>Now we assume we know what is "true". In order to use logic we have to
>agree on some terms and their meaning. The PCR and "maybe" camps may
>question the truth itself. How do we define "truth"?
That which is in accordance with the actual state of affairs. Isomorphic=
with
objective reality. Note that I make no claim that there is such thing as the
Truth with a capital T [1]. There are different ways to express the truth,
e.g. if a point is located at cartesian co-ordinates (3, 4) it is also true
that the point is located at polar co-ordinates (5, 53=BA)[2]. No framework=
is
objectively better than another, though some will be more useful given
certain criteria. Once the mapping is found between two frameworks, true=20
statements using one framework can be translated to true statements in the
other framework.
[1] I have learned to only mention the Truth around people who understand it
as a reference to objective reality itself.
[2] Assuming that the 90=BA axis is in line with the y-axis, of course.
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/