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:

    Hello Everythinglisters,

    First post here, and seems fun to get lost reading the discussions
    from time to time, so here somebody contributing with a more
    musical tendency.

    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
    control freaks.

    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:

        Bruno asked:
          .....     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.
        John M

        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./
            (de Chardin).

            What is Mother Nature accepting?
            John M

            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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to