About the Poll on Truth and its Origin

Frank said:

Quote:

Tal...these people are mistaking "impressions of truth" and "considerations of truth" with TRUTH.

Frank: you're misunderstanding my use of the phrase "different kinds of truth" to mean "subjective and objective truths". What I intended to communicate was that there are truths that relate to subjective data, such as feelings and perceptions. The statement "I am happy" is objectively true, but it depends on a subjective situation, whereas the statement "I exist" is just objectively true. That's what I meant by "different kinds of truth."

Don't worry...I don't think the world vanishes if I blink! :wink:

NobleCon: Thanks for the compliments. As far as the "God" issue goes, I think that, if there is a God, he would definitely be "in this universe", simply because I don't think you can be "outside this universe" at all. I admit that this might be due to my inability to comprehend infinity/nothingness(whatever it is the universe is supposedly expanding into all the time :wink: ), but that's my guess for now. And the "calculations" part: I think that, once you have a formula for everything that exists...put them all together and you'll have the formula for God.

Now there's your thought for the day! Laughing

0 Replies

No Mr. Apisa, I do not provide lectures nowadays; I quit my lectureship at City College when I was twenty-three, and my final lecture was given that day. I am sorry for your interpretation, once more.

I "...suppose it necessary to mention it again" for the reason that my entire set of responses- my answers to your remarks- resides in that distinction. As Wittgenstein and Ramsey noted, they provide nothing new, as with the statement 'Either it is raining or it is not raining.'. They are, as it were, completely redundant.

As for my own revision, its scope is larger that yours and thus comprises all sorts of truths- deductive, inductive, and, Sherlock Holmes's favourite, abductive. Your first remark was not sufficient and I took the liberty of making it so. I thought you would have been pleased- I would have been pleased.

Concerning my sensibilities, I have only one; of course, I suppose more would be welcomed. And if some do have "more balls than others," I recommend a visit to a medical doctor.

You can not be serious about the argument 'All truths are objective because what is true is true and what is not true is not true.' This is flimsy, at best; at worst, repulsive.

Again, my remarks have escaped you, and this is not appreciative, but only depreciatory. And, I believe that your note on truth in reference to mind games should be reviewed.

0 Replies

Taliesin181 wrote:

Frank said:

Quote:
Tal...these people are mistaking "impressions of truth" and "considerations of truth" with TRUTH.

Frank: you're misunderstanding my use of the phrase "different kinds of truth" to mean "subjective and objective truths". What I intended to communicate was that there are truths that relate to subjective data, such as feelings and perceptions. The statement "I am happy" is objectively true, but it depends on a subjective situation, whereas the statement "I exist" is just objectively true. That's what I meant by "different kinds of truth."

Don't worry...I don't think the world vanishes if I blink! :wink:

NobleCon: Thanks for the compliments. As far as the "God" issue goes, I think that, if there is a God, he would definitely be "in this universe", simply because I don't think you can be "outside this universe" at all. I admit that this might be due to my inability to comprehend infinity/nothingness(whatever it is the universe is supposedly expanding into all the time :wink: ), but that's my guess for now. And the "calculations" part: I think that, once you have a formula for everything that exists...put them all together and you'll have the formula for God.

Now there's your thought for the day!

Yes, that is one hell of a thought; more on that to come.

God within this universe is called process theology, and, to say the least, its adherents have provided convincing arguments. I am not sure...

I believe you have the ability to comprehend such vast abstract notions as 'infinity', 'nothingness', and 'universe'- your remark above indicates that ability. So, on that note, here is my question to you:

Is this universe one set or a set within a set? In other words, does it reside within some sort of container or is it the prime container? Shocked

0 Replies

NobleCon said:

Quote:

Is this universe one set or a set within a set? In other words, does it reside within some sort of container or is it the prime container?

Heh. I love that emoticon.

