It seems obvious that "what is true", as referenced below, is some
kind of collection and that it's labeling can easily be seen to not be
fixed a priori. We might think of it of aKripke frame
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kripke_semantics> and the models have
forced truths. The thing here is that we have to be careful that we
don't box ourselves into thinking that the totality of all that exists
is finite or even only countably infinite.
On 7/4/2012 2:05 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
The thread is about the possibility of an omnipotent being being able
to manipulate what is true.
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
<multiplecit...@gmail.com <mailto:multiplecit...@gmail.com>> wrote:
First post here, and seems fun to get lost reading the discussions
from time to time, so here somebody contributing with a more
It's funny how this game keeps cropping up where people want to do
stuff like: 1 + 1 = 11
If people are sincere about pulling whatever sums they feel like
with personal justification, then we might as well say 1 + 1 = 0,
with a kind of zen logic, where everything = nothing as a fancy
justification. And anybody still willing to assert this could post
their bank account details and pin numbers and be freed from
arithmetic dictatorship by having their account cleaned out by
other everything listers that DO believe in sums, successors etc.
as 0 = whatever they want, and the sum of their balance doesn't
really matter, as it's only some personal belief shared by a few
Guitar and composition imho, have arithmetic overlap, albeit in a
less than total sense, which is why I won't have to post my
details here :)
Looking forward to contributing from time to time.
On Saturday, June 30, 2012 12:09:53 AM UTC+2, JohnM wrote:
..... Is that an absolute truth?
By no means. It is a word-flower, a semantic hint, something
in MY agnosticism and I feel like a semantic messenger only. I
accept better expressions.
(Except for "absolute truth" - ha ha).
And Teilhard was a great master of words.
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Bruno Marchal
<marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:
On 29 Jun 2012, at 16:21, John Mikes wrote:
Brent, thanks for the appreciation!
My point was simply that anybody's 'truth' is conditioned.
We have no (approvable?) authority for an ABSOLUTE truth.
Whatever "WE" accept is "human".
Is that an absolute truth?
In my humble opinion, "WE = human" seems to me quite
relative. When I listen to the jumping spiders or the
Löbian machines, most seems to disagree.
/We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We
are spiritual beings having a human experience./
What is Mother Nature accepting?
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:09 PM, meekerdb
<meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 6/28/2012 12:46 PM, John Mikes wrote:
I am the 3rd kind of the two: think not in
binary, just in plain peasant logic, when 1 and 1
make 11, nothing more.
So Bruno's "absolute truth" may have even more
Or less facetiously, (The father of Kirsten)+(The
father of Gennifer)=(One, me) and (one
raindrop)+(one raindrop)=(one raindrop). So whether
successor(x)=(x+1) depends on the applicability of
arithmetic to your model.
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at