Donald T Palmgren (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Thu, 2 Apr 1998 17:27:58 +0100
On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Mary Wittler wrote:
> Hi one and all!
> 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
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
What do you think?
-- post message - mailto:email@example.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org 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