Richard
who almost moved to Norway to teach Cartesian geometry, but fortunately
realized just in time that it would be putting Descartes before the Norse.
Richard Brodie RBrodie@brodietech.com http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie
Author, VIRUS OF THE MIND: The New Science of the Meme
http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/votm.htm
Visit Meme Central: http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm
On Tuesday, September 23, 1997 8:28 AM, David McFadzean
[SMTP:david@lucifer.com] wrote:
> At 12:32 AM 9/23/97 -0700, Tadeusz Niwinski wrote:
>
> >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, 53o)[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
> 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 90o 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/