The absolute truths that if you remove everything "human-ish" from them, everything phenomenalogical etc they still apply also in universe . — dimosthenis9
Try to remove the "human-ish" from that. — Ciceronianus
Humans are as much a part of the universe as everything else. How's that for an "absolute truth"? — Ciceronianus
I just object to the notion that humans aren't part of the universe, — Ciceronianus
the belief that we can't really know the universe (sometimes referred to as "the external world"), and so can't really know what's really true about the universe. — Ciceronianus
From the physical to the ethical to the metaphysical in scope ... philosophical realism.(A) Total entropy of closed systems (e.g. post-planck era universe) cannot decrease. Corollary: local order is a transient phase-state (i.e. aspect) of global disorder.
(B) Every mind is nonmind-dependent and is, therefore, radically contingent (e.g. entropic). See Ciceronianus below.
(C) Gratuitious suffering is an objective moral fact.
(D) There are no unchangeable (i.e. non-contingent) facts, neither ourselves nor the universe itself.
:fire:Humans are as much a part of the universe as everything else. How's that for an "absolute truth"? Try to remove the "human-ish" from that. — Ciceronianus
This sounds like a request for things about which there cannot be doubt, which leaves me with nothing.I would like to hear the facts/things/ideas/rules(name it whatever you want) that you think that apply in universe/cosmos and that we (as humans) can be sure about them. — dimosthenis9
If they're yours, then they're not absolute.Mine are :
This suggests you have different definitions of 'universe' and 'cosmos' that you feel the need to say both these things.they still apply also in universe .They are also true for the function of cosmos also.
If it's not true in a different universe, then it hardly qualifies as an absolute truth, no? I see 180 has listed some things that seem true in this universe.This is what I mean by absolute truths.
What does this mean? I can think of countless things that are not, so again, you're using a definition that hasn't been given.Everything is united.
Einstein's relativity theory suggests that time isn't something that is in motion, so this assertion is certainly subject to reasonable doubt.Everything is in motion.
Totally agree. Humans (via said sensory input mentioned above) put the 'the' into 'the universe', without which it would just be 'a universe'.Humans are as much a part of the universe as everything else. — Ciceronianus
They are all contradictions between the concept of “absolute” and the dependence from us. — Angelo Cannata
you wrote in the title “absolute”, but then you wrote “that you think”: if they are things that we think, then they depend on our thinking, so they are not absolute. — Angelo Cannata
if they are yours, they are depending on you, so they are not absolute — Angelo Cannata
“their universal truths” is like an oxymoron: “their” means depending on them, “universal truths” means not depending on them. — Angelo Cannata
The question you put is just an impossible question — Angelo Cannata
By "absolute truths" I understand irrational – contradictory – to doubt or deny. — 180 Proof
In short, it seems that, when you say “absolute”, you actually mean something like “absolute, but not too much”, “absolute, but not too absolute, not absolutely absolute” — Angelo Cannata
I think they actually have not been able to answer the question: all things mentioned in the answers as absolute things aren’t absolute at all. — Angelo Cannata
n short, it seems that, when you say “absolute”, you actually mean something like “absolute, but not too much”, “absolute, but not too absolute, not absolutely absolute” :smile: . That’s fine, it just needed to be clarified. — Angelo Cannata
So I m really curious to see what others think as their universal truths. — dimosthenis9
If they're yours, then they're not absolute. — noAxioms
This suggests you have different definitions of 'universe' and 'cosmos' that you feel the need to say both these things. — noAxioms
If it's not true in a different universe, then it hardly qualifies as an absolute truth, no? I see 180 has listed some things that seem true in this universe. — noAxioms
What does this mean? I can think of countless things that are not, so again, you're using a definition that hasn't been given. — noAxioms
Einstein's relativity theory suggests that time isn't something that is in motion, so this assertion is certainly subject to reasonable doubt. — noAxioms
My view is that 'truth' is the product of human cognition and imagination; — Tom Storm
, I generally hold that methodological naturalism is our most reliable pathway to useful knowledge.
8mReplyOptions — Tom Storm
It’s not pedantry, it is just philosophy. In philosophy the word “absolute” means really “absolute”, does not mean “approximately absolute — Angelo Cannata
The word absolute was combined with the word "Your" BEFORE it — dimosthenis9
Whats pedantic is focusing on the word “absolute” — DingoJones
Whats pedantic is focusing on the word “absolute” instead of the clear intention of the OP. — DingoJones
Its just as obvious thats not how the OP was using the term, even offering examples to further clarify. — DingoJones
But at the end all that universe must function in a specific way right? I mean despite human concept of "truth", it has to work in a certain way, no? And If we ever figure it out it would be the absolute truth. You get what I mean? — dimosthenis9
↪Angelo Cannata You're missing the forest for the trees (thus "pedantic"). — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.