After all, my arguments apply to us all, and there are billions of us and only one God, so the odds are at least billions to one. — Bartricks
My point is that moral absolutes are evil because they encourage abiding by rules rather than using your own conscience. For example, how many people perpetuate evil policies with the bland excuse of "I was just following orders" — Yohan
I don't see how you can remove everything humanish from a truth which is a sentence in a human language — Pie
The very idea of some stuff on the other side of everything humanish seems (humanishly) "mystique nor metaphysical." — Pie
I suggest that the beliefs we can be most confident about are those that it makes no sense to deny...because denying them is incoherent — Pie
Why not kill Joe? What have you got to lose? — Yohan
The rule is, that the mind reverses everything. So that everything the mind believes is exactly the opposite of the way things really are. — Yohan
sane people are less happy than insane, and "real" people duped by reality. — Yohan
I will take my foot off the pressure build, as requested by dimosthenis9 — universeness
I typed, I didn't write :rofl: SORRY! I couldn't resist — universeness
2. In order to keep my insanity I must pretend sanity.
3. In order to maintain my falseness, I must pretend to be honest. — Yohan
I don't think that helps as the word 'always' means at every moment in time, past, present and future which could make 'truth is always subjective,' an objective truth and thus absolute. Also If 'truth is always subjective' is itself subjective then it may not be true. — universeness
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
. 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
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
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
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
Whatever the name, those things which are essential to one's being. — Pantagruel
we stake our existence on the veracity of what we choose to believe — Pantagruel
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
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
Your question makes no sense as I've pointed out. My — 180 Proof
My existence" does not require "proof" or to be demonstrated as a truth – "absolute" or otherwise. — 180 Proof
That said, imagine a scenario in which information is being transferred. — Daniel
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
a relation cannot occur between the exact same thin — Daniel
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
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
. 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
So you doubted you were posting your response to my post when you responded? You were unsure you were doing so--perhaps because you were uncertain you were typing on or using whatever device you used? Or is the fact you responded, and used whatever you used to do so, examples of absolute truths?
Do you doubt you're reading this, or that there is something to be read? — Ciceronianus
So it seems to me that, while we can't know if what our senses are producing are the reality or an illusion, we can at least be sure that there is something eluding us — Jerry
then evidence is evidence of the naturalistic role of consciousness — Pantagruel
Do you really think that if we're not absolutely certain about something we're uncertain about it, i.e. that we can't rely on it, that we're doubtful about it, that it's unknown? — Ciceronianus
I wonder how you live if that's the case. Are you God, or perhaps a good friend of His, to invoke absolutes? — Ciceronianus
What you do matters. — Pantagruel
Our brains clearly can't match up to the task at hand — Agent Smith
For me, certainty in a rational sense should leave no room for doubt (like a properly constructed logical argument for instance) and since we have two possibilities it might not be true, I wouldn't commit to it. — Benkei
However, I do not think relations are strictly fundamental in the sense that they depend on variety while the opposite I think is not logical — Daniel
Which is relative... — noAxioms
The political parties of the USA are not united for the benefit of the USA. The wheels on my car are not united since they turn at different rates sometimes.
OK, neither of these examples seems to meet your definition, which seems to have to do with both objects affected by the other.
A couple better examples then: The iceberg that sank the Titanic was not affected by me, but I was affected by it.
Similarly, the fairly distant galaxy EGSY8p7 can be seen from Earth, but Earth cannot be seen by it. No light or other signal sent from Earth at any time will ever reach EGSY8p7 regardless of the time you give it to get there. — noAxioms
Not sure who 'we'; is here, but the science community has a pretty good idea about what it is, and it isn't something that moves, at least per the only classic theory of the universe (relativity) that has made any decent predictions. We don't know if the postulates of the theory are correct of course, but there has been no alternative proposed that I know of in the 20th century. — noAxioms
but there has been no alternative proposed that I know of in the 20th century. — noAxioms
It strikes me that what Descartes wrote in 1640 has a lot in common with what Lao Tzu wrote 2,000 years earlier — T Clark
Reality is composed of relationships. That is to say, things exist in relation to other things, but the "things" are not fundamental necessarily, only the relations — Jerry
. I exist in a reality, hence other things exist too. I know this because the experiences I feel are the relationship that unite me with other things. — Jerry
This universe is in motion but there could be others. — magritte
All is physically connected but in a limited way. — magritte
Without artificial things simple dialectic is worthless. — magritte
Why would anything have identity or a name? — magritte