From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 09:51:44 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Truth is equivalent to law?
Message-ID: <199605242031.PAA24301@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Hi blanc,


Forwarded message:

> From: blanc <blancw@accessone.com>
> Subject: RE: Truth can sometimes be harmful...(talk.cpunks.truth)
> Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 12:24:23 -0700

> I understood what you meant.   I appreciate the general nature of truth, =
> in spite of the possibilities for misinterpretations of or =
> prevarications from it.=20

What is the 'general nature of truth'?

> Jim, a quote for you:
> 
> 	"We are able to act at all - that is to say, we have the power=20
> 	to order our conduct in such a way that the ends we desire=20
> 	can be attained - only because the phenomena of the world=20
> 	are governed not by arbitrariness, but by laws that we have=20
> 	the capacity to know something about.  If it were otherwise,=20
> 	we should be completely at the mercy of forces that we should=20
> 	be unable to understand."=20
> 				~ Human Action, Ludwig Von Mises
> 
> Substitute the word "truth" for "laws" and it makes equal sense.  We =
> would be at the mercy of forces that we could not control, if our =
> perceptions and interpretations could not correspond to the actual, the =
> real, the truth.

So in your mind truth is equivalent to law? In the sense of the above quote
the 'laws' that are refered to are general observed regularities that we
are capable of understanding. Being a pantheist and hence seeing the entire
cosmos as all there is (and hence divine in toto), I can appreciate the
original intent (being a physicist helps a little bit).

If I accept your equivalency (which I do) then there is no such thing as
Truth in the sense of the original discussion. The laws refered to in the
quote have the implicit characteristic of being disproved. A characteristic
not shared by Truth.

I further believe the universe is understandable, just not in toto. It is a
little simplistic to believe that every system in the cosmos uses all the
regularities that we observe. When followed to its logical conclusion  it
implies that there may (are) systems which we won't be able to understand
in toto (quantum effects come to mind) simply because the system that is
our brain either is not complex enough or runs into the Godel paradox.
In short, if we assume that we can understand the universe in toto then we
have in effect demonstrated that Godel was incorrect. I have covered the
ramifications of this previously.


Crypto relevancy: many assumptions that we take for granted are based upon
                  proof and 'laws' we ASSUME to be isotropic and 
                  homogeneous. If we don't have a clear and present
                  understanding of the 'laws', the procedures used to obtain
                  them, and the limitations  of both our 'laws' and the 
                  procedures, then we are opening ourselves up for a large
                  dose of security by obscurity.

Always question authority, it is simply another human being who does not have 
your best interest at heart since they have their own agenda.


                                                  Jim Choate