Re: virus: maxims and ground rules and suppositions
Eric Boyd (6ceb3@qlink.queensu.ca)
Fri, 14 May 1999 13:27:36 -0400
Hi,
TheHermit <carlw@hermit.net> writes:
<<
The "truth" is the way that their map relates to the universe, and the
way that our map relates to the universe which provides the contextual
background for these truths. Note that context for both "truths" is
the way the universe functions. Not the way our interpretations
function. Which could be as bad as that proposed by the babble or as
good as that we have today (which is effectively infinite). Any space
going race will likely have an equal understanding of the nature of
the universe as us.
>>
You have again missed my point. I agree (unlike psypher) that the
universe has certain properties. These are not truths -- they are
"exists". They become truths only when you attempt to describe or
communicate them -- only when represent them with a symbol system
(truth is a map, not the territory). You may do it with mathematical
notation, or with pretty pictures, or with sequences of sounds, or (no
doubt) hundreds of systems that we humans can't even use (due to lack
of sensory apparatus). In any case, the nature of that encoding
system is the context ("frame of reference") in which your message
rests -- and it depends not on the universe so much as on how humans
see and interact with that universe. I can easily imagine an alien
species which interacts with it's world only via chemicals -- smell
and taste -- and for that species, every last one of our "frames of
reference" is incomprehensible -- even possibly inaccessible. If they
are intelligent, no doubt they will have encoded "Pi" as a truth via
some chemical scheme -- which we could only understand with about the
same difficulty we are now encountering in understanding DNA.
<<
You are saying that they are not in our universe? If not, and I don't
think you are saying this, their science and technology has to
parallel ours as far as it interacts with space-time. And it is in
that context that the universe validates its own "truths". The nature
of PI remains the same in any symbol set - because it exists outside
of our interpretation.
>>
The universe doesn't have truths. The universe exists -- truths only
come into play when we attempt to describe or communicate the nature
of the universe. The *nature* of Pi (the "existant") remains the
same -- but the encoding of Pi (the "truth") changes depending on how
and who encodes it.
(Brodie: talking of "existants" is not a form of Platonic Idealism --
it is realism. On the other hand, Pi itself is clearly a product of
Platonic Idealism, as I said to Wade in a different posts. No
"circles" exist -- they are a pure Platonic Form. Clearly, the
example chosen above is a poor one to demonstrate with, but I think
the point about realism -- the universe exists -- is clear enough even
if the example given is actually a Platonic Form. I do intend to
check out your reference to see what dear Dan had to say)
<<
So we have an example of something where there exists a truth which is
independent of the way in which it is expressed. And altering the
expression of the "statement of the truth" is not going to alter the
meaning of the truth.
>>
Yes. The "existant" remains the same -- but the "frame of reference"
changes. And you cannot remove that frame of reference (the way in
which the symbol system is to be intrepreted) without losing the
statement of truth, or making it into an untruth (supposition, or what
have you), in other words:
"All statements of truth are embedded in a particular frame of
reference from which they cannot be separated without becoming
suppositions."
<<
1) Statements about reality which are "intrinsic". These "statements
of truth", for example the ratios represented by PI, cannot be
decontextualised without becomming meaningless. They do not depend on
some other framework, the nature of the universe provides the
framework in which they are true. Thus they cannot be seperated from
their frame of reference - and thus the wannabe-maxim is not
applicable.
>>
False. The ratio represented by Pi (the "existant") is not a truth.
It is a property of the universe. Such properties have no bearing on
the maxim, which is talking about *truth* (the map, the representation
itself).
For most of (2), we agree. "All statements of truth (representations
of Pi) are embedded in a particular frame of reference (the symbol
system) from which they cannot be separated without becoming
suppositions (statements whose truth value is questionable rather than
demonstrated)."
I think I would like to entirely remove the last half of the maxim.
"All statements of truth are embedded in a frame of reference."
(period)
It is both clearer and avoids the fuzzyness of "supposition". It is a
definition of truth, rather than a statement about the universe we
live in -- and this is the mistake that TheHermit is making.
<<
and equally that nobody has demonstrated that there are "statements of
truth" of this class to which this wannabe maxim does apply.
>>
Do you like my modification? Every statement of truth (heck, probably
even every statement) exists in a "frame of reference" -- I offer this
statement as an example. It is embedded in an English frame of
reference, not to mention a philosophical one, a visually based one,
and (importantly -- it is the focus of my current work on an
Epistemology of Email) an email based one. You cannot remove that
"frame of reference" -- although you can replace it with, say, French,
or a Formal Mathematical Notation, etc. The resulting truth is still
embedded in a frame of reference.
ERiC