> At 03:08 PM 10/4/97 -0700, Tim Rhodes wrote:
> >On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, David McFadzean wrote:
> >
> >> For every light that illuminates the real, there are an infinite number
> >> of lights that cast shadows of objects that don't exist.
> >
> >Nice proposition. Now *prove* it instead of tossing it off as a given.
>
> OK, let's say for the sake of argument that you live in Seattle.
>
> Tim lives in Seattle: true
> Tim lives in Vancouver: false
> Tim lives in New York: false
> Tim lives in L.A.: false
> Tim lives in Calgary: false
> Tim lives in London: false
> Tim lives in Beijing: false
> Tim lives on Mars: false
> ....
>
> Should I go on?
>
> I think it is obvious that there are infinitely more ways to be
> wrong than right.
We have different understandings of the analogy, I fear. I took "the
lights" in question to symbolize different beief systems. So it would
look like so:
Scientific Rationalism:
Tim lives in Seattle.
Astrology:
Tim lives in Seattle (and is an Aries).
Objectivity:
Tim = Tim, and they both live in Seattle.
Subjectivity:
Tim lives in Seattle, but what kind of life is it anyway?
MS Flip:
Tim lives too near to Richard, but not quite as close to Tad (on modst
days,.. maybe).
PCR:
Tests for the residence of this "Tim" seem to indicate "Seattle" at this
point in time. Further research is necessary.
Christianity:
Tim lives in a city with the lowest per capita chuch attendence in the
nation, and he isn't helping matters, the soulless pagan!
Zen:
Tim lives.
-Prof. Tim (in Seattle--you can tell by the #@$%ing rain!)