truth in a conscious-less universe

I’m not a Platonist. I don’t believe there are such things as independently existing Truths or principles. I believe that truths and principles come about by our thinking them.

But then one can ask the question “What would happen in a universe in which there were no thinking beings? Would nothing be true?” What happens, for example, when the universe suffers the heat death and there is nothing left to support life or consciousness? Would 2 + 2 cease to equal 4?

That seems absurd, doesn’t it? But then it occurs to me that maybe the only reason it seems absurd is because in such thought experiments, I’m there observing the world. That is, I can’t imagine the universe undergoing the heat death unless I inadvertently place myself in that universe to observe it. Could it be that 2 + 2 still equals 4 in that universe only because I’m there to think it?

Well, then, I’m now stuck trying to imagine a scenario in which all conscious beings really have gone extinct from the universe and finding myself incapable of doing it. How, then, am I to perform the necessary thought experiment that will allow me to verify whether one can have a universe without truths, principles, and other platonic things? The dilemma is that it seems I should be able to posit the possibility of a conscious-less universe (the universe will suffer the heat death after all) while at the same time it seems absurd to do so without clinging to some form of Platonism.

Can anyone point the way out of this predicament?

the most fundamental truth there is , is this

we , being Humans and really all life is made possible because of the Universe

the Universe was , is , before any thinking being

period

north

Gib - I don’t have a solution for you - although I think I can imagine a Universe without sentient beings. Maybe it’s the weed.

But I think you’re on to something.

esse est percipi

-Imp

not really

the Universe is true

since the Universe is fundamental to life its self

Are you saying “real” = “true”?

yes

in the sense that the Universe is both real and therefore true

Ahhh - then there is an inferential relation between “real” and “true.”

Can you expand on that, north? What is the difference between real and true?

But realness and truth are two totally different categories. Rocks, trees, and water are real. Statements are true (or false). How do you equate one with the other?

I’ve been trying to find that out myself, gib.

Sounds like someone’s been reading a little too much Hegel.

in most cases when we talk of real and true there can be a difference , and this comes up in everyday life because of perceptions based on psychological reasons

but I like bringing up the Universe as both being real and true because it is devoid of any psychological perception

the Universe allowed us to be made because of the conditions here on Earth

water , air , minerals etc

but in the case of the Universe you make a statement about both real and truth

yes rocks , trees , etc are real

 so you could make the statement that the Universe was here before we became and that would be true

I think I’ll stop asking.

Yes, but it would be the statement that is true, not the universe.

I disagree

its a statement that is true about the Universe

But isn’t it also a statement about the universe that’s true?

Or a true statement about a real universe?

Or a statement that’s really true?

One cannot hope to philosophise until he has mastered the language he speaks.

Isn’t that what I just said? All you did was add “about the universe” - as if that changes the rolls of realness and truth.

Isn’t that what I just said? All you did was add “about the universe” - as if that changes the rolls of realness and truth.
[/quote]
no that is not what you said

you said at the end of your statement " not the Universe " I corrected that part by INCLUDING the Universe

Sorry, north, but you’re very confused about the basic structures of English sentences.

I said “…it would be the statement that is true, not the universe.” which is exactly the same as “…it would be the statement about the universe that is true, not the universe itself.”

In such a universe, regardless of any conscious interaction, a multiplicity of objects will still exist (this seeming truism is certainly in doubt when considering the recent theories/ understandings in quantum mechanics, but should not apply in such a “thought experiment” ). Of course, the universe will lack a “subject” to count those objects, but their existence lies independent of thought (the whole tree falling scenario).

Truth is a human conception, therefore limiting any truth to the human realm. But we may be able to dissect some of the properties of what a truth consist of, and attempt to separate those from a conscious entity. In such a world, let us consider the proposition that truth is the representation of an actuality. In this case, considering that objects exist in this hypothetical universe, their actuality implies multiplicity. This multiplicity of objects will eventually lead into the assumption that the rocks in that universe will add up according to the mathematical properties of this universe, regardless if there is anyone to perceive this.

Of course, your consideration directly involves the projection of consciousness into a world that lacks life. It is natural, considering all we have are our current perspectives, that we should imply that the material space in that universe exists in such a manner as it does in this one. This leads into your query:

Technically, that universe has nothing to do with your thinking or consciousness; in its reality, it is devoid of it. You are not in that universe thinking, but there is the presumption that the universe is as it is today in regards to its laws and physical processes. This complicates the “thought experiment”, but does not leave it inaccessible.

It is not impossible to think about a universe with no consciousness, one must simply be able to consider what consciousness means in regards to your experiment.

A universe with no consciousness is a universe with no discrimination. The physical plane simply exists as one entity, not being able to differentiate one part from the other. One could consider the existence of some type of protoconsciousness which lacks the faculties of the sapiens sapiens higher mind, but for all intents and purposes, let us assume when you are referring to consciousness you are including rudimentary types of perception, sentience, and experience (qualia) as well. In this case, I believe your initial inclination may have some merit; there can be no truth in this universe. This is not because consciousness is not there to “think”, but rather because consciousness is not there to witness.

By default a truth must be something known, and knowing truth cannot take place without the ability to experience truth.