Donald T Palmgren (lonewolf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu)
Thu, 2 Apr 1998 17:27:58 +0100
On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Mary Wittler wrote:
> Hi one and all!
Hello,
>
> I've been lurking for a while now and have finally decided to plunge in.
> Please forgive my ignorance, but I would like to hear the MOQ response to
> the following questions:
>
> 1) If F=ma is not an 'absolute' truth, yet we all still experience gravity,
> then what is true? Is it that F=ma is a shorthand acknowledgement of the
> high probability of its occurrence?
I'll add my two cents on this one.
"Absolut truth" means true always-everywher. The problem is that
always-everywhere dosn't exist. We (imaginativly) project
always-everywhere, and always-everywhere laws to go along w/ it -- this is
what I tend to call "the correct picture of the world", or you could call
it logocentracism.
But what really exests is the present. always-everywher is
projected from here and now. So truth resides in the present situation.
Second, in logocentracism, you take the view that: there are
timeless, absolute truths. ...but true for whome? God? Something is true
or not true *for us*. Truth value is something *we* assign to this or that
proposition. A universe w/o us little humans in it has no more need of a
T-F distinction that it has for abstract laws or propositions like F=ma.
In such a place (which I hope you see is also an imaginative projection)
Truth wouldn't exist at all... or proof.
You might groov on this thought in relation to that question: The
past exists only in memory and recapitulation. The future exists only in
hopes, dreams and predictions. The only time that really exists is the
present.
What do you think?
TTFN
Donny
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:06 CEST