Re: virus: TT and The Absolute Truth

David McFadzean (
Tue, 05 Nov 1996 18:00:44 -0700

At 04:23 PM 05/11/96 -0800, Tadeusz Niwinski wrote:
>Let's not discuss who is trying to turn this discussion into a fight.
>You can always throw me out of this list any time you like -- don't
>forget you are the Host here.

I don't think good hosts delete anybody that disagrees with them.

>I'd rather call it Absolute Truth but apparently this name is taken.
>What do YOU call this incredible consistency we are talking about?

We could call it the universal homologous form a la Wittengenstein.

A proposition is true to the extent that is shares a homologous
form with its referent.

>Truth -- as I understand it -- is not OR. It is TT. Truth is
>a property of OR. What do you mean by "statements":

Would you say that reality is true? That all parts of reality
are true? Why do you reject my (and KMO's) opinion that only
statements can have truth? Don't you agree that it makes no
sense to claim, e.g. "this biscuit is false"?

>(1) do they need our brains in order to exist or
>(2) they exist independently of us?

Let's say a statement is a string of words that makes some assertion
about something.

>If (1) then I agree: our statements about OR and TT can be true or not.
>And with some statements we may never know if they are true or false.
>Absolute Truth in that meaning does not exist.

I would say that statements can exist independently of human brains.
For example, ones in books or travelling through the internet.

>If (2) then statements about OR are the truth itself, or the Absolute Truth.

No, statements can be false.