From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Wed Jan 23 2002 - 22:23:37 MST
On 24 Jan 2002 at 13:32, Steele, Kirk A wrote:
> If he's game, I'd reccomend JoeDees to respond to this one.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Blunderov [mailto:squooker@mweb.co.za]
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 3:30 AM
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: RE: virus: RE: He who makes the rules wins
>
>
>
> The notion of a priori is quite strong medicine.
>
> Take the statement "nobody lives forever". There is no possible way of
> verifying this by experience but we are as certain of this fact as makes no
> difference. How can we be so certain? Well, absolutely nothing in our
> experience of the world allows us to falsify this claim. We know the
> statement to be true, a priori.
>
Actually, since we depend upon our experience to verify this contention, it is true a
posteriori, and since a posteriori proofs are probable and statistical (since they are
based upon evidence, all of which can never be included by a spatiotemprally
finite entity), it is not an absolute truth, but a contingent one.
>
> "Space is infinite". We can, by definition, never travel or see far enough
> to be able to verify this by observation. But for us, there is no possible
> way the universe could make sense if it were not so. We know it is true, a
> priori.
>
Actually, we have the evidence of the microwave radiation from the Big Bang that
tells us that the universe is between 12 and 14 billion years old. Multiply this by
the maximum expansion quotient of the universe subsequent to the Big Bang (the
speed of light - around 186, 286 mps), and we can not only see that the universe
is finite, but estimate its maximum circumference. The reach of the microwave
radiation, btw, as a part of the universe, is equal to the reach of the whole, the
universe in toto.
>
> There is also the interesting case of numbers in general and mathematics in
> particular. Some experts in the field assert that all mathematical proofs
> are a priori because they are not verifiable in experience.
>
I can take two rocks and combine them with two more rocks and fet four rocks
every time. I can measure right triangles until the cows come home and lay down
and die, and every time, the sum of the squares of the two sides equals the square
of the hypotenuse. In fact, mathematics is grounded in logic, which is itself
grounded in perception. The four laws of thought (A or not A, Not both a and not
A, if a then A, if not A then not A) are grounded in our perception of our environing
world (it's either present to perception or it's not, it cannot be both present to and
absent from perception simultaneously, if it's present to perception then it's
present in perception, if it's absent from perception then it's absent from
perception).
>
> In a poetic sense you have the "absolute" proof you seek - pure
> unadulterated knowing; that knowing without which the world would simply not
> make sense.
>
Quite often, the truth of the matter is counterintuitive, which is why we must remain
critical of our naive assumptions.
>
> Regards
>
> Blunderov
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:41 MDT