Your question makes no sense as I've pointed out. My — 180 Proof

You didn't point out anything at all neither explained why it doesn't make sense. It makes perfect sense since it's a simple question.
"Is your existence and universe's existence true facts for you?". Nothing complicated or mystical about it as you try to present it. But you just avoid to answer it. No problem.

You take for granted your existence but you don't wanna say that you consider it as truth for you. What is the actual difference between these 2 only you know. You just go in circles here.

You say "taking your existence for granted" presupposes your existence already but that doesn't make it still true for you. That sounds logical to you aw?
As something to presupposes something else then that something must exist .No?

Anyway you just play games and I m sure you are aware of it, cause I consider you a clever person.Hiding behind some "philosophical authenticity" as you usually do. So be it then.
Let us, the humble folks, go on with the barstool conversation then and you are free to go to your academic conference.

Sorry I don't understand what you wanna say.

Yep. Not paying attention. :roll:

I'm not sure if I'm thinking of "in common" in the same way. Take the True/False relation example again. You could say that they don't have anything "in common", considering they don't have any properties other than one simply not being the other. I think a problem I'm running into thinking about this is trying to use examples of things we know/experience, but they are so ingrained in our reality its hard to isolate them. For example, I'm trying to imagine a variety of things in a void, like a red cube and blue sphere, but such an idea presupposes the ideas of color, shape, and space, which themselves have their own sort of internal relations. In the end, I guess all I can really say is the least common thing all things have is they exist, meaning they take part in some relation.

Hard to talk about such abstract and foundational things, it's as if we don't have the proper language to describe it

No I don't see it that way at all. Each of us has his own truths which consider them as undeniable. I don't see any harm at sharing them with others. — dimosthenis9

Fine!

Sorry I don't understand what you wanna say. — dimosthenis9

Just that "absolute truths" is as clear as "pink truths"... that is, not very clear at all. I know what a truth is, but what a pink truth is, I've little idea; same for an absolute truth.

In your explanation, your 'remove everything "human-ish"' you seem to be asking something like "what are the most basic physical principles", which would be a good question for physicist, not for we lay philosophers.

I ask for personal absolute truths that can be as much "free" as they can from everything human-ish. As much as that is possible of course cause totally I don't think they can be.
Things that someone personally thinks as undeniable facts for the universal function. Simple as that. No need to be a physicist to answer that. A simple philosopher would do I think.

Ok. If you are content.

I don't understand what this means, it needs context, Bret. Can you demonstrate what you mean by this is a couple of sentences. What is a potent force? And how is human consciousness an example of such? And can you show us how this potent force is more potent (what does potent mean in this context?) compared to, say, nature?

Thank you for the response.

Human consciousness is the most potent force in the known Universe because it is (we are) capable of overcoming anything. Our species is quite impressive like that, IMO. Human consciousness, however relatively infantile when considering the greater trajectory of our long-term evolution as a species, can approach any/every object and integrate/assimilate said thing into our understanding of what's possible.

It is also important to recognize that human consciousness is Nature, herself. We are not separate from the Universe we inhabit. We are an expression of "it". We (as Carl Sagan implied, in one way or another) are the Universe reflecting upon itself. This is a basic contemplation of the potency and sheer significance of human consciousness.

I was skeptical about your statement at first, but I have to agree that there's something exceptional about human consciousness. Although I'm not sure if we can "overcome anything", I do think it's possible that our mind can understand anything. Not necessarily that we can know or experience anything (like what it feels like to use echolocation), but it could be the case that our mind has achieved some form of observational power that allows an almost transcendent knowledge.

I don't know how to explain it, really. Suffice to say I don't agree with arguments that the human mind is limited, such that it could (even in theory) never answer answerable questions or never solve solvable problems.

exceptional about human consciousness. — Jerry

Divine fallacy. If you havta make a mistake, do it in god mode! :up:

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. — universeness

Life forms (microbes) appeared in the Universe a billion of years ago. And from that primitive life animals and humans have been developed. In that sense, life may be said to be part of the Universe.
At the same time, however, we are separate units, independent of the Universe. And the Universe is independent of us. (It existed before us and if we never existed, it would still exist. And it will most probably continue to exist, even if the human race or even all the life in it is extinct.)

But the essential point here is that we are "thinking" units, with a mind. And we create concepts, which exist only for us. The Universe, as we know it, and independently of us, doesn't "think" and doesn't have or care about concepts. It is what it is and does what it does. That's all.

