>I was trying to say that OR and AT
>come as a set. Objective reality has objective, true properties.
>For instance, objective reality has the property that the speed
>of light in a vaccuum is constant and equal to c. I'd like to
>call those true properties, not my imperfect statement of them,
>Absolute Truth. Then, when I make a statement such as the speed
>of light is 3E8 m/s, the truth of the statement can be compared
>to the relevent part of the AT. I suppose I could also say that
>it could be compared to OR, but that seems cumbersome in other
>cases, such as the one below.
You have indeed stuck your finger in the hole in the dike.
There are no "objective, true properties." Just workable hypotheses.
>Unless the objection is that a
>statement can't be absolutely true (and hence it can't be true)
>because all statements are imperfect due to imperfect language,
>non-sufficient qualification, incomplete description and so on. I
>think this is the strongest case to be made and I essentially
>agree. I have tried to define my way around that (see above) in
>the interest retaining the term Absolute Truth (and hence truth)
>to make discussion less cumbersome.
Almost. Language isn't imperfect; it's constructed. It's not simply an
approximation; it's an editorial. You can never have a one-to-one
correspondence with Objective Reality in language; language is
one-dimensional.
Richard Brodie RBrodie@brodietech.com +1.206.688.8600
CEO, Brodie Technology Group, Inc., Bellevue, WA, USA
http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie
Do you know what a "meme" is?
http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm
>
>