> David McFadzean,
>
> : >If Absolute Truth is dependent upon Objective Reality,
> : >isn't Absolute Truth really Relative Truth, being true
> : >relative to Objective Reality?
> :
> : Yes, even if it was possible to have an infinite number of true
> : statements about OR, it wouldn't be absolute because the truth
> : is a relation between the statement's meaning and objective reality.
>
> Ok. So I'll call this relative truth TRTH, Total Relative TrutH.
>
> Next question. Given that OR is in a constant state of flux,
> stars spinning, atoms moving, etc., wouldn't TRTH be in a constant
> state of flux as well? Using ! to represent subscript and t to
> represent a time index, we have:
>
> TRTH!t = TRTH!t + n, for n = 0 (of course).
> TRTH!t != TRTH!t + n, for n != 0.
>
> ...where n can be any number.
Looks OK, if I'm considering time a variable. Or if I'm hacking time
slices out of a geometrized TRTH.
However, my heuristics suggest that Absolute Truth constrains Objective
Relativity, and that Objective Reality constrains TRTH, above.
[CLIP]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////