virus: TT and The Absolute Truth

Tadeusz Niwinski (
Mon, 04 Nov 1996 13:57:57 -0800

David McFadzean wrote:
>At 05:21 PM 01/11/96 MST, Jason McVean wrote:
>>Again, if you say that Absolute Truth is simply a proposition,
>>then obviously it is not the same thing as what it describes. I'm
>Only propositions have truth values, so the Absolute Truth has
>to be a proposition, right?

This way of course "truth" does not exist by itself. What do you call
this peculiar something, a property of Objective Reality, which causes
the laws of the universe to work (like the law of gravity) regardless of
what we think of them?

This something which is independent of propositions exists, doesn't it?
What do YOU call it, David?

>I think it is safe to assume that we all agree that objective
>reality exists.

Except those who say they don't believe in believing, as it is not

>>I'm suggesting that we call that infinite amount of ASCII, the
>>Absolute Truth. When you purchase an objective reality at the
>>Almighty Creator Shoppe, you get a matching absolute truth
>>book bound in genuine Corinthian leather. If that idea is
>>accepted, then we can say things like "The true value of pi to 5
>>decimal places is 3.14159" and we don't have to immediately start
>>arguing about truth. Similarly, I can say it isn't true that pi
>>is 4.29 without triggering responses like "There is no absolute
>>truth, just look at the situation in the middle east! Who's right
>I think you are attacking a straw man here. Nobody is disputing that
>the value of pi to 5 decimal places is 3.14159 and that saying so
>is a true statement. But notice that your example is mathematical,
>and the statement is true by definition.

I love Jason's sense of humor with the Corinthian leather cover book.
This is exactly what I mean by TT. David, pi exists regardless of us.
It works for the planets. It works regardless if we know about it or
not! There is this property of Objective Reality which makes this world
rational and predictable. Nothing would be possible if pi was once 3.14
and some other time 8.25. When talking about evolution, we
automatically assume that the Nature is consistent. It wouldn't be
possible otherwise. The judge who decides who "the fittest" are -- is not
capricious. We are even slowly learning his/her/its rules.

>Is the Book of Absolute Truth (bound in genuine Corinthian leather)
>written in mathematical statements? If so, it can only talk about
>formal systems, not objective reality. If it is written in another
>language, what is it? It couldn't be written in any human language,
>since our words are not absolute in any sense. It must be the same
>book for all possible alien civilizations (by definition) so it
>must be written in the Absolute Language, right?

The Book of Absolute Truth has nothing to do with math nor language.
Think of it as TT -- a property of Objective Reality.

>>But the utility of the map has nothing to do with its veracity.
>I can't think of any definitions of "utility" or "veracity" that
>would make this statement true.

If your only purpose here is to look smart, that's a good answer. It
was *your* example with a map. When Jason follows it to prove his point
you go to "trick mode". I am sure we all know what we are talking

>>I think that it is the opposite. The distinction is what is
>>causing our difficulties in further discussion. As I said, I
>>think we fundamentally agree, but the terminology is torpedoing
>>our discussion. Without using terms like true and false, it is
>>very awkward to discuss lots of topics, even in memetics.
>Another straw man.

You just did it David. It's not only the terminology which is
torpedoing, it is the "trick mode" which our discussion was infected

>Nobody said that true and false don't exist
>or aren't useful.

You must have missed quite a few of Richard's posts!

>>Come to think of it, I've never heard anyone who claims that
>>Absolute Truth doesn't exist carefully define what it is. All I
>>can recall is claims that it doesn't exist. Perhaps that would
>>clear up some confusion. Maybe I'm trying to hit a moving target.
>KMO recently defined it quite rigorously as the conjunction of
>all possible true statements (I think, correct me if I'm wrong).

And you know this is not what Jason is talking about: it is not his
leather cover book.

What do you think of TT?

Can we all come up with some mutually agreeable definition of this
peculiar something we all know we are talking about?

This is a very stimulating discussion!

Tad Niwinski from TeTa where people grow
There is no Absolute Truth, although we are getting closer and closer to IT.