Yet, there's a paradox in my previous reply. Can you find what? (It's easy now that I have pointed it out,) — Alkis Piskas

Yes, I guess I found the paradox in your reply.

A truth, if it ever existed, needs to be objectively. But, paradoxically, the nature and sense of truths depend on humans's perspective and consensus.
So, a truth would need to be subjective to exist.

Right! You almost got it! :smile: It's a paradox. Or, a self-contradiction, if you prefer. Of the kind, "I'm lying" (Liar's paradox) :grin:

Moreover, it cannot stand for another reason: How you can prove that someting does not exist --an "absolute truth"-- if it doesn't? It's like trying to prove that God does not exist! Well, you can. By reductio ad absurdum. My favorite way is by asking: "If there were an absosute reality, who will be out there to tell?" Whoever would claim that, it would be an opinion, something subjective --not objective, i.e. absolute.

So, we can restate "There are no Absolute Truths" so that it does not contain a self-contradition, as follows: "Truth is always subjective". Which also applies to and agrees with the statement itself. The statement is subjective, alright, but it does not mean that there is an absolute truth! :wink:

A truth, if it ever existed, needs to be objectively. But, paradoxically, the nature and sense of truths depend on humans's perspective and consensus.
So, a truth would need to be subjective to exist. — javi2541997

Nice! Yet, the paradox I was referring to is a little more simple. It's a self-contradiction: The statement "There are no Absolute Truths" is used as an absolute truth itself! :smile:

(See my reply to @dimosthenis9 at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/727595 for how to "remedy" this.)

Yeah but despite human existence or not,universe has to have a function no? Well that function has to work in some way. Right? Not necessarily have purpose at all, but there must be still a function.
That function remains the same despite if there are humans or any kind of thinking existence as to observe it . It was there even before human species appear to Earth.
That is what I would call the absolute truth for universe. If we were ever able to fully understand its function. The way "it works".

I get what you mean that every thought that mind produces(like the one I just made here) is subjective to that mind itself. But imo human mind has the ability to form some crisis that can be absolute ideed.Not many at all and surely limited but still there are some I think. Such statements for example like "we humans are part of the universe" or even "universe has to have a certain function" I consider them as undeniable facts. Anyway that is the way I see it at least.

Thanks! Your thoughts and comments are so interesting, indeed! :up:

:pray:

The only absolutes I am willing to accept as 'truths' are scientific ones such as:
The speed of light in a vacuum
The mass and charge of an electron
The direction of conduction is from hot to cold
etc.

Yeah but despite human existence or not,universe has to have a function no? Well that function has to work in some way. Right? Not necessarily have purpose at all, but there must be still a function. — dimosthenis9

Certainly.

That function remains the same despite if there are humans or any kind of thinking existence as to observe it . It was there even before human species appear to Earth.
That is what I would call the absolute truth for universe. — dimosthenis9

Yes, I undestand what you mean. You could also call that an "absolute reality". But see, discussions like these, based on concepts like "truth" and "reality", are like walking in a mine field. There are a lot of traps. Or like walking on ice, where you can easlily slip.

These terms, and the concepts they represent, like any other term, are created by humans. They do not exist in and have no meaning for the Universe. The Universe is what it is and does what it does. It is Man who creates "truths" and "realities" by trying to undestand, explain and describe how it functions and what it consists of, since the beginning of civilization. And the proof that this knowledge is subjective --i.e. there's no absolute knowledge-- is that during all that time until today and for the days to come, this knowledge has changed, is chamging and will change: new theories are added and old ones are modified or even vanish.

human mind has the ability to form some crisis that can be absolute ideed. — dimosthenis9

Absolute means unchangeable and unqualified. It cannot even be measured or determined exactly, "exact" being also an attribute of "absolute".We say "absolute zero". Can we really measure such a thing with certainty? Absolute is unmeasurable. Like eternity. I don't think that "absolute" even exists at all. We can only use the word in figures of speech like "I'm absolute on that", "with absolute certainty", "I have absolute faith on him" and so on. The more examples come to my mind, the more silly they sound to me! :grin:

I think, therefore my thought exists (Is that right?) — T Clark

Thinking (happens), therefore thinking exists.

These terms, and the concepts they represent, like any other term, are created by humans. They do not exist in and have no meaning for the Universe. — Alkis Piskas

But humans are of the universe, we are an aspect of the universe made manifest, what we think, invent, debate, kill, save, disassemble, assemble is all in and of the universe. You seem to imply that humans and the universe are separate in some sense, are you suggesting that is so.

Thinking (happens), therefore thinking exists. — 180 Proof

Yes, I undestand what you mean. You could also call that an "absolute reality". But see, discussions like these, based on concepts like "truth" and "reality", are like walking in a mine field. There are a lot of traps. Or like walking on ice, where you can easlily slip. — Alkis Piskas

Tottaly agree. That's why I ask for each person's individual truths cause of the exact uncertain nature of the search for absolute truths. It is a mine field indeed.

