If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

What kind of absolute truth would impress you? As it sits, I don't think that "absolute truth" has ever had any relevancy.

As I've already mentioned (or maybe it was in another thread about absolute truth ), I'm thinking of absolute truths like "God exists".One of the members at Evolution Fairy Tale told me he could prove to me that God exists. It turn out very quickly that his "proof" depended on me existing, which I would not admit. I am, after all, nothing but a figment of the Internet's imagination.

But surely, if you are going to have a discussion about the contents of reality, regardless of your confidence in the proposition, you have to accept there is such a thing. If you must be thorough you could say, for example 'Crows drop nuts from various heights depending on the stratum and nut type whereas blackbirds tend to maintain the the same height and just increase repetitions.The research hypothesis is that crow's are smarter than blackbirds. The null hypothesis is that crow's are equally smart to blackbirds. They hyper-skeptical hypothesis is that reality does not really exist.If the h-s hypothesis is true, it seems clear that in my mental realm there are crows and blackbirds and I sense that crows make smarter decisions(see below).
Else
The null hypothesis can be rejected, which increases our confidence in the research hypothesis, crows are brainy, further research needed, etc etc. Publication.It'd get pretty tedious. And since you consider this entire argument stems from the question - do you believe there is 'enough scientific evidence to state that: The universe is real?' it seems to me that the denizens of EvC have masterfully demonstrated what we are often demonized for - pedantic bickering over something that completely overwhelms the discussion and deters the originator of the subthread from bothering any further. I'm not answering for Proto, obviously.Something that is universally true. True in all times and places. God exists might be an absolute truth, but we can't really know.
On the other hand, 'I exist', with a suitable essay on 'I' and another on 'exist', might be regarded as absolute truth if we're allowed to be creative with boundaries with an additional treatise or two on those boundaries and subjectivity.There are certain logical propositions, which if not absolutely true, it is often necessary to treat them as such in order to get anywhere (imagine trying to argue the Earth is about 4 billion years old with someone that denies that the mind is capable of knowing the truth, or that something can both be and equally not be simultaneously). Doing otherwise often results in lengthy discussions about the fine points of confidence, the metaphysics of 'absoluteness' and so on in answer to a question about whether there is enough scientific evidence to conclude the universe exists. There really is enough of that, right?

The discussion thus far has gone something like this:Ringo: Doubt everything
Various others: What about absolute truths
Ringo: Such as?Various statements which are definitionally true have then been presented. Some statements regarding reality which might be considered foundational for knowing anything have also been presented. In a couple of cases the two strands have collided where arguments effectively amount to saying 'Reality is real'.Ringo has then gone on to describe definitional truths as "trivial" whilst maintaining that a component of doubt about truth statements pertaining to reality must be present.Personally I wouldn't describe all definitional truths (e.g. mathematical proofs) as "trivial" but I think it's a valid distinction. I'd also agree that statements about reality are subject to a component of doubt no matter how small. AKA the sort of tentativity inherent in scientfic evidence based conclusions. Yes - I will accept that reality is real by definition. Now what? I think you are conflating universal principles which we consider to be true with a high degree of confidence (e.g. the 2nd law of thermodynamics) with "absolute truth". I don't think any amount of scientific evidence will lead to an "absolute truth". I'd say that we know it to be true that the universe is real. But the lack of absolute certainty negates this from being an "absolute truth". Then the statement "God exists" cannot be considered an absolute truth. It may very well be wrong. I don't think any amount of scientific evidence will lead to an "absolute truth". I'd say that we know it to be true that the universe as objectively observed is real. But the lack of absolute certainty demanded from things like solipsistic possibilities negate this from being stated as an "absolute truth", no matter how pointless or unlikely such philosophical possibilities are deemed to be.

