On Thursday, May 22, 2014 12:43:57 PM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Thursday, May 22, 2014 4:13:04 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote: >> >> >> > On 22 May 2014, at 12:17 am, [email protected] wrote: >> > >> > There's only one objective reality...incumbent knowledge is combined >> best effort so far. A new theory, if it's useful to that realm of >> knowledge, which is about objective reality..,.,.presumably can tell us >> something new about objective reality. >> >> Would you mind explaining to me what "objective reality" is? You speak as >> if you know. I find that quite interesting, actually. >> > > Kim - doesn't this put things in the ironical position of me being the one > to say we can't believe our own thoughts and that is why we have these > major multifolding layers of separation in terms of what 'falsification' > historically actually meant, yet somehow in saying so impose some kind of > dogma for what objective reality is? > hmm..yeah you're right...ironical might not be the word. Maybe it's 'silly' or something like that. I would think 'objective reality' is that. I would assume 'objective reality' is what we say for that which we want to know more about in science. Appropriately left vague because that's the better reflection of what we actually know.
-- 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/d/optout.
