Re: Other ways of knowing truths

["John Kineman" <***>]

Well, if being agonizingly metaphysical is somewhat legitimized, I'll
take a whack too...

I'd say the principles you list are indeed correct. Once seen correctly,
truth is so obvioius we begin to assume that everyone else must also see
it, and that our own thought is thus rather trivial after all. We're
then shocked and hurt when others disagree with the obvious. So, yes, I
also like to start from the end result - what would the correct view be
like?? What characteristics would it have?

One characteristic of time I've concluded is absolutely necessary, and
that must be trivially obvious in the final correct view of it, is that
it both exists and does not exist. That whatever view of reality there
is from the perspective of time, must be compatible with one from a
perspective of timelessness. This means that properties of wholeness
must be preserved in any analytical separation, and thus they must
appear somewhere external to the analysis. In the case of syntactical
structure of space-time, that externality must show up. So there is a
whole-part complementarity, and that would lead automatically to expect
some non-local phenomena, as in EPR. The same wholeness would lead one
to expect an exception to syntax, i.e., semantic abstraction abilities.
 From that perspective it all becomes quite obvious, but modeling it
"scientifically" is another story.

JKineman

Judith Rosen wrote:

> Tim had a very good point in his post on the difficulties of
> scientifically proving any definition of time. However, I had two
> responses to that:
>
> One is that we must first put forth some theoretical definitions
> before any proofs can be conceived, much less tested.
>
> And Two: Logic is a tool that can be employed creatively to achieve
> astronomical breakthroughs. In other words, I submit that it is
> utterly true that one human being can sit absolutely still, with the
> mind ferociously at work, and achieve more answers-- more truth-- than
> all the laboratories and experimental scientists and operating budgets
> put together, if one is employed usefully and the other is not.
>
> What does "useful" mean? Ah, that's the sticky part. But I grew up
> with a man who used his mind usefully, as I have come to define the
> term, and since I am saying this to a group of people who wouldn't be
> listening if they didn't also agree to some extent with my father's
> mind-usefulness, I feel some assurance that my definition will be
> understood.
>
> Therefore, the problem becomes one of finding new ways to look at and
> think about time such that logic holds, explanations become obvious,
> relationships are seen, connections are found, and truth is arrived
> at.   I doubt I can be much help with the actual work here, folks. I'm
> good at the creative part, the conceptual part, the Rosennean part....
> but you guys have the collective chops,
> scientifically/educationally/professionally/experientially..... so I'm
> here to offer creative/Rosennean assistance, but I'm just the mascot
> of the list. The cheering squad. The conscience. I don't think I can
> help any further than that.
>
> Judith