I would guess that the universe is both: it contains everything, and, by some process I don't really understand, creates something for it to expand into. Maybe the "universe" as we know it consists of both where all the galaxies are, and what it's expanding into. There's the "nothingness", and then the "somethingness" slowly expanding outward until it contracts again. I don't really think the universe is infinite so much as vast beyond our understanding, and we're spreading apart until we come back again. Maybe the contraction starts when we hit the edge of the "nothing", and we bounce back again like a ball hitting a wall.

How's that for a theory?

0 Replies

After listening to you here, NobleCon...I think you can drop the "noble" from your moniker.

You aren't....and "con" seems more descriptive of your style.

If you want to kid yourself into thinking that by thinking TRUTH is subjective...you are somehow advocating an intellectual position on this question...do it. Hey, we all need reinforsement.

But to be honest...I see more intellectualism in the pronouncements of Homer Simson and Pogo than I am seeing from you wanna-be philosophers on this issue. Sounds to me like people who have bought into notions that have as much substance as the emperor's new cloths.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

After listening to you here, NobleCon...I think you can drop the "noble" from your moniker.

You aren't....and "con" seems more descriptive of your style.

If you want to kid yourself into thinking that by thinking TRUTH is subjective...you are somehow advocating an intellectual position on this question...do it. Hey, we all need reinforsement.

But to be honest...I see more intellectualism in the pronouncements of Homer Simson and Pogo than I am seeing from you wanna-be philosophers on this issue. Sounds to me like people who have bought into notions that have as much substance as the emperor's new cloths.

You should follow the advice of the quote below your replies. And, not all humans need reinforcement; I do not.

You are not the first to be this "bull-headed" and deadly, nor will you be the last. That bus arrives every twenty minutes. And you are not the first to provide destructive interpretations; it is as old as philosophy itself; no, it is older.

Find the remark I made wherein I note that truth in general is "subjective," for I have not mentioned anything of the sort. Your remarks on this exemplify my own point. And I would tell you to review my remarks once more, but I know the result.

You are as stolid as they come, and those ranks are laughable. Enjoy your stay within them.

(Note: phone any philosophy department and ask to speak to any prof available that day. Tell him that you wish to fax our correspondence to him, and request from him a brief analysis of our positions. Then, when that is done with, mail him this last note of yours. The prof's face will look something like this Shocked

And this because of your "own" remarks.)

0 Replies

NobleCon: I had another contrasting thought/theory. God is infinite(assuming infinity can exist), and created the universe within himself, much like an infant, and as the universe 'grows up', it expands into him, making him less, until it God decides it's enough and restrains our growth, causing us to snap back and start over.

I like my other theory better, but I think this one is interesting, too.

0 Replies

NobleCon wrote:

You should follow the advice of the quote below your replies.

I do all the time.

Quote:

And, not all humans need reinforcement; I do not.

Yeah you do. You are an uptight, sexually repressed kid. Of course you need reinforcement.

Quote:

Note: phone any philosophy department and ask to speak to any prof available that day. Tell him that you wish to fax our correspondence to him, and request from him a brief analysis of our positions. Then, when that is done with, mail him this last note of yours. The prof's face will look something like this And this because of your "own" remarks.)

Don't have to do it. I know that any competent philosophy professor would consider both of us to be jackasses.

You are a cookie cutter philosopher, Con. And you bit down hard when you should have spit the bait out.

Grow up a bit. Get some experience. Then we can talk.

Or...we can meet an have a drink some time. I'm in town often.

0 Replies

I see. Well then, what can we do...

Concerning any repression, I request that such uninformed conclusions and the impressions from which they are derived to be kept at bay. Neither are they true nor have they been thought out very well, especially from a mere thread in a forum.

My sex life, as with anyone else's, is not for public scrutiny.

As for drinks in the city, certainly: let us see how our discourse fans out over a few martinis.

0 Replies

NobleCon wrote:

I see. Well then, what can we do...

Concerning any repression, I request that such uninformed conclusions and the impressions from which they are derived to be kept at bay. Neither are they true nor have they been thought out very well, especially from a mere thread in a forum.

