1 Something's goin on.
2 It feels like it could be better. Sometimes it feels like it should be better.

The absolute truths that if you remove everything "human-ish" from them, everything phenomenalogical etc they still apply also in universe . — dimosthenis9

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.

Try to remove the "human-ish" from that. — Ciceronianus

No need.

Humans are as much a part of the universe as everything else. How's that for an "absolute truth"? — Ciceronianus

It surely counts.

So let's say remove as much human-ish as we can.Since you object that nothing that human thinks can really be totally out of human and I agree.

I just object to the notion that humans aren't part of the universe, i.e. that we're apart from it in some sense. It's a view which I think fosters, among other things, 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.

I just object to the notion that humans aren't part of the universe, — Ciceronianus

But nothing like that was mentioned in the OP. I see people as indeed part of the universe.

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

Well no, we can't really know exactly how the external world is.Only what senses tell us. And neither what is really true about the universe and what its actual form is.
But we can know and discover more and more things about the nature/external world/universe which appears to us. And by that way to make better guesses about the universal function and to expand our knowledge.

But that's a different discussion.i don't want to focus on phenomena/noumena problem here. Even with the knowledge that we humans can achieve about the external world via science, the things that we can actually be sure about universe isn't much at all. And I want to know what are some of these things that others take for granted about universe/cosmos.

Your question is a mixture of contradictions that make impossible any answer. They are all contradictions between the concept of “absolute” and the dependence from us.
Let’s point out them:
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. Absolute means not depending on anything or anybody.
All the same, you wrote “mine are”: if they are yours, they are depending on you, so they are not absolute.
“their universal truths” is like an oxymoron: “their” means depending on them, “universal truths” means not depending on them.
“What you think as indisputable fact” contains the same contradiction: if anybody thinks of anything, that thing is automatically disputable, because it depends on the person who thought of it. Anything depending on somebody is disputable, because it is automatically biased by their perspective.

The question you put is just an impossible question, like asking us to give you an example of frozen fire or of something eternal that doesn’t exist anymore.

:chin: By "your absolute truths" I understand statements which I find irrational – even contradictory – to doubt or deny are true. Here's what comes to mind:

(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.

From the physical to the ethical to the metaphysical in scope ... philosophical realism.

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

:fire:

How do you figure other people were able to answer the question and have dialogue about it if its like impossible to answer?
Be less pedantic and try reading it again.

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.

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

This sounds like a request for things about which there cannot be doubt, which leaves me with nothing.
One of my base axioms is that my sensory input is not a lie. If it was, then no knowledge of anything can be had, and there'd be no point in pondering anything. So I presume this despite the complete lack of any way to demonstrate it. I don't think my statement meets your criteria.

Mine are :

If they're yours, then they're not absolute.

they still apply also in universe .They are also true for the function of cosmos also.

This suggests you have different definitions of 'universe' and 'cosmos' that you feel the need to say both these things.

This is what I mean by absolute truths.

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.

Everything is united.

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 in motion.

Einstein's relativity theory suggests that time isn't something that is in motion, so this assertion is certainly subject to reasonable doubt.

Humans are as much a part of the universe as everything else. — Ciceronianus

Totally agree. Humans (via said sensory input mentioned above) put the 'the' into 'the universe', without which it would just be 'a universe'.

They are all contradictions between the concept of “absolute” and the dependence from us. — Angelo Cannata

That's the exact reason that strict definitions doesn't play important role in that case. That's what I wanted it to avoid, the endless definition game. But from my experience here on TPF so far I was expecting it.
I just ask for each personal absolute truths. Truths about the universe that apply regardless of humans existence or not. Whatever someone thinks as such truths. Simply as that.

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

They are absolute for the person who holds them. Simply as that. I don't expect a new ToE that everyone would agree. Just what someone thinks that can say for sure about universal function.

if they are yours, they are depending on you, so they are not absolute — Angelo Cannata

Yeah they are absolute for me. Don't expect everyone to agree. I just wanna hear other's.

“their universal truths” is like an oxymoron: “their” means depending on them, “universal truths” means not depending on them. — Angelo Cannata

Same as above.

The question you put is just an impossible question — Angelo Cannata

No it is just a simple clear question. You just make it unnecessary complicated. Everything is stated at the OP already. And the examples I gave are just to make more "practical" what I mean.

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” :smile: . That’s fine, it just needed to be clarified.

By "absolute truths" I understand irrational – contradictory – to doubt or deny. — 180 Proof

I wonder why you would understand such a thing but anyway I will pass it.