And the proof that this knowledge is subjective --i.e. there's no absolute knowledge-- is that during all that time until today and for the days to come, this knowledge has changed, is chamging and will change: new theories are added and old ones are modified or even vanish. — Alkis Piskas

It is subjective but at the end, doesn't it dig in deeper in the basic ultimate knowledge of the function of the universe. It is a limited knowledge, sure it is. But still except for humans it must represent something from the bigger picture also, no?Even a tiny percentage of it if you want.

. We can only use the word in figures of speech like "I'm absolute on that", "with absolute certainty", "I have absolute faith on him" and so on. The more examples come to my mind, the more silly they sound to me! :grin: — Alkis Piskas

Yeah I got what you mean. But don't stick so much to the word itself. Just wanted to emphasize things that someone thinks that are undeniable facts about the function of universe.

So it is safe to state that thinking is a phenomenon that appears in universe. That universe enables the existence of the phenomenon of thoughts. Right?

That statement for me for example is an undeniable universal truth. If that helps to make my point even clearer.

1. There are no Absolute Truths
2. There are no Absolute Truths — Alkis Piskas

So you're saying these are absolute truths?

a universal feedback system. — Pantagruel

What does this mean?

What does this mean? — Tom Storm

Just playing the paradox card.
The only absolute truth is there are no absolute truths.
The only true fact is there are no true facts.

What does this mean? — Tom Storm

That I am in a dialog with the universe by way evidence, I guess would be one way of characterizing it.

Just playing the paradox card. — universeness

I think you are responding to my first question. Self-refuting axioms are some of my favorite things.

That I am in a dialog with the universe by way evidence, I guess would be one way of characterizing it. — Pantagruel

I'm, not trying to be a dick but I don't understand this either. What is a dialogue with the universe? And how is it a feedback loop? :smile:

Could you explain that a little more? You mean that as relations to exist, it first presupposes "things" to exist as to get related? That's why you think variety of things more fundamental?

Ok. First, to be honest with you, I cannot say I completely understand what I am trying to say; lest's just say it is work in progress. Second, I am equating a relation to a transfer of information (an interaction - a change/deviation from the ground state/behaviour/nature/properties/form of an entity/particular/object/thing/individual due to an external effect*). That said, imagine a scenario in which information is being transferred. The mere action of transferring information disturbs the environment/space in which the transfer takes place; this disruption requires the possibility of variation. If no change, either in the environment or that which is affected by the transfer of information - which is ultimately part of the environment -, can take place (for x or y reason), I do not see how there can be a relation, at all. Again, change requires the possibility of variation, for change is between two different states. If relations depend on change, then they depend on variation.

* In my opinion, an interaction requires a change in something due to the interaction, a change that would be absent in the absence of the interaction. In other words, an interaction occurs when a change in some point of space causes a change in another point of space, or spacetime if you want, and considering objects as properties of space.


Now, I want to apologize for the very vague language, I guess I am trying to generalize as much as possible, which might be a huge mistake; nevertheless, I'll do it once more just for the fun of it and say that a relation cannot occur between the exact same thing(s), and the possibility for variation must exist before a relation can take place. So, even if things exist, if they do not change in any of their properties relative to each other simply because they cannot vary (they cannot adopt other conformations other than their ground conformation) and hence cannot be affected, there won't be a relation between them. I am gonna stop here cause I am sure I am making it more complicated, but if you'd like to continue the discussion on the necessity of variation, I am glad to do it with you or anyone else. I think is an overlooked phenomenon in metaphysics for its ubiquity and our habituation to it as a result, and I think it should be looked at more seriously, better than how I do it, for sure.

At most Descartes' "cogito" presupposes existence; it does not prove "ergo sum" (therefore I exist).

Leaving Descartes aside. You, 180proof hold as an absolute truth your existence, your mind's existence and universe's existence too? . Do you have enough "proofs" for that or you are skeptical?
Personally I strongly do.

That said, imagine a scenario in which information is being transferred. — Daniel

I think it's not an imaginary scenario at all. It is transferred indeed. The great question though is what actually information is?!

Now, I want to apologize for the very vague language, I guess I am trying to generalize as much as possible, which might be a huge mistake; nevertheless, I'll do it once more just for the fun of it and say that a relation cannot occur between the exact same thing(s), and the possibility for variation must exist before a relation can take place. So, even if things exist, if they do not change in any of their properties relative to each other simply because they cannot vary (they cannot adopt other conformations other than their ground conformation) and hence cannot be affected, there won't be a relation between them. — Daniel

Wow that was mind-fucking my friend I have to admit! Apologies accepted.hahahh

But you do have a point here I think. So to sum up you say:
1. As a relation to happen between 2 "things" there must be a change occurring to at least to one of these things as a result of that interaction-relation. No change then no relation. Right?
2. As change to happen it presupposes the ability of the variation of these "things" from the very beginning.
3.Therefore relations presupposes the "things" to have variation ability already.

