You obviously haven't read and/or understood any of Langan's
papers...the least you could've done is spell his name correctly.

"The apparent absence of a TOE notwithstanding, has any kind of
absolute knowledge ever been scientifically formulated?  Yes, in the
form of logical tautologies.  A tautology is a sentential relation,
i.e. a formula consisting of variables and logical connectives, with
the property that it is true for all possible assignments of Boolean
truth values (true or false) to its variables.  For example, the
statement "if x is a sentence, then either x or not-x (but not both)
must be true" is a tautology because no matter which truth values are
consistently applied to x and not-x, the statement is unequivocally
true.  Indeed, tautologies comprise the axioms and theorems of 2-
valued logic itself, and because all meaningful theories necessarily
conform to 2-valued logic, define the truth concept for all of the
sciences.  From mathematics and physics to biology and psychology,
logical tautologies reign supreme and inviolable.

That a tautology constitutes absolute truth can be proven as follows.
First, logic is absolute within any system for which (a) the
complementary truth values T (true) and F (false) correspond to
systemic inclusion and exclusion, a semantic necessity without which
meaningful reference is impossible; and (b) lesser predicates and
their complements equal subsystemic inclusion and exclusion.  Because
a tautology is an axiom of 2-valued logic, violating it disrupts the T/
F distinction and results in the corruption of informational
boundaries between perceptual and cognitive predicates recognized or
applied in the system, as well as between each predicate and its
negation.  Thus, the observable fact that perceptual boundaries are
intact across reality at large implies that no tautology within its
syntax, or set of structural and functional rules, has been violated;
indeed, if such a tautology ever were violated, then reality would
disintegrate due to corruption of the informational boundaries which
define it.  So a tautology is "absolute truth" not only with respect
to logic, but with respect to reality at large.

What does this mean?  Uncertainty or non-absoluteness of truth value
always involves some kind of confusion or ambiguity regarding the
distinction between the sentential predicates true and false. Where
these predicates are applied to a more specific predicate and its
negation - e.g., "it is true that the earth is round and false that
the earth is not-round" - the confusion devolves to the contextual
distinction between these lesser predicates, in this case round and
not-round within the context of the earth.  Because all of the
ambiguity can be localized to a specific distinction in a particular
context, it presents no general problem for reality at large; we can
be uncertain about whether or not the earth is round without
disrupting the logic of reality in general.  However, where a
statement is directly about reality in general, any disruption of or
ambiguity regarding the T/F distinction disrupts the distinction
between reality and not-reality.  Were such a disruption to occur at
the level of basic cognition or perception, reality would become
impossible to perceive, recognize, or acknowledge as something that

By definition, this is the case with regard to our cognitive-
perceptual syntax, the set of structural and inferential rules
governing perception and cognition in general.  Since a tautology is a
necessary and universal element of this syntax, tautologies can under
no circumstances be violated within reality. Thus, they are "absolute
knowledge".  We may not be able to specify every element of absolute
knowledge, but we can be sure of two things about it: that it exists
in reality to the full extent necessary to guarantee its non-
violation, and that no part of it yet to be determined can violate
absolute knowledge already in hand.  Whether or not we can write up an
exhaustive itemized list of absolute truths, we can be sure that such
a list exists, and that its contents are sufficiently "recognizable"
by reality at large to ensure their functionality.  Absolute truth,
being essential to the integrity of reality, must exist on the level
of reference associated with the preservation of global consistency,
and may thus be duly incorporated in a theory of reality."

>      One small point about CTMU. Chris Lagan seems to miss the point
> that understanding (at least at the human level) requires Boolean
> representability (i.e. capable of being represented in terms of alist of
> yes/no type questions). The idea that a mind could "perfectly
> understand[model] every aspect and detail of reality" would be an exact
> endomorphism of Reality.
> --
> Onward!
> Stephen
> Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to