Ok got it now where you stand.I can't say that I m in agreement with your statement, though consciousness fascinates me the most.It is a great mystery and as to be honest I would really wish consciousness to play some universal feedback role as you mention.
I have thought about that too and it's my "secret hope" but I have to be honest with myself and admit that there isn't any evidence at all for that. So far at least. So it's far from considering it as a sure thing.

What you do matters. — Pantagruel

You mean in relation with others as society or that our actions matter even in universal function? If yes in what way?

Our brains clearly can't match up to the task at hand — Agent Smith

So you think that we are condemned to uncertainty about the general picture? I don't want to admit it but it might probably be the case.

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

Yeah it is at best a very good speculation, but still that doesn't make it certainty.

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

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?

Which is relative... — noAxioms

Sure it is.

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

Everything you mentioned here is still united with each other. I didn't say that everything is connected immediately with each other. I m not connected with Galaxy EGSY but both me and it are part of the huge universal chain. Nothing I can think of is totally isolated.

Something doesn't need to have immediate connection as to be considered united with something else.
If I tight myself with a rope and tight the other end of the rope at a tree, I might not be immediately connected with the tree but me, the rope and the tree are all still united.Same with a chain.
We are part of a united system (universe), i can't understand why you see unity as that everything immediately attached to each other. Same with your wheels,they are part of your car, they connect with the road as you speed up, with the molecules of the air etc etc.

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

By we, I mean humanity. Scientific community. And no we are farrr from being sure what time is and if it is stable. We have different speculations about that among scientific community and it is a great mystery. Relativity considers time as stable? Hmm.. Not sure about that. Waves of the spacetime when huge stars exploding isn't that a motion??

but there has been no alternative proposed that I know of in the 20th century. — noAxioms

Check LQG.

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

Great spirits meet in the crossroads of all the great questions. Nice quote what you presented here.

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

It's kind similar to mine that everything is united, connected. And as extension of it I do believe also that everything is related to others.
Nice notion that relations are more fundamental than things themselves. Never actually thought it before that way.

. 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

Really strong argument against those who doubt of the certainty of any other existence except our own minds. Good.

This universe is in motion but there could be others. — magritte

Which would be totally stable? And not connected in some way with the others too?

All is physically connected but in a limited way. — magritte

What you mean with limited way?

Without artificial things simple dialectic is worthless. — magritte

True.

Why would anything have identity or a name? — magritte

What you mean by that?

If we're part of the universe, there is no "external world." There's just the world, — Ciceronianus

I don't see what changes to my question but ok let's just say world.

If you seek absolute truths which aren't "human-ish" then you will have to find another world. — Ciceronianus

Thanks I think I like it here. I will stay. I just seek for the limits of the truth that human knowledge can reach. How dip can dig into the absolute truth. Is it clear?

and if that means there is no "absolute truth" so be it (so IS it, in fact). — Ciceronianus

How can that mean that there isn't absolute truth? Sure there is. It's another thing if we can ever reach it.

We cannot know it and have no reason to know it. — Ciceronianus

Not if you are curious.

I am not saying that everything does not exist. I am saying we can't be sure about that. Big difference. — god must be atheist

And I say that we can be sure. Whatever you want to call it Solipsism or any other philosophical theory name I don't agree. I believe that except my mind other minds and things exist too. I respect your view but I don't agree. Simply.


.

I am stepping out. I don't care to argue about this — god must be atheist

Respected.

I would have bet ahead of time that you don't. — god must be atheist

Yeah sure you would.

I am sorry. Everything is not proven to exist. Nothing is proven to exist, except the mind that thinks. — god must be atheist

Well I m not into this line of thinking. Solipsism isn't my taste.

as you can't name any time in the past that had not been preceeded by five minutes, and can't name any time in the future that won't be followed by five minutes. — god must be atheist

Sorry I m not sure I got that.

Time is infinite in the past and into the future. — god must be atheist

Hmm.Why are you so sure time exists indeed as to be also infinite? It's a damn huge mystery yet for science what actually time is.
I don't say that your statement is wrong (cause I don't know either) but I just wanna know what is that makes you hold that belief as your absolute truth.

