Resending because I did not get a copy of this last night.
On Sunday, September 03, 2000 9:08 PM J. R. Molloy jr@shasta.com wrote:
> > In particular, I believe one should avoid just taking what one knows to
be
> > true and reclassifying it as axiomatic. For instance, my eye color,
which I
> > see every time I look in the mirror is not, for me, an axiom. Surely, I
> > know it. I know it's true -- in the context of my knowledge. But it is
not
> > an axiom. It doesn't underly all of my knowledge.
>
> Well, would you consider "2 + 2 = 4" as true knowledge or as axiomatic?
True, but not axiomatic -- at least, not in the sense I use the term.
> If "reality = all that exists" isn't axiomatic, but rather a universal
truth,
> that's okay with me. I just think of it as a definition.
The above equality is a definition, not an axiom. "Reality is real" is an
axiom.:)
> > I think Jason Joel Thompson meant something more than that. Though I
agree
> > with you that reality is unitary, I think he meant that the unification
> > might only take place in the mind. In other words, that collecting all
real
> > things into "reality" is no more than a mental shorthand and that
> > metaphysically reality -- all the real things -- might be separate and
> > unrelated. I would take this to include stuff not perceived or known
and
> > therefore not unified by any mind.
>
> I think this conversation originated with Jason Joel Thompson
contradicting
> Eliezer's statement:
> "There is only one reality" -- which disagreement I took for obstinance,
because
> Eli's statement seems to me as self-evident as the statement that 2 + 2 =
4.
There's a difference between self-evident and obvious or well known.
Self-evident means something that gives evidence for itself. Axioms and
axiomatic concepts are like that. They give evidence for themselves -- to
be aware of them requires mere awareness and conceptualizing from that; to
deny them involves contradiction. Obvious means something which something
we need not debate -- and this definitely depends on context. Tensor
calculus is obvious to the GTR crowd, but not to, say, your average person.
Well known is much the same.
> I mean, of course someone could argue that 2 + 2 = 5 (for very large
values of
> 2). But to spend more than a few sentences voicing disagreement seems
> extravagant if not confrontational.
I agree here, though such obvious facts often need to be backed up by more
than just pointing out they are obvious. To fail to do so often invites bad
philosophy in.
But none of this seems to answer Jason's original concern. (I still have a
few posts to catch up on, but now I must leave your reality temporarily...:)
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:05 MDT