The Absolute Truth. Both of them.

[uwot]

For something to be true, it must be believed to be true.

Well, some of the more outré interpretations of quantum mechanics would support that view; but on the macroscopic scale, it is difficult to believe, for instance, that it is only since the Copernican revolution that the Sun has been at the centre of the solar system.

And certainly most people would believe your two points to be true.

They would be mad not to. You raise a point though: it is not that 'something' is an absolute truth, in that it could not be the case that there wasn't a universe, rather the statement "There is not nothing", or as Impenitent more elegantly puts it, "There is something" cannot be uttered without it being necessarily true.

However I am not sure how one progresses from 'true' to 'absolutely true'.

One doesn't. The idea that Parmenides and Descartes shared is as follows:

That said those two 'truths' make an excellent foundation for philosophy. The task is then to build upon those in a rigorous fashion to create a picture of the world.

The empirical data in ancient Greece was very limited and within a few steps, Parmenides was talking utter nonsense. Descartes had the advantage of telescopes and microscopes, so he was better able to confirm or falsify what he thought, but he still had to invoke 'god' to furnish him with "clear and distinct ideas".

Too much of philosophy is based upon fantasies and opinions that have no firm foundations. Discussions about those fantasies and opinions create a lot of hot air, but without sound foundations, that is all they produce.

The problem is there are no other absolute truths. Even the foundations of mathematics are axiomatic. Euclid picked up Parmenides idea and wrote The Elements, 13 books based on 5 axioms and arguably the most influential book on maths there will ever be. Even the US Declaration of Independence starts "We hold these truths to be self evident..." Very little philosophy is about the logic of the main argument; any philosopher you have heard of (and is taken seriously, I should add) will know their way around a syllogism. What is usually in question is whether the premises are 'true'. There is now more 'non-Euclidean' geometry than you can shake a stick at, and if you can show me a Conservative/Republican politician who believes "all men are created equal", I will show you a backbencher.

As to thinking, I would go so far as to say that it's not necessarily you doing the thinking. That just because it seems to originate in your head, does not mean it doesn't come from somewhere else.Until science absolutely nails down consciousness,

Bit of a way to go with that one.

I find myself wondering otherwise.

Who knows?

[SpheresOfBalance]

As to thinking, I would go so far as to say that it's not necessarily you doing the thinking. That just because it seems to originate in your head, does not mean it doesn't come from somewhere else.Until science absolutely nails down consciousness,

Bit of a way to go with that one.
True! But have you seen the computer simulation of the universe, on an extremely large scale? I saw this on a documentary which showed all the 'strands' of celestial body groupings, that comprise the universe. Keeping in mind stars and how they emit electromagnetic energy, the groupings, strands of galaxies, resembled a neural network, very similar indeed, with the human brain, with it's synapses that exchange electromagnetic energy. So I thought what if, on that scale, electromagnetic energy functioned the same way as in our human brains, better yet, was the reason our brains are designed that way in the first place. That our brains mimics the structure of these strands of galaxies. We are of the universe, it has created us, so how far fetched is it that we are modeled after its structure, as we know we surely are, in terms of elements, i.e. 70 some percent H2O, aluminum, iron, etc. The perfect mixture/structure, for us to take form.

But how about the still not fully understood four forces? I thought, if our brains neural network at it's scale, resembles these celestial strands at their scale, and they (in our brains) largely have to do with our thinking ability and consciousness, then why not believe that the same might hold true for the universe, that on that scale, which we are only beginning to understand because of our relative scale, that in fact information is being sent along those strands, such that the universe thinks and is conscious, actually the reason why we have those abilities.

Sure of course, we humans like to believe that something, (our mental abilities) came from nothing, (the first occurrence of), and this of course makes us feel special, but what if they actually came from something larger, a model already in place, such that a thinking conscious universe, is in essence our creator, the reason for us much smaller copies. That we are brains within a brain, that we are consciousness within a consciousness. That the universes abilities and structure is borrowed by us, that we're not as original as we've previously thought.

Sure it's fanciful, not yet imagined to my knowledge, but it could be something far down the road of human understanding, and then maybe not. But somehow I really like the thought. To me, it would seem to make sense. Maybe a bit romantic, a huge cosmic family, that I'm a part of, on a much more intimate level than humans are currently aware. I just like the oneness that it brings to the table. It makes humans larger than their life itself. Sure the motivation is borrowed from religion, but with definite scientific overtones. So atheists shouldn't be to frightened. And it's still in keeping with the crux of theist thinking, albeit quite a bit different.

I find myself wondering otherwise.

Who knows?

Maybe we will one day, and maybe we won't. It's just me piecing together possibility based upon what I've learned thus far, thanks largely to science, and my imagination. Or maybe not, if my hypothetical be true. As then it might have been gleaned from the larger whole, just me sensing the larger consciousness, a conduit only, no credit attributed to me whatsoever. As I'm sure that shall make some people here, feel much better. I think we all know I deserve nothing!

[Ginkgo]

Sure it's fanciful, not yet imagined to my knowledge, but it could be something far down the road of human understanding, and then maybe not. But somehow I really like the thought. To me, it would seem to make sense. Maybe a bit romantic, a huge cosmic family, that I'm a part of, on a much more intimate level than humans are currently aware. I just like the oneness that it brings to the table. It makes humans larger than their life itself. Sure the motivation is borrowed from religion, but with definite scientific overtones. So atheists shouldn't be to frightened. And it's still in keeping with the crux of theist thinking, albeit quite a bit different.[/color]

Perhaps not all that fanciful.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestra ... _reduction

[thedoc]

For something to be true, it must be believed to be true.

