>We could call it the universal homologous form a la Wittengenstein.
>(see http://www.lucifer.com/virus/archive/0469.html)
Sorry to keep you waiting, I was trying to understand Wittengenstein and
the Zen philosophy. We have agreed that Objective Reality has this
property of incredible consistency: pi is always 3.14... , OR "always gives
off photons in the same way, and always has the same magnetic field,
and always exhibits the same time dependent behaviour, no
matter what the observer is."
So far, we have agreed to call it TT or "universal homologous form a la
Wittengenstein". OK.
Life on Earth has developed as an interesting consequence of TT.
The judge who "decides" who is "the fittest" is very consistent. It makes
evolution possible. It also makes this world predictable, and knowable.
At least this is the materialistic point of view. The only other possible
point of view I can see is that OR is not consistent, that pi is sometimes
3.14... and sometimes it is not (I am not talking about accuracy nor
precision), that the photons behave in an unpredictable way, etc...
I believe -- and it all comes down to what each one of us believes -- that
the world *is* consistent and predictable. That we *can* know it better
and better. As one person said (the quiz on who it was is still on):
"Whatever we hold precious, we cannot protect it from our curiosity,
because being who we are, one of the things we deem precious is the truth.
Our love of truth is surely a central element in the meaning we find in
our lives."
It is the truth mentioned in the above quotation I used to call "Absolute
Truth" to stress how precious it was. I agree, this may not be the best
term for it. As "universal homologous form a la Wittengenstein" sounds
not as simple as TT, I will take the liberty to call it TT.
>Would you say that reality is true? That all parts of reality
>are true? Why do you reject my (and KMO's) opinion that only
>statements can have truth? Don't you agree that it makes no
>sense to claim, e.g. "this biscuit is false"?
I agree that it does not make any sense to claim that a biscuit is false.
>>(1) do they need our brains in order to exist or
>>(2) they exist independently of us?
>
>Let's say a statement is a string of words that makes some assertion
>about something.
>
>>If (1) then I agree: our statements about OR and TT can be true or not.
>>And with some statements we may never know if they are true or false.
>>Absolute Truth in that meaning does not exist.
>
>I would say that statements can exist independently of human brains.
>For example, ones in books or travelling through the internet.
This is still meaning (1). I could have said it better: if the Earth
exploded into pieces (no life left, not even internet!...) will there
still be any statements? If yes -- this is my second meaning, for example
the photons would behave the same way and pi would still be 3.14...
>>If (2) then statements about OR are the truth itself, or the Absolute
Truth.
>
>No, statements can be false.
In the second meaning there is no one to make false statements. The
nature is left to itself. As IT was when Earth had no life on it. TT was
there all the time.
The nature is honest. It does not know how to lie. Or does it?
Your post ended here with no signature, or I have missed the rest.
I don't want to sound too insistent, but can you think of a better name
for TT?
---------------------
Tad Niwinski from TeTa where people grow
3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459
Danger!!! Danger!!!
The Level-3 Hypocrisy Virus (L3HV) is threatening YOU and your children!
PROTECT yourself: never talk to an infected person without a condom!