W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > June 2001

Absolute Truth -vs- relative truth

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 09:13:22 -0700
Message-ID: <00a001c0f035$f1ac2ea0$b17ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
From: "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>

> >From: "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
> >
> > > After all, there IS a
> > > truth of the matter, right?
> >
> >I imagine so .. but nobody can knows it, nor will they ever.  I would
> >to burn such an unknowable metaphysics into the axioms of our thinking.
> >Especially because we don't have any particular reason to.  You calculate
> >your truth, I'll calculate mine ...  thank you just the same.
> I didnt say there is an absolute metaphysical truth of the matter,
> and Im not talking about burning any assumptions into our thinking. I
> meant it in a much more mundane sense, as when we speak in normal
> life about 'fact of the matter', eg either the motor bearings are
> shot or they aren't.

[1] Any agent can interpret a sentence.
[2] Such an agent can also model reality.
[3] The match between the interpretation of the sentence by the agent and
that agent's model of reality is this thing we have been calling "truth".
[4] My only point is that there is no preferred agent.

How can you possibly factor the agent out of that description without making
erronious assumptions ?

How can you possibly get any information from any earstwhile preferred

>If we all take a relativistic view of truth in
> this sense we will rapidly get to the point where we are trying to
> walk through walls.

Not at all.  Rather I think that if people understand that there is no
absolute interpretation of things, then they will be more tolerant of

Don't forget .... survival still rules !

Seth Russell
Received on Friday, 8 June 2001 12:19:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:35 UTC