On 2/19/2011 9:17 AM, John Mikes wrote:
let me reply in fragments - your two responses are too comprehensive
for one post for me.
So for now: T R U T H .
/"I am a neoneoplatonist believer, John, I believe *_in truth_*, and
that is the motor of my research."/
is IMO very different from your: /"Now what is *_a truth_*?..."/ you
go on with.
All I referred to is "a" truth (yours or mine etc., from which you
emphasized 'mine' only) and that gives a difference what I wanted to
In my worldview of only partial knowledge, in an unlimited complexity
of everything (beyond our limitations and imagination) your plain
'truth' cannot exist, but everybody is entitled to his or her
(personal?) cut-truth to believe (in).
I would not argue against your neoneoplatonist (??) "truth". Your
father was a wise man.
I don't think there is much difference between the stance of the two
of us in this topic (if we discount your misreading on the exclusivity
of 'my truth').
I even tried to 'touch' the SHARED part of all individual solipsisms
into a common belief what many misunderstand as a communal knowledge
of the world. Beside such shared views everybody has personal aspects
- maybe not expressed all the time. The 'accepted' and shared
knowledge is the basis of our conventional sciences (math included?).
Then Brent interjected:
/"It isn't faith if it's based on evidence (even if it's wrong)."/
/(/with - I think - Bruno's addition:
/"It is faith when you lack proof. You are confusing faith and blind
Just to be clear, I didn't mean that evidence implied certainty of
belief. One never reaches certainty. Yet some beliefs are better than
others; some are supported by evidence and others are undermined. You
always lack "proof" in the mathematical sense. Mathematical proofs are
contingent. They are of the form, "If X and Y and....then Z". Bruno
refers to Orwell's "2+2=4", but this is not a fact about the world, it
is a fact about our definitions of words. Two players constitute the
world's best mixed doubles tennis team. And two players constitute the
world's best women's doubles tennis team. If both teams are on court
together, how many players are on court? Three.
Brent is close to my position: _*there is no evidence*_, only excerpts
of our restricted (limited) view (knowledge) - the partial topical
'model' of the totality that entered our 'solipsism' so far.
The same applies to Bruno's *_"proof"_* - it also can be drawn only
from our personal and so far acquired 'model' of the topical knowledge
we already carry.
In view of our steadily increasing information about more and more
from the totality (from Copernicus, through Mendel to Watson-Crick,
or J.S.Bach and L.DaVinci, etc. etc.) 'old proof' is no 'evidence' at
a later stage of increased knowledge. So 'faith' seems discredited -
at least not durable.
I 'think' this is Brent:
/"But faith is exactly what religions forbid one to "reset"./
(Without the 'but') yes, it is essential for the survival of formal
religions. To keep the old hearsay alive and within the 'faith' the
And (I think) Bruno's paragraph compares some theocratic and
scientific beliefs in the spirit as I wrote in my essay. We DO believe
in tenets of conventional science. Use them as proof, as evidence,
base conclusions upon them, construct instruments and measurements
(comparison) showing similarities between those details we included
into our explanations to give some understanding to phenomena we only
partially glimpsed. At our present primitive state we cannot encompass
the comp[lexity of 'them all' and the relentless change in which our
world - what? - exists? works? stagnates (as in ontology?) or just
exceeds our mental capabilities?
A *BIG*, religious(!) -- */_A M E N_/* -- to the 2 statements:
/"I am certainly a bit anxious about that. But it is not the fault of
religion per se that humans pervert the original inquiry." /
/"That is far too generous. Religion is the perversion of inquiry./ "
(Meaning of course the traditional theocratic ones).
And nobody, except Bruno, uses the word "religion" for the serious,
unconstrained inquiry into what's true. Everybody else calls it science
or philosophy. But that's why Bruno can easily get a Templeton grant.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at