On Saturday, March 1, 2014 8:00:54 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Bruno, > > This is incorrect. We know truth by its consistency across scope. >
How do we know "consistency" though? Isn't the ability to detect and interpret consistency (through sense and sense-making) more primitive than the quality of truth or consistency? > The universe is consistent. A person is part of the universe. People have > no direct knowledge of the universe. > If people have no direct sense of the universe, then neither does anything else, and the expectation of some noumenal universe which nothing can ever have knowledge of it itself purely hypothetical. We have direct knowledge of our experience, and our experience of the universe is the only universe that we can ever refer to empirically. I do not know that the universe is consistent, since I am part of the universe I know that consistency is a chore. If I want to make sense and find truth, I have to participate in a process of intuitive comparisons and empirical methods. They have only their internal mental simulation of the universe. > We have the ability to mentally simulate, but we also have the ability to directly contact and control external physical realities. If we did not, then it would not matter how bad our simulations were. > To the extent that simulation is consistent they are able to live and > function in a consistent universe. Consistency across maximum scope IS > TRUTH. > I agree, but would qualify it: Maximum appreciation of the significance of maximum consistency across the maximum scope is truth. Without appreciation of significance, consistency is merely a repeating coincidence with no expectation of consequence. > In fact this is the fundamental principle of scientific method. If some > aspect of scientific knowledge is NOT consistent with the rest then there > is some error that is not truth somewhere. Correct the inconsistency and > you come nearer to truth. > > Only when all inconsistency vanishes can complete truth be achieved. > Except that consistency can be projected by the mind itself. When all inconsistency vanishes, complete delusion can be achieved as well. Craig > > Edgar > > On Saturday, March 1, 2014 3:26:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 01 Mar 2014, at 06:23, Chris de Morsella wrote: >> >> > >> >>> Or it comes from our conceptualizing the world as consisting of >> >>> distinct >> > objects and counting them, c.f. William S. Cooper "The Origin of >> > Reason" and >> > Lakoff and Nunez "Where Mathematics Comes From". >> > >> > In that case math would emerge from our conscious minds -- growing >> > out of >> > our making sense of the world. Is math the fundamental basis of >> > reality, or >> > is it an emergent phenomena? >> > Chris >> >> In science we never know we get the truth, but we can reason from >> assumption, and if you can agree with comp, if only for the sake of >> the argument, you can understand that if comp is true then arithmetic, >> or anything Turing equivalent, is enough, and that more is provably >> redundant or wrong. >> >> I gave more that one TOE as examples. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