Divine fallacy. — Agent Smith

Don't know how that relates to be honest.

Don't know how that relates to be honest. — Jerry

Try harder! Either you're lazy or I'm a fool! :snicker:

That's why I ask for each person's individual truths cause of the exact uncertain nature of the search for absolute truths. — dimosthenis9

Yes, I see this. And you did well. It is very interesting and something valuable to know!

But still except for humans it must represent something from the bigger picture also, no? Even a tiny percentage of it if you want. — dimosthenis9

Yes, it does.

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. — dimosthenis9

Yes, unfortunately I have this habit, sticking to words! :grin:
So, maybe we can agree on using the word/term "belief" or "opinion" instead of "absolute truth"?
Besides, all philosophy is made of, is opinions! So, I think that "strong beliefs" can be considered as "undeniable facts", that you mentioned and are the closest to "absolute truths" for a person.
There. I now got unstuck from "absolute truths"! And I can also walk safely, without mines around! :grin:

1. There are no Absolute Truths
2. There are no Absolute Truths
— Alkis Piskas
So you're saying these are absolute truths? — Tom Storm

Are you insinuating that this is a self-contradiction? Because it you do, you are right! :grin:
(OK. I have already talked about that in two previous posts. You can check the first one if you like, at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/727595)

Try harder! Either you're lazy or I'm a fool! :snicker: — Agent Smith

That's not a dichotomy. But I suppose you think I'm saying humans are so exceptional that there can't be a natural explanation for it? Not quite, I'm happy to say that the human mind is a natural, even material thing. However, I do admit the quote-on-quote power of the mind does raise questions about our purpose and why we're here and such. I do consider supernatural explanations to those sorts of questions in a very particular sense.

So maybe you're right.

Indeed, I committed a classic fallacy which needs its own name; the closest one in my humble opinion is the strawman fallacy. I tend to, not dileberately, simplify but then I overdo it and end up oversimplifying. Reality is just a cartoon for me! I (probably) should be happy but I ain't. Sic vita est. Carry on!

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. — Tom Storm

Exactly. :ok:

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. — Tom Storm

Yet, "certain" implies "absolutely". Otherwise, we would say "almost certain", which lies somewhere on the continuum that you mention. But that continuum has "certain" at one end. We can't go past it.

But there is no continuum of zero. — Tom Storm

No, there certainly isn't. Although, zero can be considered an "absolute" only if we take into consideration the conditions under which temperature is measured and only under these circumstances. E.g. the precision of and therefore the indications on the thermometer with which we measure a temperature may differ from those of another thermometer. Or the themometer itself might not function well. And so on.

But there may be a continuum of 'empty'. E.g., the box was mostly empty vs the box was absolutely/completely empty. — Tom Storm

In the box example you mentioned, I consider the word "empty" as an absolute. "Mostly empty", which you mention, is relative, and certainly different from just "empty". Besides, what does "emptiness" mean, other than a state of containing nothing?
Yet, there are other occasions where we use the word "empty" in a relative sense, or figuratively, if you like. E.g. We say "This place is empty (in a party, with some disappointment)" to mean too few people in it, not what we expected and wished to be the case. Or "My glass is empty (calling for a refill)", although there's still some liquid in it.

Life forms (microbes) appeared in the Universe a billion of years ago. And from that primitive life animals and humans have been developed. In that sense, life may be said to be part of the Universe.
At the same time, however, we are separate units, independent of the Universe. And the Universe is independent of us. (It existed before us and if we never existed, it would still exist. And it will most probably continue to exist, even if the human race or even all the life in it is extinct.) — Alkis Piskas

Ah, ok, I understand your viewpoint better now. I agree based on the reference frame you are describing but I favour another reference frame based on the law of conservation of energy or energy is neither created or destroyed and the totality of energy in the universe has remained unchanged since it was 'concentrated' as a singularity. Only the form of energy changed as variety combined in every way random happenstance allowed. That's how life, and eventually we, arrived. Lifeforms simply disassemble back into the spare parts they came from after death. Such spare parts then become available again for reuse. There is no stage imo, when a human and the universe become separated. Not at conception, during life or after death. Due to entropy(ageing), we will disassemble and dissipate but our component subatomic constituents are not destroyed. Our individuality is lost as it also disassembles and dissipates (again imo) but newborn humans are a variety of all possible human characters and personalities.

I tried to think of a good example for consideration. I decided to try using one often cited to try to improve common understanding of the concept of quantum entanglement. I have added little bits to it.