Did I do my homework right? Is that your line of thinking? If yes I have to admit it is really interesting. It has surely a point and worths to be considered.

The only thing I m skeptical about is this

a relation cannot occur between the exact same thin — Daniel

I don't know if that stands as to be honest. Which in fact leads me into a doubt about your first premise.About relation and the need of change. But I can't tell for sure it is wrong either. I need to think about it.

Absolute means unchangeable and unqualified. It cannot even be measured or determined exactly, "exact" being also an attribute of "absolute".We say "absolute zero". — Alkis Piskas

Interesting. I personally don't see how the word 'absolute' placed in front of some words does anything useful. It's often a way of rhetorically exaggerating or reinforcing something. Surely zero needs no absolute. To my thinking absolute zero is no different than zero.

I think I can say I am not 'absolutely certain' about something because in this context absolute is a way of describing a continuum of certainty and doubt. But there is no continuum of zero. But there may be a continuum of 'empty'. E.g., the box was mostly empty vs the box was absolutely/completely empty.

No. I take "my existence" – that I exist – for granted and "me taking for granted" itself presupposes "my existence" but does not prove it (pace Descartes). "My existence" does not require "proof" or to be demonstrated as a truth – "absolute" or otherwise; assuming so is a category error.

I really can't understand why you have to make things so complicated. I understand that is your type of writing but really I find it totally unnecessary sometimes. Anyway.

My existence" does not require "proof" or to be demonstrated as a truth – "absolute" or otherwise. — 180 Proof

Demonstrated or not the question is simple.
a. is your existence a truth(true fact) for you? or b. You aren't sure about it as to consider it truth since you can't prove it?
A simple a. or b. would be more than enough and highly appreciated.

I'm, not trying to be a dick but I don't understand this either. What is a dialogue with the universe? And how is it a feedback loop? :smile: — Tom Storm

Well, if you receive data (which for you is "evidence") as an input, which is generated as a function of your actions, then that is a feedback loop. You know, cybernetics, systems theory, neural networks, all of that good stuff.

At most Descartes' "cogito" presupposes existence; — 180 Proof

How can you presuppose existence? What presupposes must exist or it could not presuppose. It is more of a transcendental condition, don't you think?

edit: It is more like a syllogism with the major term omitted. That which thinks exists. Not so much a presupposition as an instantiation. Like a truth-functional truth. If x is red then x is coloured. If I think, I must be.

Wow that was mind-fucking my friend I have to admit! Apologies accepted.hahahh — dimosthenis9

I think this is one of those cases where a comma would be handy. Although I think slightly differently about these "things" and "relations", which goes back to me claiming relations to be more fundamental than things.

I am equating a relation to a transfer of information (an interaction - a change/deviation from the ground state/behaviour/nature/properties/form of an entity/particular/object/thing/individual due to an external effect*) — Daniel

In my reasoning, a relation isn't any sort of change, it's a description of existence. Relations are the rules by which "things" are produced. The simplest relation is a pure binary relation, in which the relation is simply that the relata are different—i.e. relata A is not relata B, and relata B is not relata A. This may seem silly, but I think it's the grounding for some of the most fundamental ideas in philosophy. In propositional logic, we can construe truth and falsity as this binary relation. There's nothing about a false truth value that makes it false, other than that it's not true, and vice versa. More contentiously, I'd argue that this principle could be applied to a metaphysics, that the very idea of being requires that there is not being as well. I could (and would, in a separate thread) argue that this principle explains the reason there can't be nothing, or, more precisely, only nothing. Could "nothing" still exist, despite existence? Maybe. Anyway. . .

a relation cannot occur between the exact same thing(s), and the possibility for variation must exist before a relation can take place. So, even if things exist, if they do not change in any of their properties relative to each other simply because they cannot vary . . . and hence cannot be affected, there won't be a relation between them. — Daniel

Correct, except we have it at opposites. For me, it's not that a variety of things must exist for there to be a relation between them, it's that the variety in the things is composed by the relation, or that it is the relation that makes them varied in the first place. It seems like you might be imagining a universe in which there are things, varied things, but they don't interact in any way, so there are no relations between them. But I would continue on to say, if there are no relations between them, and they are just these disembodied things, then this is the same as if they exist alone, and as we agreed, there cannot be one thing.

Lastly, I would ask, how can things be varied if there is no commonality between the things upon which they vary?

Your question makes no sense as I've pointed out. My stuff ain't "complicated", dimo, you're just not paying / refusing to pay attention. NB: philosophical discussion or dialectic =/= casual (barstool) conversation.

May as well ask which truths are pink.

Lastly, I would ask, how can things be varied if there is no commonality between the things upon which they vary? — Jerry

Excellent question. I am thinking about it, and it makes me wonder if you are asking if it is possible for two things to have nothing in common.