I think we all agree that _something_ exists: even dedicated
solipsists believe in their own existence. But while I suspect
that reality is independent of our own perceptions of it, I
don't think that's proven (I don't even know if it's provable).
For starters, quantum mechanics suggests that the perception
of any sentient being (sentient here meaning "having perception,"
so a cat is an observer, and a rock isn't) can affect what happens.
I'm also not convinced by Tad's points about evolution: they
suggest that evolution has a single goal. As I understand it,
the process of natural selection tends to produce organisms
that have more descendants that survive long enough to
reproduce. Not smarter organisms, not stronger organisms,
not organisms with better eyesight--any of these can happen,
but none of it is guaranteed. Bear in mind that recent studies
suggest that an absolute majority of Earth's biomass is
bacteria.
Vicki, trying to get the basics agreed on before we draw conclusions
from them
rosenzweig@hq.acm.org
----------
From: owner-virus
To: virus
Subject: virus: TT
Date: Thursday, October 31, 1996 6:25PM
Jason McVean wrote:
>But I obviously don't want to say
>"true value" if everyone is then going to claim that truth
>doesn't exist. That's why I'm perhaps stubbornly refusing to let
>the subject drop... as I'm sure most people would like :-)
Thank you for your posts on objective reality and absolute truth. I think
they move us forward. Drop the subject? This discussion has not started
yet! (All who are tired with it are free to ignore this thread; AND if
you read it and have nothing to say -- please DON'T). I find it very
important and enlightening. Most confusion and frustration comes from
different definitions we have for the same words (not to mention memetical
experiments on us). Let me start with the definitions:
(1) REALITY.
Kevin says:
>Objective reality is not the kind of thing which can be true or false.
>It is what it is.
"It is". May I say that we all believe that objective reality exists?
If not, as I said in my previous post, such "non-Euclidian"
assumption may lead to some interesting discoveries, but let's handle it
in a separate "Objective reality does not exist" thread.
I see no big difference between "objective reality" and "reality". The
only reason to use the word "objective" is to stress it's independence
from our perception.
(2) TRUTH
Jason says:
>Notice that I used the phrase "true value" in the second last
>sentence. I could have said "value in objective reality" or maybe
>"objective value" but these are cumbersome, potentially confusing...
Kevin:
>Statements about objective reality can be said to have
>a truth value, or in the case of science, a degree of accuracy.
The truth is something which exists independently from us. The whole
evolution is based on it. The more "truth" you know (even if you are just
a tiny cell) the better your chances for survival. The more information
about the objective reality you have -- the better (as in Richard Dawkins'
eye development example). That's why we have our senses. That's why we
have brains. Thanks to our brains (and minds) we are able to know the
objective reality (or truth about it) better and better (and maybe never
know it all...). We are able to understand the world we are part of.
I don't mind calling it "truth", "objective truth", or "absolute truth"
(pardon my ignorance) it's all the same to me. I don't want to waste time
arguing if Absolute Truth may exist (because some philosopher proves that
it would be too complicated if it existed) -- please, let's not argue
about it. Let me call it "TT" and let me define what I mean.
(3) TT
TT is the property of objective reality which drives the evolution.
So far, TT was "blindly" driving the evolution of life and it drove it to
a point where we were created: creatures who are capable of understanding,
learning and using TT. Very clumsy at first, but watch out... There are
already enough people who understand enough TT on Earth to take the
evolution in their hands, then pass it peacefully to computers. As
Richard Dawkins suggests, life may have started from duplication of
defects in crystals: it started from Silicone, to switch to Carbon, to go
back to Silicone: when computers will take over the evolution project
(that's another "Computers, Our Children" thread).
This is the current picture: we have some billions of people on Earth and
lots of unsolved problems. Most of the people have no clue about the
power of TT. They don't know about TT, they don't understand TT. It's
still a little like in ancient Egypt: only the priests would know TT,
although today it is not a deep secret any more, or is it?
What do you think?
---------------------
Tad Niwinski from TeTa where people grow
3.14159265358979323846264338327950
There is no Absolute Truth, although we are getting closer and closer to IT.