Kristee wrote:
> I can see how truth can exist in mathematics and science, but the
> problem is that they can exist ONLY in within the parameters of math and
> science. It's a contained process, and anything outside of it (which is
> Everything, the Universe) cannot be true, and therefore there is no such
> thing as 'Universal Truth'. Once you start including conceptions like math
> and science in "reality" (whatever that it) they begin to fall apart.
> For quite some...er...time, I've been a firm believer that there is
> no such thing as Time. Yes, we exist in this day-to-day little pocket of
> reason that we call 'reality' in which things actually make sense. Outside
> the realm of reason and rational thinking, you have chaos (which I think is
> closer to actual reality, that itself being a questionable term) in which
> there is no 'tool' called time.
> I know that anarchy would result if time was abolished in our
> world, and that time is as useful and practical as gravity, but once you
> try to integrate a 'universal truth' like, "There is no time." into a
> system like mathematics which has definate truths, you'd destroy it. Math,
> Physics, and Science rely on all these equations and porportions, and time
> is a factor. If you eliminate time, you couldn't solve any problems (like
> finding distance) and nothing would be true anymore.
> This reminds me of the concept of Original Sin, which I also
> scrictly denounce. If you eliminate Sin, which supposedly exists
> everywhere at once and I think doesn't exist at all, you are pulling the
> rug out from under all theology. We have Sin so that we have the need for
> salvation and redemption, without it, practicing religion would be
> meritless, and therefore pointless. If you take out the fundamental
> element of Sin that is ingrained in people, you have effectively destroyed
> the basis of religion.
> My whole point is that today I was thinking how much every kind of
> system we have depends on time, esp. science, and that none of these could
> exist without it. Since I don't believe in time, this would force me to
> conclude that none of these REALLY exist. (????) Well, at least I can make
> the claim that none of them involve such a thing as Truth (depending on how
> you look at it.) That's it-depending on how you look at it; nothing is
> True, yet everything is.
>
> ~Kristee
> ~Time is of the essence; well I'm not so sure about that...~
>
> >Nice try, but still insufficient. I would say that mathematics is our way of
> >describing, as accurately as we have been able to, the way the Universe
> >appears to function, but the "map is not the landscape" Mathematics and
> >science are not the Universe, they are tools devised by subjective creatures
> >incapable of not being subjective. I do hold science and math as the best
> >tools yet devised, but certainly not absolute. Think of it this way
> >
> >less likely <-gods exist----------I exist-------water is "wet"------Universe
> >exists--> more likely
> >
> >but no "real" object or time ever actually is at either end of this scale. I
> >would like it to be otherwise, but so far, havn't seen it. AS you follow into
> >quantum mathematics, it gets even worse.
> >
> >Sodom
> >Ask not for whom the flourescent lights hum
> >
> >Bob Hartwig wrote:
> >
> >> Sodom,
> >>
> >> A claim is true if it can be independently, rigorously, repeatedly
> >> verified. If there were no claims of this nature, science and mathematics
> >> could not exist. Therefore, I hold science and mathematics as evidence
> >> that there is "truth".
> >>
> >> At 01:35 PM 3/25/98 -0500, you wrote:
> >> >Out of curiosity, what would lead you to the idea that there is "truth"?
> >> >
> >> >Sodom
> >> >
> >> >Keith Elis wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Why do you think there is no truth? Or do you mean there is no truth
> >> >> that is recognizable by consciousness?
> >> >>
> >> >> Keith
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
-- MarieWho in real life exists as
The Noble Lady Casey, Serpent's Hold, Sonoma Shard, Britannia