ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Model or Reality

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Avril Styrman <Avril.Styrman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 21:37:31 +0300
Message-id: <1186598251.46ba0d6bd7237@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
John et. al,    (01)

> The worst evils in all history have been committed by people
> who thought that they had the *ONE TRUE TRUTH* and that it
> was their *DUTY* to inflict their conceptualization of the
> *TRUTH* on everybody else.    (02)

> Science is the search for truth, but the best it can ever do
> is to give us better and better approximations.  And *every*
> other field is in much, much worse shape than science.    (03)

Now we must separate ontological truth and truth about 
accidental things in nature.      (04)

> I'll accept the point that reality is one.    (05)

If we start to talk about truth, I think that the above statement 
is the first thing that has to be accepted as an axiom, along with 
the law of contradiction. If these are not accepted, then anything 
goes, and sentences loose their meaning.    (06)

And isn't that part of the objective one truth that *should* be 
inflicted on everybody? Suppose that this was taught for every 
student in every university. Can you see anything wrong in it? 
I can't. Of course it would cause some counter reactions and there 
are always people who seek continental and poetic 'other side'.     (07)

And soon after the first stages, the ontology gets more complex
with the questions about the nature of infinity, and related 
questions concerning various mathematical/logical theories.      (08)

Usually people trust science, and usually people think that 
mathematics is the most secure of all sciences. But mathematics,
at least the foundational questions, are not any more secure 
than philosophical ontology. In practice, they are a matter of 
faith and style (of course they should not be), and are 
entangled from the beginning until the end.    (09)

It is a challenging task to find commensurable means for 
evaluating the fitness of mathematical theories, but I have a 
very strong intuition that things have got out of hands some 
areas of foundational mathematics.    (010)

''But it is not hard to assume any random hypothesis and spin 
out a long string of conclusions.''  Aristotle, Metaphysics, 
book 14, chapter 3.    (011)


> The point I was addressing, in the notes to Pat C. and Azamat,
> is that there is no such thing as perfect knowledge of anything,
> and all of our theories of science are, at best, approximations.
> Even in physics, we must deal with a very large collection of
> mutually inconsistent, ad hoc, approximations, and every other
> empirical subject is in even worse shape.    (012)

As a case example, we can prove this with the two mentioned 
axioms. If somebody knows everything of the whole world, 
that one knows how he knows how he knows how he knows, ad 
infimum. And this is impossible for a finite being, because a 
finite being cannot have infinitely many mental states.     (013)

And here also comes the matter of opinion in logic. Somebody
can claim that the chain is convergent, and then make it a 
'contraction out of contradiction'.     (014)

Avril    (015)





"[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>    (016)


Lainaus "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>:    (017)

> Azamat,
> 
> That statement is the worst possible nonsequitur:
> 
> AA> Reality is one as its true representation.  Otherwise,
>  > you will have just defective systems with ''different
>  > conceptualizations''.
> 
> I'll accept the point that reality is one, but if we have
> learned anything over the past several millennia, it is that
> no finite mind can ever have an absolutely true representation
> of everything -- or even of any significant part.
> 
> Science is the search for truth, but the best it can ever do
> is to give us better and better approximations.  And *every*
> other field is in much, much worse shape than science.
> 
> The worst evils in all history have been committed by people
> who thought that they had the *ONE TRUE TRUTH* and that it
> was their *DUTY* to inflict their conceptualization of the
> *TRUTH* on everybody else.
> 
> The 20th century was filled with disasters caused by people
> trying to ram their conception of the truth down other people's
> throats.  And the 21st is starting off on an even worse footing.
> 
> Whenever anybody thinks he or she has absolute truth in his
> or her hands, you have found a truly depraved being who would
> inflict untold evil upon the world -- unless stopped.
> 
> I won't mention any, but I'm sure we can all find examples.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
>  
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>  
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  
> 
>     (018)


-- 
Always forward towards the supreme maxim of scientific philosophizing    (019)

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (020)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>