[eternomi]

I am having difficulty defining the limits of what's relative and what's absolute.

On one hand, there is the idea that everything you see/experience is an outward projection of your inward world. The inward world is your beliefs. Not just any random thought that you entertain, but the thoughts you take as the truth and turn into beliefs inside your mind.

On the other hand, there is science which is interested in natural phenomenon that are observable by anyone, and the effects of which are reproducible by anyone, anywhere at will.

So the question is the following: Are scientific facts basically artificial limits that we impose upon ourselves only because they are observed by many? That seems to be true for many things. If you look at the progression of scientific and technological developments, we continually push the limits and redefine what is possible and what is not.

But then there are other issues which seem to be more absolute than relative. For example, our bodies seemingly need food and air. Certain chemicals are harmful to our bodies such as alcohol, cigarettes, certain drugs, corbon monoxide, etc. For example, you could be exposed to an odorless poisonous gas and your body will cease to function whether you were aware that you were exposed to poisonous gas or not.

So then, where is the line between the absolute and the relative? Perhaps there is no absolutes in the most general sense, but the way we are constructed imposes certain limitations? Any thoughts, comments?