Consider someone who has knitted a pair of gloves for themselves so they created a left hand and right hand glove. A relationship is then established between the gloves based on utility or purpose. (left hand, right hand warmth, protection). No information physically passes between the gloves at any point in time except via an observer or observational system that has knowledge of the relationship established by the system which created the gloves.
If one day the owner of the gloves goes to the other side of the world on holiday, opens their suitcase and notices that one glove is missing (lets say it was left in a drawer at home). When the observer confirms that they have the left hand glove, they instantly know, via the relationship between the gloves, that the missing glove (or glove state) is 'right hand'. This knowledge can therefore be known at 'faster than light speed' (quantum entanglement) and the state of the missing glove can be known instantly, regardless of the distance between the two gloves. Information cannot travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum but the system of entanglement means a quantum state can be known instantly based on the concept of relationship or RELATIVITY.
So, could we say that the 'logic state' of the 'left glove, right glove binary relationship is an absolute truth? If you know or can know one state then the state of the other is an absolute truth. I think it is.

The charge of an electron is also an absolute truth from the standpoint that it is negative. All electrons ( or excitations in the electron field) are identical. The charge is -1.602 x 10^ -19 Coulombs but with better measuring equipment that quantity could be even more precise.
I think this is the valid point being made by @Alkis Piskas, no measurement can ever be an absolute and perhaps even the speed of light in a vacuum can be measured more precisely but to me, that is irrelevant as that does not mean an absolute value does not exist, it just means we will never be able to measure it.

I also don't see what relevance the 'paradox card' has.
All paradoxes seem to me to be mathematical stretches of propositional logic, and little more than that.
'The only absolute truth is there are no absolute truths' is just a propositional logic statement it is no evidence at all, than absolute truths don't exist. In the same way that the liars paradox does not prove that a liar or lie's don't exist or the barber's paradox prove that barbers don't exist.
This unfortunately also means that the omnipotent god paradox also does not disprove god exists, but hey ho, the universe does allow for whimsy!

No I don't see it that way at all. Each of us has his own truths which consider them as undeniable. I don't see any harm at sharing them with others. — dimosthenis9

Yes, I understood this to be the entire point of your OP. For me, what you are describing as absolute truths translates to "fundamental beliefs". Collingwood calls them absolute presuppositions. Whatever the name, those things which are essential to one's being. I personally think that such constitute the very fabric of what we mean by consciousness (which I guess would be "the" fundamental belief for me). Consciousness is what it commits to believing. I have always called this the "ontological gamble," we stake our existence on the veracity of what we choose to believe.

That's an interesting and quite scientific viewpoint. (I'm not good though in Physics to judge.)
So, according to this viewpoint, and if I undestood well, since humans belong to the Universe, or better, since humans and the Universe are One, human concepts belong to the Universe and the Universe contains only absolute truths, right? OK.

So, according to this viewpoint, and if I undestood well, since humans belong to the Universe, or better, since humans and the Universe are One, human concepts belong to the Universe and the Universe contains only absolute truths, right? OK. — Alkis Piskas

This is close to my viewpoint but needs some tweaking. I concur with everything except 'The universe contains only absolute truths.' No, the universe probably does contain absolute truths but since we still don't know enough about the detailed structure and working of the universe and we can't make an 'absolute measurement,' then we can only talk about 'relative' absolute truths imo.
The most accurate measure for the speed of light in a vacuum is published as 299 792 458 metres per second but I am sure amongst the science community they have a much more accurate value. I might randomly guestimate it (for fun) at 299 792 458.14159 meters per second. Perhaps new tech equipment will improve this in the future. Could we ever reach an absolute? well, maybe?
We would need to identify some 'change' instant.
At what exact moment will the balance tip?
Can we add one more microgram, picogram, atom, quark(3x10^-30 kg)
How close do we need to get before we can declare a value or property an absolute truth?
I understand your position of 'how can we ever declare anything an absolute, if it has not been tested under every possible condition the universe can present?' At least I think that is your position and I agree but the universe also allows you to 'round measurements up' and declare relative absolutes.
Perhaps we can find common ground there. I think you accept 'relative' absolute truths and I think you suggest we can never do any better. I think we can always get more and more accurate.

Astrophysicists seem pretty sure that if you go smaller than a Planck length then you instantly get a black hole, so the Planck length may be an absolute limit of how small spatial extent can be before a black hole forms.

