From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 07:46:08 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: PILATE SAYETH UNTO HIM... (fwd)
Message-ID: <199605241639.LAA24014@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Hiya Sandy,

Forwarded message:

> Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 07:43:06 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
> Subject: PILATE SAYETH UNTO HIM...
> 
> It isn't obvious that we DON"T agree.  It was still a question.

If there was an absolute Truth as you postulate the results would 
be many and varied. For instance,

1.  If the Truth were absolute everyone would have to accept it as such
    even if they disagreed or said it wasn't the Truth, In essence it
    would at the same time create the ultimate Lie. This leads to a logic
    inconsistancy, something can't be the ultimate Truth and at the same
    be the ultimate Lie AND and claim no relativity applies. If you allow
    relativity into your argument then it is clear that the subject of
    study is not an ultimate anything.

2.  What is the litmus test for ultimate Truth? How do you tell it from
    regular truth? How do you tell it from a lie? From the Lie?

3.  If there were a ultimate Truth then this implies that it is possible
    to have a system which can fully describe itself. Godel's Incompletenes
    Theorem would be found invalid, which by extension would have some wide
    spread ramifications for the rest of our knowledge base.

4.  An ultimate Truth would philosphicaly be inseperable from God. Being
    a pantheist, you are going to have a hard time floating that boat in my
    pond.

5.  An ultimate truth would imply that all existance conformed or was aware
    of the ultimate Truth. In essence you are claiming that truth and
    falsity (good/bad) exist as a absolute and not a consequence of human
    psychology. I would be very interested in your reasoning regarding how
    a rock on the other side of the Magellanic Clouds could be effected by
    a ultimate Truth.

6.  I suspect that any ultimate Truth would have to be so trival it would
    be useless. Tautologies are worthless for proving anything.

7.  On the issue of postulates (ie unprovable assumptions necessary for
    the creation of a logical framework - Godel rears its ugly head again)
    the implication is that we can now prove Euclids 5 postulates
    absolutely. I am shure many mathematicians would be interested in this.


> Actually, I rather fancied Bell and May's responses.  To the
> extent we do disagree reflects in no way on the Truth, only in
> our abilities to determine what Truth is.  Again, think of it
> as an archetype or reality not as a popularity contest.

Which reality? Yourse, mine, a photons? To a photon the entire universe
is the photon. Would your Truth be true for it? It is obvious that its
truth's are not valid for us (unless you are claiming we are all everywhere
at once). If there is no one absolute Reality how can there be a absolute
Truth?

> Nope, not me.  Hell, I don't even claim *partial* omnipotence.
> You really have to pay attention to those details.  Why are you
> having so much trouble understanding the question mark?

I understand it quite well. Why are you having so hard a time giving me
a straight answer?

> > Nice tactical ploy, an ad hominem buried in a straw man argument.
> 
> Thanks, but you got it wrong again.  Yes, there was an indirect
> (and apparently valid) ad hominem, but apparently you do not know
> what a straw man is.  For your edification, your out-of-left-field
> suggestion that my discussion of Truth represents some claim of 
> omnipotence on my part is clearly a straw man (and an implied ad
> hominem, for good measure).

If you admit fallibility then how can one claim to recognize a ultimate
anything, let along Truth? Hardly a left field question as you claim.

It doesn't qualify as ad hominem because it was not directed at a
personality but rather at your basic theoretical assumptions. It is completely
valid (and necessary I might) to both question basic postulates
(otherwise non-Euclidian geometry would not have existed) as well as to
clearly elucidate what those postulates are. You did not do that, I simply
asked for clarification. I have never made a attack on personality as a
basis for any of my discussion on this list. I have made some comments to 
folks about the way they treated others, but this is clearly different than a
discourse on a technical issue. At no point have I implied covertly or
otherwise any statement about anybody on this lists intelligence or ability
to reason being a reflection of their basic worth as a human being. I accept
you each as being basicly worthy of respect for no other reason than you
simply exist. Whether a particular individual was right, wrong, or simply
holds a radicly different view than myself is not sufficient reason for me
or anyone else to judge anothers worth. An ad hominem is the embodyment of
measuring a persons intrinsic worth by their ability to argue or hold an
opinion (or spell). To my way of thinking, if the only bitch you have about
a argument is whether it was spelled correctly each time, you don't have
much to say worth listening to.

My responce does not qualify as a straw man argument because I am discussing
your original claims, not drawing an analogy and claiming equivalence. You
were drawing  an analogy and claiming equivalence. I have asked several
times if you would accept or believe other situations to be similar, hardly
the same as a straw man since you did not ask if others thought they were
equivalent but simply stated it as such.

To the point, I don't care where the theory came from (ever), I simply want
to know if it works. If I had my way the discussion on this list would never
have a personality attached to it, complete anonymity.