The Underscore Archives

		On 1 Sep 2006, at 13:43, Tom Gidden wrote:


> On 1 Sep 2006, at 12:34, s'unya wrote:
>
>> fair enough. I was thinking of a hypothetical situation in which  
>> an ID
>> protagonist and a scientist were placed  on oath and asked whether  
>> their
>> ontology was the 'truth', one should say yes and one should say no.
>
> Interesting idea, although both should really say "I don't know"

[snip]


>> Why you programmer you ;p...Could I suggest that
>> omnipotent/omnipresent/omniscient makes the idea of labour and
>> micromanagement into nothing (ie god is everything and is self- 
>> aware)....
>> that is the point with absolutes, they render everything meaningless.
>
> Yep.. totally.  I'm just embracing the idea that simple is beautiful
> (Ockham's Razor, I guess).

IIRC, Bucky Fuller said (I'm paraphrasing, obviously) that the greatest
advance of the 20th century was the recognition that a statement was not
simply (Aristotelian) true or false, but could be true, false,  
meaningless
or indeterminate. Hence his work with Korzybski on General Semantics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_semantics

So, Tom, I agree with you - "I don't know" acknowledges  
indeterminacy, and
s'unya, I agree with you too - "absolutes ... render everything  
meaningless"
supports Korzybski's denial of the "is-of-identity" in the phrase  
"god is
everything".

If HP had a lecture called "Light is a particle, not a wave", we'd  
quickly
see the absurdity of the situation. Include the word "god", and for some
reason we all get confused.

Love'n'peace,

Christian