non-moral, amoral) and "morally good, in accordance with rules of right conduct" (opposed to immoral). Of persons, "habitually conforming to moral rules," 1630s. From 1680s with reference to rights, duties, etc., "founded on morality" (opposed to legal).

Applied to indirect effect in moral support (1823), moral victory (1888), where the notion is "pertaining to or affecting the character or conduct" (as distinguished from the intellectual or physical nature), a sense attested from 1590s; in this sense, compare morale. Related: Morally.

moral(noun):
"moral exposition of a story, the doctrine inculcated by a fable or fiction, the practical lesson which anything is designed to teach," c. 1500, from moral (adj.) and from French moral and Medieval Latin moralia. In this sense, morality was used from late 14c. The earlier noun use of moral was "a commandment pertaining to morals."

[etymonline.com]

You say, "But since no one has a final answer, we may still all be corrected, or moved closer to the point of perfection by anyone."

We have the final answer but it may not be yet fully understand by all, nonetheless we have it.

What is truth? Defined simply: the quality or state of being true. If something is not true, it would be false, incorrect or a lie(depending on context).

True synonymous with correct synonymous with standard synonymous with good. The opposites of those then forms synonymous with bad/evil.

"Good" is a qualitative word among other usages. Good as viewed as for being a minimum standard of quality, usability or repeatable likeness. What would be below the standard, bad(evil).

The knowledge of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil has been around for a long time. Its complexity can be cause for a lack of interest in the details.

@Word No but that is not true. True and false are not alway complete or unmixed, there are few absolutes in the real world of humans .

I have a bucket with two pints of milk in it.

Statements:
He has a container with between one and three pints in it.
He has a container with between one and a half, and two and a half pints in it.

He has a container with liquid in it.
He has a bucket with white liquid in it.

He has a bucket with a liquid which is not water in it.
He has a bucket with a liquid which is both water and fats in it.

He does not have a cardboard box.
He has a rounded container which is not cardboard.

He has something that a calf would like.
He has something that a hungry calf would like to drink.

And so on.
None of the statements are untrue, but none of them tell you the exact truth about what I have, but in each pair the second statement is more accurate, and this is just a simple thing like a bucket of milk.

@Fernapple statement is true, but doesn't mean it had to be the all inclusive of all details. Omitted details does not make false, just not complete information.

@Word Quite that's my point.