No, what is true is independent of what is believed.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Sure it's fanciful, not yet imagined to my knowledge, but it could be something far down the road of human understanding, and then maybe not. But somehow I really like the thought. To me, it would seem to make sense. Maybe a bit romantic, a huge cosmic family, that I'm a part of, on a much more intimate level than humans are currently aware. I just like the oneness that it brings to the table. It makes humans larger than their life itself. Sure the motivation is borrowed from religion, but with definite scientific overtones. So atheists shouldn't be to frightened. And it's still in keeping with the crux of theist thinking, albeit quite a bit different.[/color]

Perhaps not all that fanciful.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestra ... _reduction

Thank you Ginkgo, and this is why I like you That you have provided me with hope that I may be more than I believe I am, is a very heart warming moment for me right now. Tears and all! And I know that probably seems strange, but you'd have to actually know me. I honestly have never heard of such a belief before, or anything remotely close. And I have been formulating this for years. That I realize that I have come to something completely on my own, that others of gained higher respect, have come to posit, gives me a much needed pat on the back. At least that my logic may have some force behind it, that I gain from somewhere. As Kansas sang, I believe it's just, "love and miracles out of nowhere, love and miracles out of nowhere, out of nowhere." Of course in this case nowhere may actually be somewhere. The tears have dried, and the moment is gone, but I thank you for that moment, it was a joyous occasion, because I'm hopelessly human, both inside and out. (yes I finished up with more bits of Kansas lyrics. I guess I listened to them far too long, or maybe just long enough!) I know this response is probably not scientific enough for you, but It's what I was thinking as it unfolded. And it really doesn't matter If I'm wrong or right, or how accurately it seems to fit their posit.

I breezed through it, and it includes far too much math for me, in my current form, but I got the gist of it.

Thanks again, my friend!

[A_Seagull]

For something to be true, it must be believed to be true.

No, what is true is independent of what is believed.

Not at all!

For what you infer to make sense your 'truth' must be entirely abstract and unknown, which is far removed from the normal meaning of the word.

Instead, for a truth to be known it must be believed, for otherwise it would not exist.

[A_Seagull]

Too much of philosophy is based upon fantasies and opinions that have no firm foundations. Discussions about those fantasies and opinions create a lot of hot air, but without sound foundations, that is all they produce.

The problem is there are no other absolute truths. Even the foundations of mathematics are axiomatic.

What makes you so sure that there are no other 'absolute truths'? Perhaps they have just not been discovered yet.

[thedoc]

For something to be true, it must be believed to be true.
Instead, for a truth to be known it must be believed, for otherwise it would not exist.

What makes you so sure that there are no other 'absolute truths'? Perhaps they have just not been discovered yet.

You contradict yourself, first you say that a truth must be believed to be true (exist), then you say that there are truths that may not have been discovered (known) yet? Just a bit hypocritical.

[surreptitious57]

For something to be true it must be believed to be true

Objective truth is not conditional upon subjective interpretation for some
thing to be true it simply has to be and nothing else. Therefore whether it
is acknowledged or under stood is completely irrelevant. Those are human
conditions that are imposed for ulterior reasons albeit usually positive ones

[A_Seagull]

[quote="thedoc] What makes you so sure that there are no other 'absolute truths'? Perhaps they have just not been discovered yet.[/quote][/quote][/quote]


You contradict yourself, first you say that a truth must be believed to be true (exist), then you say that there are truths that may not have been discovered (known) yet? Just a bit hypocritical.[/quote]

Not at all.

It is a waste of time talking to you.

[A_Seagull]

For something to be true it must be believed to be true

Objective truth is not conditional upon subjective interpretation for some
thing to be true it simply has to be and nothing else. Therefore whether it
is acknowledged or under stood is completely irrelevant. Those are human
conditions that are imposed for ulterior reasons albeit usually positive ones

But how can you determine whether something "has to be and nothing else" if it is not part of a belief?

[surreptitious57]

You are spectacularly missing the point here which is that belief has got nothing at all to do with objective truth
Since if something is true then that is all that is required for it to be so. It therefore makes zero difference as to
whether it is believed or not. Objective truth has always existed so has been so ever since the beginning of time
Human beings are therefore entirely superfluous with regard to it. But even if we were hardwired for it and just
it alone we would still be superfluous to it because its existence is not conditional up on anything but only itself

[Rilx]

You are spectacularly missing the point here which is that belief has got nothing at all to do with objective truth
Since if something is true then that is all that is required for it to be so. It therefore makes zero difference as to
whether it is believed or not. Objective truth has always existed so has been so ever since the beginning of time
Human beings are therefore entirely superfluous with regard to it. But even if we were hardwired for it and just
it alone we would still be superfluous to it because its existence is not conditional up on anything but only itself

You mean facts, don't you? Ultimately "truth" is a relation between beliefs and facts. We are just used to call true beliefs "truths".

[surreptitious57]

Objective truth and subjective truth are obviously not the same thing which is why I specifically referenced the
former. Objective truth requires nothing other than for it to be true but this is not so with subjective truth but
I do not regard subjective truth as truth as such as it is predicated upon emotional reasoning so is only true for
whoever actually believes it. When it comes to truth per se I value the objective far more. One and one equals
two is more true than God exists for example. Some try to justify the apparent sanctity of subjective truth but
if one has to do that one has already lost the argument. If the subjective truth in question is really objectively
true then it does not actually require conviction of belief because that is entirely superfluous with regard to it

[A_Seagull]

Ultimately philosophy is not about what is, but rather what we can know (and believe) about what is.