Hi,
TheHermit <carlw@hermit.net> writes:
<<
A "truth value" is a defined result, usually {0 or 1 in classical
logic; values ranging between -1 and 1 in fuzzy logic} which can be
obtained from the analysis of any statement including a non-absolute
statement. A "statement of truth" is not a defined term (unless you
have a go at it)
>>
Well, for all intents and purposes I can see, one could replace "statements of truth" with "statements", or "assertions" or "communications" or any number of other nouns which refer to *maps*. A false statement is *still* embedded in a frame of reference...
<<
Of course the "elegant" version smacks more of the intellectual
dishonesty usually attendent on the founding of a church.
>>
Could you explain this further? What part of the maxim do you think is intellectually dishonest?
<<
Secondly, the idea of "embedding" does not imply "dependency"
>>
Really? And are we sure that "dependency" is actually needed? What about a statement of truth which can be expressed in two totally different "frames of reference". Since it's expression is possible without either, it is not "dependent" on either of them -- yet it must be embedded in one.
<<
>From the definition of Universe in the WWWebster "1 : the whole body
of things and phenomena observed or postulated" What is a postulate
other than an imaginary thing? "4 : a set that contains all elements
relevant to a particular discussion or problem." I know you don't
think that imaginary elements are not needed in these discussions, and
to address these problems. Where do you imagine they come from? All
right, how do you explain that I am not inside your head, yet I know
what you are thinking :-)
>>
I think WWWebsters has gone to far, myself. I do not think the universe *contains* the postulated things and phenomena -- only the *postulates* themselves. i.e. the universe doesn't *contain* any circles -- but it does contain the *postulate* of (the idea of) circles: that idea "exists", but only via it's *instantiations* in numerous "frames of reference", one of which is my brain, and another of which is yours. The Idea itself is Platonic, and as such, purely fictious. (and I would further add that it is our langauge which creates these Platonic "essences" -- see E-Prime)
<<
How do other people understand you unless the body of information
about definitions, classes, objects and methods is shared? By
definition, they can only be shared if they exist within the universe
as it is not possible to interact with something if it is not within
the same universe as yourself.
>>
Other people work with the "same" *ideas* as I do -- and people debate the nature of the "sameness" all the time. Is information unique?[1] Is my instantiation of "circle" the same as yours? I contend no. It is the fact that different people have different instantiations of ideas (in different "frames of reference") that makes communication both difficult and rewarding.
My universe contains only real things -- some of which *represent* imaginary ideas/things to entities with the proper "frame of reference".
Which reminds me of a cute story about his whole issue -- I think it is something Douglas Adams wrote, but am not sure.
It begins with a guy trying to solve a problem. He has no idea what the solution is, but he takes out a piece of paper and writes down a random assortment of symbols and *declares* it to be the answer in a language he does not know... Now, he has reduced the previously difficult problem to a mere linguistic one: all he has to do is find someone who knows the language in which the answer is writen!
(BTW: the above can be taken as a proof of the non-existence of a "universal" translator -- since such a translaor would be omniscient, a clear impossibility)
ERiC
[1] It is this type of problem which leads to the Platonic Forms -- your solution seems to be to include the Platonic Forms as *part* of the universe, which is non-sense in my opinion. Platonic Forms simply do not exist -- only instantiations of those Platonic Forms -- which sort of defeats the whole purpose of them, eh? There is no "perfect" understanding, which is another way of saying there is no "God".