Exactly. It was the main reason for starting that thread in fact, cause I was considering of the things that actually we can be sure about the universe, even following the most guaranteed humanity path for knowledge, science. And I couldn't find any except the 2 things that I mentioned.
It was kind of a scary thought when I first realize it I have to admit. That the things that we can actually be sure about aren't that many at all.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

But that a person will be subject to a great many harms in a lifetime is true beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, recognizing that requires that one be reasonable, which you clearly aren' — Bartricks

I gave you a specific example that disputes what you take for granted. It clearly does even if you like it or not. Of course it's not the only wrong premise that you use but others mentioned the fallacies in the rest of your OP.

So the thing that you take for "granted" isn't at all. No, not even all people experience "great many harms" as you keep repeating. Even death when you actually don't realize that you are dying, then you don't experience-feel any harm at all either. You are just dead in a second without even experiencing-feeling it.

But you consider death as "at least one harm that you experience in life". So since death exists, life is harmful for sure. That was your response to my example and that's the final root of all of your premises also. And since you choose that as to build your "theory" on, you start from a total false base. That's the whole point.

So since you believe that, tell that from the beginning. Why you mentioned all that bullshit about "innocent people and staff"? And you name it a " new argument" also? Pff..You just can't admit it cause it ruins your little story.

Anyway you antinatalists are an easy prey when it comes in arguments. You just make an intellectual salad of them, using and bending terms like "innocent", "deserving", "moral", "harm"" etc the way it is more convenient for you,as just to justify the actual hate you have for human nature itself.
So I leave you with your "sparrow reasoning".

. Note too that death is a harm, so your example is terrible. — Bartricks

So your argument is that we shouldn't live cause we will die? That's Antinatalist final argument? Then tell that from the beginning as to know not to take you seriously.

First, it is grotesquely implausible to suppose that someone will live without suffering any harm whatsoever until 14 — Bartricks

No it isn't.There are numerous cases .You find it impossible for 14 year old to have not experienced any actual harm? Make it even less then,10,6,5,2 you choose!
Except if falling from the bike and scratching your shoulder counts as "serious harm" for you. Cause sorry but that is what sounds idiot. Or even crying as a baby cause you want to eat ,maybe that counts as harm also for you then.

So we have to deprive ourselves from enjoying the life experience cause we can't be 100% happy all the time.Great.

And then there's death, which you seem to think doesn't constitute a harm even though it is probably the biggest harm of all. Innocent people deserve to die, do they? — Bartricks

All people die. What that has to do with being innocent or not? Innocent people should be immortals??So again your argument is that we shouldn't live at all cause one day we will die.So only if people were immortals we should procreate. Really solid premise. You are right.

You have failed. — Bartricks

Yeah sure, why not? if that makes you happy.

Anyway I have noticed other times in various threads that in general it's impossible for someone to discuss with you.
See the thread here for example. Whoever replied and disagreed with you(almost all by the way), you offended him immediately and started a fight. That says everything for the nudity of your arguments.

This world clearly does not offer such a life to anyone. We all know this. — Bartricks

No we don't know this. At all.

Case study.
Someone gets born and no harm at all comes into his life till the age of 14 let's say. He is grateful for life, enjoying it the most, his parents excellent people etc etc.
All he does is just playing and enjoying life the most. Even thinking "Damn life is wonderful. I own so much to my parents who allow me to have that life experience and what life looks like". Well while thinking all these riding his bike...BAM! Car Accident. End of story. Dead immediately without even releasing what happened! Rip.

So in that case what kind of harm occurred to that 14 year old person? Is this a rare case throughout human history? Don't think so at all. But even if it is rare indeed, that still doesn't change anything at all to the point.
So are these cases "allowed" to procreate according to you Antinatalists?

So much may come down to ideas of what is considered normal or 'messed up'. — Jack Cummins

Big discussion.

Why would I want to do that exactly? — praxis

As to have the illusion that you are a king. Though we have to admit, if you are after that illusion it's easier, quicker and much cheaper to do drugs! Hahaha

no they only think that it brings them some form of enlightenment is all it does is impress them kind of like a kid on a roller coaster ride — MAYAEL

They do that to many indeed. As also the Messiah syndrome that you mentioned at another post.
I have noticed myself many times to think things when I m high and considered them wonderful but I also know that I should rethink them when I m totally sober. Well I have to tell you most of them are foolish cliche things. But well though there are a few that I considered them really interesting even afterwards. They might aren't either but wtf you got what I mean. Hahaha
So indeed it is a thick line between inspiration and bullshit.