My sex life, as with anyone else's, is not for public scrutiny.

As for drinks in the city, certainly: let us see how our discourse fans out over a few martinis.

I'll be in town today...but I've got obligations.

Some of the A2Kers are meeting on Thursday and Saturday. If you are interested in joining us...I'll fill you in on details.

We have group gatherings often...and we make it a practice to leave any animosity or contention back in the threads.

I think you will enjoy meeting some of the people.

Let me know.

0 Replies

Certainly. Let me know of the details.

My e-mail address is '[email protected].' I am available most days, though Thursday, Friday, and the weekend are preferred.

0 Replies

Almost every Thursday evening during the summer...Joe Nation and I (and occasionally a couple other a2kers) meet for a bite and a brew at the Frying Pan (Chelsea Piers)...during their Happy Hour.

I'll let ya know when we get the meets started.

Join us.

You'll enjoy!

0 Replies

Happy hour...? Woohoo... Very Happy

!

0 Replies

A REQUEST:

Listen...

...some people are having a cyber election of sorts (for president of A2K)...and I have decided to run for the office.

Apparently it is entirely ceremonial...since Craven owns the site and he is gonna be the big cheese no matter what happens in this cockamamie election.

In any case...it appears some procedural meneuvers are taking place that may (MAY) prevent me from appearing on the ballot. I get the feeling that a minimum number of primary votes will be needed to make the final list of names.

I understand that occasionally I get passionate...and throw some shyt at some of the people to whom I am addressing this request...but, if you ever intend to get elected to anything...you gotta have desire and balls.

And "balls"...I've got in abundance.

So...even if you hate the thought of seeing my avatar in a thread in which you are a participant...I would appreciate you taking time to visit the thread linked below...and casting a vote for my name.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=50016&start=100

YOU WILL NOT BE VOTING FOR ME...because the election is not even scheduled (as far as I know) yet...and this is like a primary to see who will make it to the final ballot.

You might hold your nose if necessary to do it...with the thought in mind that you could come to the actual election; vote against me; and hope for a humiliating landslide in someone else's favor.

Thank you for at least considering my request.

0 Replies

Frank: Already did. In my opinion you'd be good at...being ceremonial...what does this position do, anyway? Laughing

0 Replies

Beats the piss oughtta me. But if elected to it...you can bet your life that I will use it in ways beneficial to A2K and its members.

(Damn if I don't sound jest lak a politician.)

And thank you, Tal.

0 Replies

No problem, Frank. Give 'em hell. Laughing

Noble: We've let our discussion drift a little. What is your answer to the question you asked me? Thanks.

0 Replies

Talie, which question are you referring to? I have been occupied by some business and so I have not been responding to any replies (or threads) for one week now. My apologies for this.

I hope everyone here is well. :wink:

0 Replies

Noble: No worries; I've gotten busy like that myself. The question I was referring to is this one:

Quote:

Is this universe one set or a set within a set? In other words, does it reside within some sort of container or is it the prime container?

I've told you my theories; what do you think? Hope to hear from you soon.

0 Replies

I can not say conclusively, though quantum mechanics can provide you with an estimate. The question is simple to come up with; the answer, to be sure, is another matter, both scientific and ontological.

The universe as such- or, to put it another way, all universes whatsoever- could be one grand set that is comprised of a number of sets, or a number of discrete sets unrelated to each other. In the first case, every universe is related to each other and is a part of the universe as a whole; in the second case, every universe is not related to the next though it is a part of the whole. The third case is this: there is no other universe apart from this one, and this one contains no others "sets" within it.

Is there one set or a number of sets? Moreover, is the single set comprised of a number of sets, or one set alone? If the single set consists of a number of sets, are they related to each other or discrete and so unrelated to its "neighbor?" And, if there is one set exclusively, what is it made of? Shocked

0 Replies

About the Poll on Truth and its Origin

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know