Another question on your use of the word “normal”. When you use this term, are your referring to the normal American, the normal Christian, the normal person of your educational background, or are you referring to the entire population of the Earth? This matters, because what you refer to as “normal” changes in each case, and a lot of what you consider to be “normal” probably isn’t when it comes to the entire population demographic.
[QUOTE=coberst]
I had forgotten why I had stopped posting on this forum–now I remember.
[/QUOTE]
Put. The bong. Down.
I’m sure this board is no great loss. coberst c&p’s his OPs to many forums.
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind.
[QUOTE=coberst]
Mathematics is a way of seeing. Mathematics is the science of pattern. Imagine a very elaborate Persian rug. Imagine that you have only a small fragment of that rug. Mathematics offers a means whereby you might be able to construct the rest of that rug to look exactly like the original. Math can perhaps create a formula for the pattern in the rug such that you can, by following that math formula, exactly duplicate the pattern from which that rug was created.
[/QUOTE]
In order for this to be true, though, wouldn’t you already need to know that the original rug was constructed according to that specific mathematical formula? So no net increase of understanding actually occurs.
[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind.
[/QUOTE]
All we are is dust in the wind.
[QUOTE=tbdi]
You speak of Truth.
Is Truth unchanging law?
We both have Truths.
Are mine the same as yours?
[/QUOTE]
Truth is not unchanging law.
My truth is better than yours.
[QUOTE=coberst]
My truth is better than yours.
[/QUOTE]
Believe those who seek the truth. Doubt those who find it. ~~Andre Gide
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
In that case, we have that truth as far as we know it. In the future, this will become the truth as far as we know it now.
The truth changes as corrections and updates are applied, and “normal”, such as it is, changes by the second.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly correct.
[QUOTE=coberst]
Exactly correct.
[/QUOTE]
Then what the hell are we debating?
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Another question on your use of the word “normal”. When you use this term, are your referring to the normal American, the normal Christian, the normal person of your educational background, or are you referring to the entire population of the Earth? This matters, because what you refer to as “normal” changes in each case, and a lot of what you consider to be “normal” probably isn’t when it comes to the entire population demographic.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, normal is local. Normal in Oregon is often different than normal in Oklahoma. Red states are not the same normal as blue states. Americans are not the same normal as Chinese citizens.
[QUOTE=Terrifel]
In order for this to be true, though, wouldn’t you already need to know that the original rug was constructed according to that specific mathematical formula? So no net increase of understanding actually occurs.
[/QUOTE]
No, Persian rugs have a pattern just as many aspects of nature have a pattern and that is why math helps us understand nature. Math is of value because it allows us to see deeply within nature.
[QUOTE=coberst]
Yes, normal is local. Normal in Oregon is often different than normal in Oklahoma. Red states are not the same normal as blue states. Americans are not the same normal as Chinese citizens.
[/QUOTE]
So when you say “normal”, you mean normal for people of your background and ethnicity?
How…limiting.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Then what the hell are we debating?
[/QUOTE]
If I say X is true you need not say X is false for us to debate. However these forums are not organized as debates. These are organized as discussions or as discourse. When I say X you can disagree or you can build upon X by saying if X is so then Y must be so therefore Z might be true. One need not be negative to engage in useful discussion.
[QUOTE=don’t ask]
Gibberish: a way of communicating.
[/QUOTE]
Some people have made the mistake of seeing Shunt’s work as a load of rubbish about railway timetables, but clever people like me who talk loudly in restaurants see this as a deliberate ambiguity, a plea for understanding in a mechanized world. The points are frozen, the beast is dead. What is the difference? What indeed is the point? The point is frozen, the beast is late out of Paddington. The point is taken. If La Fontaine’s elk would spurn Tom Jones, the engine must be our head, the dining car our esophagus, the guard’s van our left lung, the cattle-truck our shins, the first-class compartment the piece of skin at the nape of the neck, and the level crossing an electric elk called Simon. The clarity is devastating. But where is the ambiguity? It’s over there in a box. Shunt is saying the 8:15 from Gillingham, when in reality he means the 8:13 from Gillingham. The train is the same, only the time is altered. Ecce homo, ergo elk. La Fontaine knew his sister, and knew her bloody well. The point is taken, the beast is molting, the fluff gets up your nose. The illusion is complete; it is reality, the reality is illusion, and the ambiguity is the only truth. But is the truth, as Hitchcock observes, in the box? No, there isn’t room, the ambiguity has put on weight. The point is taken, the elk is dead, the beast stops at Swindon, Chabrol stops at nothing, I’m having treatment, and La Fontaine can get knottedStranger
[QUOTE=coberst]
Is truth anything beyond what is normally considered to be truth?
[/QUOTE]
Well since we haven’t obtained omniscience, then yes.
Of course there’s truth beyond what we consider “normal”.
“Your theory is correct.”
“Your theory is incorrect.”
One of these statements must, logically, be true. Now, it would be fair to say that one doesn’t have to be true (or both are) if the world does not confine itself to logic. But if it doesn’t, we pretty much can’t say anything about the world. Anyway, one is certainly a truth beyond the concept of “normality”.
It’s not often that I see perfectly appropriate quotes from Jesus Christ Superstar and Monty Python in the same threads.
No, not often at all.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Of course there’s truth beyond what we consider “normal”.
“Your theory is correct.”
“Your theory is incorrect.”
One of these statements must, logically, be true.
[/QUOTE]
Not according to Godel.
[QUOTE=rayh]
Not according to Godel.
[/QUOTE]
I admit I know very little about Godel’s theory (seriously, i’ve just looked it up from your post). As I understand it though, I think the idea is that we cannot be sure which option is true. I agree with that. I’m simply saying that something can only ever be p or not p. There aren’t any other options, and one must be true. *Which * is true is of course more difficult, but I’m not claiming to know which is.
Unless i’ve entirely misunderstood this, which most likely I have.