Re: virus: Maxims: the universe and truth

Dan Plante (
Thu, 20 May 1999 14:42:44 -0700

At 03:21 PM 20/05/99 -0500, Joe E. Dees wrote:

>From: Dan Plante <>

>> I might as well chime in with my $0.02 worth on this topic. I agree in
>> essence and detail, with David's remarks above. As a matter of fact, when I
>> analyse how I think, and why I think of certain things, I find that my mind
>> uses coherence and correspondence as tools. Coherence makes me "notice"
>> certain things, and I then use correspondence to evaluate the thought for
>> validity. So, from my point of view, the definition of truth as stated
>> above is also a description of how my brain is wired to work (now _that_
>> could be taken a number of different ways, couldn't it ;-)

>I think that internal consistency and external coherence are
>complementary ways to evaluate the truth-value of a contention.
>Unless they both inhere, one should be wary of accepting the
>assertion in question.

Yes. I might also add that I use the dualistic/complementary nature of a postulate as one way to evaluate the correspondence with observed reality, since I've noticed a pattern where valid models of reality seem to have this characteristic. I suspect that this characteristic is a side effect of analysis that trancends boundaries of emergence - that is, it comes from attempting to percieve patterns in a system that includes both the emergent phenomenon, and the subordinate level from which it arose, all at the same time. This is, therefore, as I see it, a patterned side-effect of a universe driven and herded by the process of evolution since (before?) the Big Bang.