Re: Truth? YES!!

I'll (
Wed, 20 May 1998 13:58:15 CST

> Date: True, 19 May 1998 20:24:01 -0400
> To:
> From: Ian Goddard <>
> Subject: Truth? YES!!
> Reply-to:

> At 01:53 PM 5/19/98 CST, The SHO master c.c. wrote:
> >
> >Can we really put a definite definition to the word truth?
> IAN: Physical reality. Concepts, ideas, and
> claims that are true are those that map onto
> the physical reality as a one-one function.
> Beyond the physical reality, a true claim
> is one that follows logically from a given
> set of axioms and such claims are true only
> to the extent they adhere to those axioms
> and may not be true outside those axioms.
> >1. truth is in the eye of the beholder
> IAN: Physics equations can predict physical
> outcomes with little or no room for doubt.
> That Newton's law of gravity F = GmM/r^2
> defines gravity and allows up to predict
> its effects under various conditions is
> a truth NOT "in the eye of the beholder."
> > 2. bias truth
> > a. hitler is viewed as evil by the majority for ordering the
> >death of millions, yet Einstien is viewed as good when in actuality
> >he killed millions more than hitler
> IAN: I doubt that that maps onto the physical
> reality since I don't think that the A-bombs
> killed millions, or that Einstein can be said
> to be fully responsible. Mutual assured de-
> struction may have even saved millions.
> If those claims about reality do not map onto
> the physical reality, then they are not true.
> They very fact that you cite them means that
> your relying on some standard of truth to
> argue that there is no standard of truth!
> > b. Columbus discovered America, usually discovery is of the unknown
> (America was already known, and inhabited) and he never saw
> >America
> IAN: So it does not map onto the physical reality.
> >3. my truth is not necessarily your truth, and yours not mine
> IAN: You mean that you can override gravity?
> >4. truth is only a test of you collected knowledge, there fore the
> >more knowledge the more truth
> >5. all truth has the option of being bias
> IAN: No argument here invalidates the definition
> of truth as the physical reality I just proposed.
I mentioned nothing that gravity was the truth, some claim that they
can overcome gravity by blocking that truth from their mind. then in
fact if they can, gravity may also be a bias truth. But wait we are
told that all things that have mass have gravity, we think this to be
true, but no one can actually prove it. Why because much as time
gravity is a human defined reality, it is something we believe to be
present but cannot be absolutely sure that is exists.

I certainly believe in gravity, but with minimal doubt. If someone
tells me there is a God in the sky, how do I know he is in the sky?
Why couldn't he be all around us?