Anyway the thing is that the majority gets influenced by drugs with the way you describe. But as in every similar case, at the end everything is relative. There were and are actually people that sometimes get high inspirations by the function of their mind, when they are onto drugs.

We can't deny that. There are numerous examples of artists or even scientists at the past. Even Silicon Valley employees openly admitted using micro amounts of LSD. But yes they aren't many and for sure not the majority.

and the reason I confidently say this is because you can reach the same knowledge and the same enlightenment without any narcotics — MAYAEL

For sure you can. No doubt about that. Just to a few a mental boost from using drugs works great sometimes.But taking drugs as to reach enlightenment isn't a requirement at all. That is sure thing.

the downside is though is that a real Tower builder can't convey to these regular non-tower building people what is necessary in order to spot authenticity from fake because unfortunately the only way to know is to become a tower builder by building your own tower hence why real Tower builders don't have pamphlets — MAYAEL

Oh man no offense here I hope, but damn that tower example sounded like you were hallucinating. It had so much "tower things" inside that fucked my brain. Hahaha. But I got your point.

I think what drugs do (among with other things of course), is "breaking" or at least loosing the social chains in the mind of humans.
Like making mind more free,as to think in a total different way and run into higher spiritual level.

So yes, to some people that could bring huge insight and enlightenment. It is possible. But that doesn't work for everyone of course and even to the ones that works, that doesn't mean it happens to them every time they do drugs.

But you have to pay a cost for everything in this life. So drugs come with a package that don't offer only that kind of ecstatic moments but negative effects in general other fields of someone's life.
So don't do drugs. Or well wtf do, if that really works for you. Hahaha.

Already did. Nothing to add further.

I don't know what you mean by "prediction." Leibniz said nothing in the form of a prediction. — Jackson

Also didn't prove anything either. It was just arguments since you stuck with the word "predictions" ."theory", "idea", "thought" whatever you prefer to call it! You choose. You are missing the point here.

And he was correct — Jackson

He didn't know it back then though.




Quantum philosophers might be correct also, that doesn't mean that we have to treat them as such till science actually prove them right.
If and when someone's prediction proves right, then he gets credited for it. That's the point till then it is just predictions. Or just arguments as you said. Nothing else.

No one would believe a philosopher in a scientific field. Leibniz made a prediction indeed but back then didn't actually proved anything. — dimosthenis9

Why? Leibniz conceived the relativity of space and time about 200 years before Einstein showed the math. — Jackson

Was that idea a breakthrough in philosophy back then?? Don't really think so. Not till Einstein(science) prove it at least. No one would believe a philosopher in a scientific field. Leibniz made a prediction indeed but back then didn't actually proved anything.

But anyway already mentioned "you can never say never"

This is a really interesting thread. Very good question which I have wondered thousand of times myself.
What more can you say(or even think) about philosophy that hasn't already been said??

At the end it's fucking 2022.Your teacher was damn right.
Count the years,count the humans, count the minds, count the words that appeared in this planet all that time in humanitarian history.
I m really kind of jealous of previous philosophers. They had a vast sea of human nature to explore. Is there actually something really new to be expected?

I even found myself many times all these years to think things and say to myself "oh that's a really good idea/thought", only to find out later that has been expressed already.
Same even with whole phrases! Sometimes I have Googled some of them and they are even the same. Or at least very very similar.
Even a poster somewhere/somewhen over the Internet could have said/wrote it. It is damn frustrating sometimes.

My opinion is that as something really new and breakthrough in philosophy to exist, a really great scientific discovery has to be revealed.
Or a huge significance incident to occur in humanity (asteroid or aliens or whatever).As really basic Human aspects-values-attitudes-everything to be shaken till the ground!
Then philosophy would have again her vast sea back.

Till then, of course something new-ish can always be said but it is extremely difficult imo, to be something actually authentic.Well you never can say never of course but I don't know.
Philosophy has to wait for science or universe/nature as to get a huge boost towards new theories.

But in what at least personal I hope, is that there is always a new way of saying even the same things.
A way that might be able to inspire-touch humans in a way that never been achieved again. Well and that leads us to

Just because Kant might have thought it through 300 years ago, that doesn't mean I don't have to walk the path too. — Clarky

Again really nice thread.

Well actually not really.