> Tadeusz Niwinski <niwinska@direct.ca> wrote:
> > THE UPDATED VERSION:
> >
> > David McFadzean: Universal homologous form a la Wittengenstein
> > KMO: (the name is kept a secret from this list)
> > Jason McVean: Absolute Truth
> > David Leeper: TRTH!n (or the Child)
> > Tad from TeTa: TT (or Absolute Truth)
> > Richard Brodie: The zillion-bit stuff out there that cannot be mapped
> with
> > exact precision.
> >
> >
> > I move we call it The Truth. Or shall we continue the discussion?
>
> You are welcome to call it The Truth (or anything else you like) but I
> have trouble calling it The Truth for the simple reason it isn't true.
> It just is. Truth is not a property of objective reality, nor its
> properties, nor its consistent patterns.
>
> As far as I can tell, proponents of the Absolute Truth either have to
> show how a property (e.g. the speed of light) can be true, or they have
> to say that the Absolute Truth is unlike any other truth in that it
> isn't true. Are there any other options?
Definition clash!
When "truth" is expanded as "true statement", then the true statement is
true [by definition]. I'd prefer to use some other term for this.
When "truth" is expanded as "truth value of..." [e.g., "the truth of the
matter is..."], I find it ridiculous to say that a truth-value can be
true. At any rate, I like the Axiom of Foundation in set-theory--keeps
sets from being members of themselves, which is a fairly ill-grounded
thing to do.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////