> At 08:07 PM 06/11/96 MST, Jason McVean wrote:
[CLIP]
> >I would claim that it is absolutely true within the context of
> >the argument. Just as I would say that it is absolutely true that
> >pi=3.14 to two decimal places.
>
> I think this indicates that we have different definitions of
> "absolute". It doesn't make sense to me to say something
> is "absolute within a specific context" because I take
> absolute to mean "objective" or "universal" or "for all
> possible worlds" or something along those lines. What do
> you intend it to mean?
Perhaps the context is "stuffed into the statement"? Consider the 'crude
analogy' you used below:
[CLIP]
> ... so I'll make a crude analogy:
> It is not (like you suggested before) like approaching the
> speed of light (a mere physical impossibility), it is more
> like trying to approach the speed of democracy (or something
> else that doesn't have a speed, a logical impossibility).
The 'context' here is (as you mentioned) that light has a speed, but
democracy does not. [At least not explicitly. "How fast is the bill
getting through Congress?"]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////