Universal truths?

Question

Can anyone describe--and give evidence of--any universal truths outside of these four claims:

Time exists.
Space exists.
Energy exists.
Matter exists.

Isn't everything else just a derivative of one or more of these four things? Please, only include what you believe to be universal truth that can be substantiated with empirical evidence or logical reasoning. I'm willing to hear out any long-winded examination.

I'm going to add this to a couple other forums to get some varied responses...i.e., you don't have to answer multiple times.

There's no ulterior motives in this. And you're probably right, secret, I've asked this in philosophy and religion/spirituality, too.

I've been getting the cogito ergo sum argument in other forums, too, but isn't thought, will, and actions just a function of the human brain, which is itself a manifestation of matter/energy and exists in space-time, at least as far as we have evidence for it?

There's no ulterior motives in this. And you're probably right, secret, I've asked this in philosophy and religion/spirituality, too.

I've been getting the cogito ergo sum argument in other forums, too, but isn't thought, will, and actions just a function of the human brain, which is itself a manifestation of matter/energy and exists in space-time, at least as far as we have evidence for it?

Answer 1

No evidence, just some ideas...

This is related to the challenge: Describe/define everything in the universe in 5 words or less.

Space, matter, energy, time.
That seems to pretty much cover it. Or does it?

What about anti-matter? I understand that we have observed this stuff in the laboratory and it can not be classified as one of the four things mentioned above. Also, what about dark matter or dark energy? I don't think we know what exactly these things are, but we are pretty sure they exist - and may even make up the bulk of the universe.

What about ideas - ideas contrived by the human mind? Do they exist? Can they be classified as one of the 4 things mentioned above? Are they just the result of interactions between matter and energy in our brains - only in existence as long as human brains are around?

Does time really exist, or is it just something that is convenient for our perceptions of the universe?

Does space - empty space - really exist or is it always occupied by either matter or energy (or anti-matter)?
Is the space between the nucleus of an atom and it's electrons truly empty space or is it occupied by energy of some kind?

Does matter really exist, or is it just some manifestation of energy?

Sorry to ask more questions than I give answers, but I think other people may want to consider them in their answers.

Answer 2

The Philosophy forum is better equipped to attack this question.

But I'll only say that the very concept of obtaining *evidence* of any truth is problematic. Evidence must be derived from the senses, and (as we know) the senses can all be fooled.

In fact, there is the classic response that there is no way to determine empirically (with evidence) that you are not just a brain in a vat that some scientist isn't feeding false sense-impressions through electrodes. (The movie The Matrix explored this possibility very nicely.)

Everything you perceive could be completely manufactured ... including everything that could possibly qualify as *evidence* of any Truth (including whatever evidence you feel lets you claim those 4 universal truths). Fundamentally all we have is the faith that we are not just a brain in a vat ... or something even less real than that. But that faith is good enough for me.

Answer 3

I like descarte's treatise that ends with 'i think, therefore i am', or 'cogito, ergo sum'. with that you can prove that you exist yourself.
if you know that you exist, and assume any of the other 4 that you've given (are they really true?), then you can indicate that there is a mechanism by which you can perceive time, space, energy and matter.
everything else in science should then begin with,
'based on observations of space/ time/ energy/ matter, i can hypothesize this rule/ law/ physical constant.'
but that caveat of being based on past observations prevents anything from reaching the level of universal truth.
I am not aware of any logical argument that proves your observations cannot be incorrect, or that there cannot be a deviation from a hypothesis. rather the scientific method is to hypothesize and then test until an exception is found. but not finding one is not proof of the hypothesis.

Answer 4

I am the dust made animate
Earth's singer given syllables
As Homer of an elder date
For love and sorrow, joy and hate,
And greetings and farewells

Too soon I too shall be as quiet
As they who know not how the night is dark
Nor how the day is clear

But for one fleeting moment yet
I traffic with the alphabet
Before I am anonymous
And scattered everywhere

--Byron Herbert Reece

Answer 5

The only truth is that there is no truth, which of course is a truth and therefore there is only one truth, that there is no truth.

Answer 6

nothing long winded from me, have time to listen.