I don't know, as the poster in question has not been able to get passed his first premise, the universe exists. I'm not. Nobody asked if it was an absolute truth, or if it was, if we could know this with 100% certainty. But if it were true, it might be absolutely true. Even if we couldn't be absolutely sure. Can an observation be objective? But 'absolute truth' isn't really the standard in question. 'Truth' will suffice.

Not exactly. Not necessarily that there is a way to be right (which I think there is) but that there is such a thing as being right. There can be no such thing as wrong without such a thing as right. They are opposite ends of the same scale and everybody knows that a tape measure with only one end isn't worth a damn. I agree that can happen. If we are correct the points must increase.

I'm happy to apply the term 'true' to pretty much everything you have mentioned. But not "absolute truth". For all the reasons already mentioned.

Absolute truth is what is being discussed.Go back to where JRT and Ringo started the whole thing and you will see this. Proto jumped in on that basis and then so did I.If we aren't talking about absolute truth as opposed to just plain old being 'true' then why does everyone keep bandying around the term "absolute"....? I'm happy to apply the term 'true' to pretty much everything you have mentioned. But not "absolute truth". For all the reasons already mentioned.

Yes I have. Placebos are a real thing as well. Sure, like we do with a video game or a religion but that is not all that logic can do. If your intent is to discover reality then logic can help with that as well.I think what you are missing is this. If I stop breathing then I will die. This is more than internal consistency. When I find my house where I left it this is more than internal consistency. If you prick me and I bleed this has nothing to do with what I think about bleeding. Even if I only imagine that I am bleeding and I then consequently bleed to death then how is this any different than actually bleeding to death?Like Morpheus says in the movie 'your mind makes it real.' Even if I only think that I am bleeding to death and then die and think no more, this is equal to reality and has none of the short comings of a tautology.

What about my dog? Can we say with certainty that all of reality is not dependent on the imagination of my dog? Again solipsism can not be true for both of us and so it can not be true. How could I imagine that memory you have of your childhood of which I know nothing? Or physics or math. Did I imagine these constructs of which I know little and do not understand?Logic dictates that we are not advised to attempt to prove the negative. The fact that we can imagine things does not mean that the imagined property has a real probability of being true. An absolute truth is the potential that exists to describe reality exactly. They are all around us.

I know that my mind exists. I cannot say with equal certainty that your mind exists. Both you and your dog are conceivably figments of my imagination. But how do you know any other mind other than your own does exist?

quote:

---

As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind.

---

LinkSuch as? Unless all that appears to be around us is just a figment of my/your (depending on point of view) imagination.I'm not saying this is probable, or even remotely relevant in most circumstances. But it is something of a stumbling block when it comes to "absolute truth".

quote:

---

"To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality".

---

Bertie Russel.Can you have an "absolute truth" of which you are not absolutely certain?

They're not, though, are they? A placebo is basically nothing but your mind thinks it's something so it works. If the placebo capsule was empty it would have the same effect; if the placebo was a hologram it would have the same effect - because it's your mind that's causing the effect. How would you know you bled to death? You can dream about bleeding to death or you can hallucinate about bleeding to death but if you "really" bled to death you'd never know. All of your experience is in your mind. That's what I'm saying: That's the only "reality" there is - within your mind. If there was some "absolute reality" outside your mind, you'd have no way to distinguish it from a dream or a hallucination.

You are capable of affecting quite a few of the physiological processes in your body both consciously and unconsciously. Surely there is a difference between those kinds of mind generated effects and the question of whether reality is purely subjective and a creation of your perception.It is certainly possible for reality to be exactly what we perceive and yet still have the possibility of mind generated effects on your own body.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I was responding to the statement that, "Dreams, drugs and chemistry are real things that affect my consciousness," in Message 264. My point was that effects on our consciousness are not necessarily produced by "real" things.

And my point is that a placebo, despite not having an active chemical is a real thing because it induces your mind to produce a chemical effect. Placebos are not evidence of non-reality. A placebo is no less real than is the effect of giving a "child a good talking to".Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.