Date sent: Thu, 20 May 1999 14:42:44 -0700 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: Dan Plante <email@example.com> Subject: Re: virus: Maxims: the universe and truth Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> At 03:21 PM 20/05/99 -0500, Joe E. Dees wrote:
> >From: Dan Plante <email@example.com>
> >> I might as well chime in with my $0.02 worth on this topic. I agree in
> >> essence and detail, with David's remarks above. As a matter of fact, when I
> >> analyse how I think, and why I think of certain things, I find that my mind
> >> uses coherence and correspondence as tools. Coherence makes me "notice"
> >> certain things, and I then use correspondence to evaluate the thought for
> >> validity. So, from my point of view, the definition of truth as stated
> >> above is also a description of how my brain is wired to work (now _that_
> >> could be taken a number of different ways, couldn't it ;-)
> >I think that internal consistency and external coherence are
> >complementary ways to evaluate the truth-value of a contention.
> >Unless they both inhere, one should be wary of accepting the
> >assertion in question.
> Yes. I might also add that I use the dualistic/complementary nature of a
> postulate as one way to evaluate the correspondence with observed reality,
> since I've noticed a pattern where valid models of reality seem to have
> this characteristic. I suspect that this characteristic is a side effect of
> analysis that trancends boundaries of emergence - that is, it comes from
> attempting to percieve patterns in a system that includes both the emergent
> phenomenon, and the subordinate level from which it arose, all at the same
> time. This is, therefore, as I see it, a patterned side-effect of a
> universe driven and herded by the process of evolution since (before?) the
> Big Bang.
We being the emergent phenomena and our surroundings being the substrate source.