🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov4.182157.17016@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 > In article <1992Nov4.171314.22145@ugle.unit.no> kim@Lise.Unit.NO (Kim Gunnar St|vring \yhus) writes:
 > >That's not my definition of 'truth'. Not my friends either.
 > >What kind of language are you using? It seems to me that your use of 'truth'
 > >makes possible conflict between 'truth' and 'reality', which are synonyms to mee.
 > 
 >      I don't think 'truth' is a scientific concept, and 'reality' only
 >      seems so insofar as it is a reflection of experimental results.  So,
 >      'reality' is mutable.  So within science, I see absolutely no conflict
 >      between 'truth' and 'reality'.  And since I would deny that 'truth'
 >      is within the domain of science, I do not see how this could generate
 >      conflict anywhere else.

When I use 'reality', I refer to everything that can have any consequence on me.
This means my reality stop to exist when I do, but may continue as the part it
was of another reality.

When I use 'truth', I talk about a model, preferably the simplest, of
reality that predicts everything about reality. I also use 'truth' as
reference to a similar model encompassing all logic.

You obviously have a different definition of 'truth' and 'reality'.
And I don't know what yours is.

 > >>      Why do certain people have such difficulty with the proposition
 > >>      that there are domains which 'science' and 'logic' can never reach?
 > >>                                 dale bass
 > >Because it's a false proposition.
 > 
 >      Prove it false.

Science is not about proving things. It's about finding good models by
comparing different models with reality, and thus guessing the truth.

But since you ask, I will prove it ;->

Aksiom 1.  All propositions are false.

Aksiom 2. "There are domains which 'science' and 'logic' can't reach"
           is a proposition.

Aksiom 2.
Aksiom 1.
__________
It's false.  :-)

Kim0