It is also my view that every thought that has ever formed in the brain of any lifeform which has ever existed or ever will exist is a consequence of the ways in which quanta can combine or interact and all such quanta is of and exists within the universe. In accordance with the OP, I would be prepared to label such a statement as one of my personal absolute truths.

It is also my view that every thought that has ever formed in the brain of any lifeform which has ever existed or ever will exist is a consequence of the ways in which quanta can combine or interact and all such quanta is of and exists within the universe. In accordance with the OP, I would be prepared to label such a statement as one of my personal absolute truths. — universeness

I would like to hear more about that. So you think mind function is a quantum procedure like Penrose suggests?That quantum mechanic phenomena are going on inside the brain as to produce what we call "thinking"? And when you say that such quanta is of and exist within the universe, you mean that they could carry some kind of information also?

The only absolute truth is there are no absolute truths' is just a propositional logic statement it is no evidence at all, than absolute truths don't exist. — universeness

I agree on that.

I would like to hear more about that. So you think mind function is a quantum procedure like Penrose suggests? — dimosthenis9

Well, I am intrigued by his hypothesis and that of his partner Stuart Hameroff. Did you view my thread on the topic? Consciousness, microtubules and the physics of the brain.

you mean that they could carry some kind of information also? — dimosthenis9

Not as 'fundamental quanta' but yes, when fundamental quanta is combined/processes into information.
IPO (input-process-output) is a CYCLE, which I do think exists at a very base level in the brain as well as at macro levels. I do think phenomena such as superposition, entanglement and quntum tunneling are likely to be employed within human consciousness despite the current unpopularity of Penrose and Hameroff's hypothesis.

After all, they have found examples of quantum phenomena being used in the animal kingdom

Yes, I understood this to be the entire point of your OP. For me, what you are describing as absolute truths translates to "fundamental beliefs". — Pantagruel

Well you can call it that way too. I made on purpose that thread as expression of personal beliefs/truths (or any other word you choose) first cause I m really curious to know what others beliefs are and second as to avoid the strict definitions (a loving game here on TPF) which in that particular case aren't necessary at all since we talk about personal truths. The concept of the question remains the same.

Beliefs/statements/crisis/etc that someone holds as truths/fundamental/undeniable/absolute etc about universe .In general exactly what you mentioned here :

Whatever the name, those things which are essential to one's being. — Pantagruel

And yeah I think you are right. For sure such kind of beliefs play a crucial role to our shaping and developing of our consciousness. It's like a gun where we turn its barrel towards the fundamental beliefs we hold and focus there. Which leads us here:

we stake our existence on the veracity of what we choose to believe — Pantagruel

And when you say that such quanta is of and exist within the universe, you mean that they could carry some kind of information also? — dimosthenis9

I want to be careful here. I do raise a small eyebrow of interest towards those who posit a universe in which humans may be components of a future 'universal mind,' a kind of panpsychist style emerging existence. I can envisage a future transhuman state where humans can connect and communicate and perhaps even act as a collective but I am now in the world of pure projection and perhaps even just sci-fi. I am not suggesting that information can be carried from human to human by some yet untapped telepathy, which would be possible if we only understood the quantum mechanics of human consciousness. But if QM is a fundamental part of the universe then it seems intuitive that it would be part of human consciousness. I have to temper this however as cosmologists are forever warning of the dangers of using intuitive thinking when trying to understand the workings of the universe.

Well, I am intrigued by his hypothesis and that of his partner Stuart Hameroff. Did you view my thread on the topic? Consciousness, microtubules and the physics of the brain. — universeness

No but I will check it. I have read about though how Penrose thinks that Quantum phenomena are possible to take place in brain's microtubules and I found it really interesting.

. I do think phenomena such as superposition, entanglement and quntum tunneling are likely to be employed within human consciousness despite the current unpopularity of Penrose and Hameroff's hypothesis. — universeness

I do find it possible also. It surely has a logic base but we know that just logic in that cases isn't enough as to consider something like that true.

But if QM is a fundamental part of the universe then it seems intuitive that it would be part of human consciousness. I have to temper this however as cosmologists are forever warning of the dangers of using intuitive thinking when trying to understand the workings of the universe. — universeness

Ok I think I got what you mean.

I do raise a small eyebrow of interest towards those who posit a universe in which humans may be components of a future 'universal mind,' a kind of panpsychist style emerging existence — universeness

I raise both in that cases. Hahaha

Either you're lazy or I'm a fool! :snicker: — Agent Smith

You are Mad and Fool!! :wink: