> David McFadzean wrote:
> > At 08:07 PM 06/11/96 MST, Jason McVean wrote:
> > >I think I regret saying that Absolute Truth and Objective reality
> > >are the same thing. What I was meaning was precisely what you
> > >said above: "Objective Reality defines what is true". I also said
> > >that "Absolute Truth defines what is true". That is the sense
> > >that I was intending when I said OR was the same as AT.
> > OK, I can accept that. Can you tell me anything else about
> > absolute truth? For example, objective reality is in some
> > sense composed of matter and energy embedded in space and
> > time. Is your absolute truth "made" of anything, if not
> > propositions or words?
>
> I'm not sure it needs to be made of anything. Is the value of pi
> made of anything? Crudely it is made of numbers, but the constant
> pi would still have a definite value if we didn't invent
> numbers. The value of pi, the speed of light, the charge of an
> electron, etc., are all embedded in OR. The absolute truth is
> embedded in OR.
Let's see [Fixed Width Font is desirable]:
Ultimate reduction to primitive terms:
pi Matter/energy
[via class theory] [via current physics; ignore GUTs]
True space-time
False photons
either "Not, And" or NAND [CIS] 6 quarks [CERN data seems to claim
"in" this exactly]
6 leptons [ditto?]
Yes, pi is made of 'something'. So is mass-energy. It is *critical*
that we are immersed in the material world, and fail to be immersed in
mathematics.
Math is flexible enough to model physical reality, and vice versa. One
of my math professors quite happily explained how to build experiments to
measure 900-level math using electrical circuits, once.
[CLIP]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////