Ravi, (01)
I agree with some points in your note, but qualify others. (02)
> Truth is often another name for a rigid belief, a Relative
> and not Absolute entity in this Physical Universe, it is never
> the same as it is always dynamic and spatially redistributed
> at least as a function of time, etc., etc. (03)
Some people who hold a rigid belief might call it truth, but
it's more likely to be an untested prejudice. (04)
To be true, a proposition must state something that corresponds
to what actually exists outside the mind of the person who says it. (05)
> There is no a priori proof that there is a single truth but there
> are probably many asymptotic convergent descriptions of observations,
> experiences, phenomena and perceived realities that are repeatable. (06)
I agree very strongly with that point. (07)
> THE HOPE FROM ONTOLOGIES IS THAT (as new formalisms) THESE WILL
> CLARIFY RATHER THAN LIMIT OUR UNDERSTANDING, EVEN IF NOT SOLVABLE
> BY SINGLE NOTATION OR EQUATIONS, AND WILL FORM AN ENGINE FOR BETTER
> DEFINITIONS (understanding) IN NOT ONLY PHYSICS, BUT BIOLOGY AND
> EVEN SOCIAL SCIENCES! (08)
Peirce claimed the following point as the first "rule of reason": (09)
Do not block the way of inquiry. (010)
As I have said in other notes, I am highly suspicious of people
who claim to possess the complete truth. They are putting blinders
on themselves and others with rigid beliefs that block the way of
inquiry. (011)
John (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|