Re: virus: A posting

John A (
Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:13:46 -0500

Pat Bunt wrote:
> Actually, the universe is in chaos. The Laws of Physics are not
> If they were, and we knew them, then no further scientific progress
would be
> possible- the Laws of Physics have told us once upon a time that heavier
> objects fall faster than light ones, that supersonic travel is Impossible
> Magic, and that 640K should be enough for anyone (sorry, just had to
> that one in...) In other words, science can't stand opposed to
> because science is in no way prepared to fill in for it.

In my mind faith has the burden of proof. When I choose a belief, I'll
call this belief "c", then I require a logical "a + b" to arrive at "c".
For instance if c = 3 and a & b are not some combination of numbers that
add up to 3, then I have a problem. If I were going to choose a belief
that does not follow from this logic, I would just invent my own. It
would be every bit as logical and I would like it much better.

> Socrates figured out that you can't have knowledge without a
bit of
> faith- that if you keep asking "How do you know that?" you get to the
> where you say "I just know"- a belief not grounded in empirical evidence.

I believe that we will reach a point that this question may be answered
by existing evidence. It would be like a circle; "a" is true because of
"b", and "b" is true because of "a". I would like to hear some opinions
about the implications of this situation. I am not quite sure what to
think about this concept.

John Aten
"Truth demands to be declared even if it is ugly 
 and unethical" -F. Nietzsche

"Of each thing ask, what is it? What is its nature? What is it of itself" -Marcus Aurelius