From the rest A and D sounds pretty logical as absolute truths for me. Though at A I m not sure that science has proven it surely that universe is a closed system after all.
B and C I don't find them relevant with the universal function though as statements might be true indeed.

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

It simply means what the title says "Your Absolute Truths". It was already clarified. No need for all these.

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

Everybody else understood this without clarification. You didnt, or refused to, understand this because you are being pedantic.

So I m really curious to see what others think as their universal truths. — dimosthenis9

My view is that 'truth' is the product of human cognition and imagination; it's provisional and perspectival. Mostly I'm interested in how people conduct their behaviours towards others and would hold to a version of the Golden Rule. While I'm not especially interested in scientific or metaphysical theories of everything, I generally hold that methodological naturalism is our most reliable pathway to useful knowledge.

If they're yours, then they're not absolute. — noAxioms

Absolute for me. See my answers above if you wish.

This suggests you have different definitions of 'universe' and 'cosmos' that you feel the need to say both these things. — noAxioms

No. I consider them the same. It had no such purpose to distinguish them. Just to cover more words that someone would use to describe the universe.

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

Yeah indeed. Supposing there are other universes, if a rule that applies to ours does not apply to other universes, then can't be considered as an absolute universal truth imo. It would be a truth only for our universe.

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

What isn't united with something else?Affecting and gets affected by others? What is totally isolated in the universe? Tell me one of your countless things. And to define what exactly? What I mean with the word "united"? Really?

Einstein's relativity theory suggests that time isn't something that is in motion, so this assertion is certainly subject to reasonable doubt. — noAxioms

We have no idea what actually time is in fact yet, as to consider it also as something stable. It might just be a human concept and nothing else as some scientists also support.

It’s not pedantry, it is just philosophy. In philosophy the word “absolute” means really “absolute”, does not mean “approximately absolute”.

My view is that 'truth' is the product of human cognition and imagination; — Tom Storm

Well yeah true. 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?

, I generally hold that methodological naturalism is our most reliable pathway to useful knowledge.
8mReplyOptions — Tom Storm

I believe the same also. In fact the only path we have as to walk into the darkness of knowledge. But I still acknowledge that is limited due to our senses. The way we are "build". I can't deny that either.

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. Jesus!It is not that difficult.
I didn't want to adopt what Dingo said about pedantry, but damn the way you insist on this proves him right.

Whats pedantic is focusing on the word “absolute” instead of the clear intention of the OP. Again, everyone else understood what the OP meant and only the pedant choose not to in favour of belabouring the semantics of a single word.
Pedant doesnt mean wrong. We all know the strictest definition of “absolute” is as you say. Its just as obvious thats not how the OP was using the term, even offering examples to further clarify. Do you know why nobody else made the point you did? They weren't being pedantic.
Even after you admitted to understanding what was meant you didnt bother to answer the question. You were only interested in sharing your superior understanding of “absolute” (thanks champ!) with us regardless of any engagement of the OP. Pedantic.

The word absolute was combined with the word "Your" BEFORE it — dimosthenis9

Whats pedantic is focusing on the word “absolute” — DingoJones

So, you are both admitting that you are not giving the word “absolute” the meaning given in philosophy. This means that this discussion is not meant to be a philosophical discussion. If this is not a philosophical discussion, what kind of discussion is it? In other words: what are you talking about?

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

Alas!




Pfff. I rest my case.

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

No idea if what you say is correct. I have no real apetite for this line of thinking. I am not a scientist or a metaphysician. Personally, I doubt that humans will ever be able to do much more than hold up tentative models that endure for a time and are then displaced. To borrow from Richard Rorty - I think we can justify ideas, but I think there's not much we can say about truth. And what do we get by adding the word 'absolute' to truth? Is it like the final invoice which hits our desk? Or is it a god surrogate? :wink:

Natural science isn't in the business of "proofs".

You're missing the forest for the trees (thus "pedantic"). :roll:

No idea if what you say is correct. I have no real apetite for this line of thinking. — Tom Storm

Respected.

Is it like the final invoice which hits our desk? — Tom Storm

That it is.

Not sure to which point exactly you refer with that. But I can't see why providing proofs isn't the business of any science . Including natural science also. At the measure that proofs can be given of course.

↪Angelo Cannata You're missing the forest for the trees (thus "pedantic"). — 180 Proof

I could say exactly the same, but I don't, because it looks like a way to avoid the responsibility of giving explanation.

It is easy to say "you don't understand". It reminds me the story of the emperor's new clothes.

Proofs are only relevant in logic and mathematics, not natural science (vide Hume, Peirce, Dewey, Popper, et al).

It's physic's science work for sure though. And not any science can tell us more about universe than physics.