A contracting universe
Kevin B. Murphy
and I form the consensus which says so. You know, greater truth means
differant things to differant people. In physics greater truth means it
takes two people to build a nuclear bomb; one of them is me and the other
one can do the hysterisis calculations with little more than a slide rule.
--
Emotion is a sign of weakness. Psychosis is a sign of vulnerability. As a
society, we nurture weakness and exploit vulnerability and that's OK. It is
as nature intended.
Immortalist
> Why is the universe contracting instead of expanding? Because John F. Nash
> and I form the consensus which says so. You know, greater truth means
> differant things to differant people. In physics greater truth means it
> takes two people to build a nuclear bomb; one of them is me and the other
> one can do the hysterisis calculations with little more than a slide rule.
>
If greater truth means different things to different people and this
determines what is true then it is false if someone else believes
differently, simply because they believe differently.
If (1) there are no objective values, and (2) all values are just
expressions of taste and preference, it follows that (3) we should
tolerate and respect other people's values, but this argument is open
to grave objections, since once we accept (1) and (2), it follows that
(3) is itself simply an expression of taste and preference and
consequently, if true, why should we accept (3) rather than concluding
that (4) if we feel like tolerating other people, we ought to, and or
if we feel like coercing them, we ought to, leading us to the
conclusion that if we accept (4), then we admit that we have no
argument against those who happen to prefer less liberal policies?
> --
> Emotion is a sign of weakness. Psychosis is a sign of vulnerability. As a
> society, we nurture weakness and exploit vulnerability and that's OK. It is
> as nature intended.
Not true by your own logic brau;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b-67wzWbFw
Kevin B. Murphy
On 30-Aug-2008, Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.philosophy:588886
Let's cut right to the chase, brau, buckyballs are nuclear bombs, OK. The
logic of it completely doesn't matter to me at this point in the game. I'm
cool with it and it's going to stay that way.
Immortalist
So if you propose that we all have a different truth and each truth is
refuted by the other truth, and you have your truth, you don't care if
mine refutes yours? Nice one, heads I win tails you lose.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akyb8StzqbA
John J
> If greater truth means different things to different people and this
> determines what is true then it is false if someone else believes
> differently, simply because they believe differently.
Try making a truth table of that utter wreck of a posit.
> If (1) there are no objective values, and (2) all values are just
> expressions of taste and preference, it follows that (3) we should
> tolerate and respect other people's values, but this argument is open
> to grave objections, since once we accept (1) and (2), it follows that
> (3) is itself simply an expression of taste and preference and
> consequently, if true, why should we accept (3) rather than concluding
> that (4) if we feel like tolerating other people, we ought to, and or
> if we feel like coercing them, we ought to, leading us to the
> conclusion that if we accept (4), then we admit that we have no
> argument against those who happen to prefer less liberal policies?
Your logic is trying to run away from itself and it has one foot nailed
to the floor.
Errol
It makes perfect sense to me. It means (I think) that if truth were
consensual, there would be any number of truths that are both true
(due to the consensus of at least two people) and simultaneously false
because there are consensual truths that are diametrically opposite to
one's own truth. Allowing for multiple truths is paradoxical.
ZerkonX
> If greater truth means different things to different people and this
> determines what is true then it is false if someone else believes
> differently, simply because they believe differently.
However, if greater truth is 'greater' because meaning can only be
derived from it and not given to it, it does not shift with a
determination. 'What it means to people' has no consequence.
So, 'greater'.
John J
I would not honor the OP with a long response. He belabors the language
to no end.
John J
Truth is binary: it is or it is not. People's minds vary. Is it the
author's goal to change the meaning of truth to accommodate the almost
infinite variety of human interpretations? It would seem to be
anti-scientific, anti-rational.
zinnic
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is only one truth and it is used up by this statement :-)
Kevin B. Murphy
On 1-Sep-2008, Errol <vs.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Path:
> border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: Errol <vs.e...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.philosophy
> Subject: Re: A contracting universe
> Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 03:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 26
> Message-ID:
> <922de7fb-9ccd-4339...@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
> References: u5idnd2hJpE1-CbV...@supernews.com
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 196.5.208.22
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1220264003 24891 127.0.0.1 (1 Sep 2008
> 10:13:23 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 10:13:23 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
> Injection-Info: p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=196.5.208.22;
> posting-account=-5a9CAoAAABl1C10M224pEnfD-yAElM_
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-Via: 1.0 S4ZAC1SYPX01
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET
> CLR
> 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET
> CLR
> 3.0.04506.648),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
> Bytes: 2722
> Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.philosophy:589202
Let me try to get consensus into it's appropriate context. I said earlier
that Sartre used his understanding of what a consensus was to impose himself
as being both an atheist and a (pseudo)philosopher. I upped the ante by
saying that Kevin B. Murphy and John F. Nash have a consensus on whether the
universe is expanding or contracting. With a consensus you have a choice
between joining the consensus or the opposition.
--
If you combine work with play then more work can be accomplished. Does
anyone think Civilization is really cool!! I've never played online before.
Kevin B. Murphy
On 31-Aug-2008, Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.philosophy:589155
Where were we? Well, I don't know the truth of 'brau' but you started it.
Maybe if you could explain 'brau' to me, it will get us back on track.
Errol
>
> - Show quoted text -
The paradox is purely linguistic. If language had words for Subjective
truth (let's call it struth) and Objective oriented truth (call it
trooth) then the paradox is resolved. there can be any number of
trooths but only one struth. the problem is people would start calling
their own trooths, struths and we would be back where we started :-)
ZerkonX
> Truth is binary: it is or it is not.
A 'greater' truth is not binary. It is. 'Binary' is a tool of thought.
If any concept of 'truth' demands an opposite then another word can be
used just as easily. Since this is a process of communication it is a
matter of words. I am taking 'greater' to mean 'greater' than the binary.
> People's minds vary.
If truth is relative or depends on 'people's minds' it is not how I am
defining 'greater'.
zinnic
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nicely put! We would come out by the same door as in we went
( Apologies to Omar ) :-)!
Wordsmith
Dueling truths...mine can beat up yours!
W ; )
Kevin B. Murphy
OK. With a consensus you have a choice between joining the consensus or the
oppostion... or you can attack the basis for the formation of the consensus
and what is that basis? The basis for this consensus is that it is going to
take a really, really long time to fix the problems with red shift. A
really, really, really, long time.