🚀 go-pugleaf

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_002B_01BF03BF.1EC7A320
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Alan McGowen wrote in message <37E684FF.81B159A2@cup.hp.com>...
    charliew wrote:=20
    There is a hidden assumption in this whole subject line.  The =
assumption is=20
        that there is an absolute "truth" that science can ultimately =
answer, if we=20
        pursue science long enough.  This way of looking at the world is =
probably=20
        flawed.
        Let's bear in mind that a truth is  a  (necessarily finite) =
*description* of objective=20
    reality, and as such,  has a *resolution* or *precision*. It only =
makes sense to=20
    ask whether a map of the Himalayas is accurate at its scale of =
resolution, not=20
    at "infinitely fine" scales.=20
    (cut)
   =20
    charliew replies:
   =20
    I think you completely missed my point.  If you study such things as =
special relativity, general relativity, and quantum mechanics, you =
quickly start realizing that the term "objective reality" is not really =
so objective after all.  Therefore, an "accurate" description of a =
somewhat subjective reality cannot be claimed to be an absolute truth.  =
In many ways, my "argument" has very little to do with *precision*.  If =
you don't believe me, merely go into the appropriate relativity text, =
and look up various descriptions of "simultaneity".  If you manage to =
understand the implications of what you read, I'll wager that you will =
not see reality as being so "objective" after all.  The most amazing =
thing about this line of reasoning is the fact that such non-intuitive =
results are derived from such apparently advanced science.
   =20
   =20
   =20

------=_NextPart_000_002B_01BF03BF.1EC7A320
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 =
transitional//en">
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.71.1712.3"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: =
5px">
    <DIV>Alan McGowen<AMCGOWEN@CUP.HP.COM> wrote in message &lt;<A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:37E684FF.81B159A2@cup.hp.com">37E684FF.81B159A2@cup.hp.com=
</A>&gt;...</DIV>charliew=20
    wrote:=20
    <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE =3D CITE>There is a hidden assumption in this whole =

        subject line.&nbsp; The assumption is <BR>that there is an =
absolute=20
        &quot;truth&quot; that science can ultimately answer, if we =
<BR>pursue=20
        science long enough.&nbsp; This way of looking at the world is =
probably=20
        <BR>flawed.</BLOCKQUOTE>Let's bear in mind that a truth is&nbsp; =
a&nbsp;=20
    (necessarily finite) *description* of objective <BR>reality, and as=20
    such,&nbsp; has a *resolution* or *precision*. It only makes sense =
to=20
    <BR>ask whether a map of the Himalayas is accurate at its scale of=20
    resolution, not <BR>at &quot;infinitely fine&quot; scales.=20
    <P><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>(cut)</FONT>
    <P><FONT size=3D2>charliew replies:</FONT></P>
    <P><FONT size=3D2>I think you completely missed my point.&nbsp; If =
you study=20
    such things as special relativity, general relativity, and quantum=20
    mechanics, you quickly start realizing that the term &quot;objective =

    reality&quot; is not really so objective after all.&nbsp; Therefore, =
an=20
    &quot;accurate&quot; description of a somewhat subjective reality =
cannot be=20
    claimed to be an absolute truth.&nbsp; In many ways, my =
&quot;argument&quot;=20
    has very little to do with *precision*.&nbsp; If you don't believe =
me,=20
    merely go into the appropriate relativity text, and look up various=20
    descriptions of &quot;simultaneity&quot;.&nbsp; If you manage to =
understand=20
    the implications of what you read, I'll wager that you will not see =
reality=20
    as being so &quot;objective&quot; after all.&nbsp; The most amazing =
thing=20
    about this line of reasoning is the fact that such non-intuitive =
results are=20
    derived from such apparently advanced science.</FONT></P>
    <P>&nbsp;</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_002B_01BF03BF.1EC7A320--