Re: universal truths and the universe (was Re: Three ideas)

Hi Peter, thanks for joining in.

WARNING:  Thinking about things like this can rot your brain or, worse, turn
>
> you into a philosopher.  On the other hand, thinking too little about
> things
> like this has potentially worse outcomes. Thinking too much about how much
> to
> think about thigns like this will definately rot you brain; I speek from
> experience.  :-)
>

Haha, perfectly put!

Does this all matter for RDF?  Maybe.  What is certain is that some kinds of
>
> mixing of current truths and other truths can cause problems in RDF and in
>
> extensions of RDF.
>

This is where I need help. Specifically to do with optional time and space
positions, what type of problems could they introduce? I'm hoping that
people with more experience might be able to explain it to me. There hasn't
been much pushback so far so that's why I'm continuing the exploration. If
there are serious problems I'll drop it, no problem, but then it seems
RDF-star might have to limit the use of things like start and end time
annotations.

PS:  See
>
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CWM1zDcmWXs/TroD0VsX4WI/AAAAAAAAAVA/Jc5bN5xSTkc/s1600/ch930919.gif
>
> for an interesting universe where the laws of physics might have changed.
>

This was funny.

Regards
Anthony


On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 3:03 AM Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

> WARNING:  Thinking about things like this can rot your brain or, worse,
> turn
> you into a philosopher.  On the other hand, thinking too little about
> things
> like this has potentially worse outcomes. Thinking too much about how much
> to
> think about thigns like this will definately rot you brain; I speek from
> experience.  :-)
>
>
> Pat appears to be arguing that there are universal truths and that the
> universe, on which the notion of universal truths is based, has a single
> unbranching time line.  So it makes sense to have a statement like "Bette
> Davis played the part of a vulgar waitress in the move 'Of Human Bondage'
> in
> 1934" be a universal truth no matter what the current time is.
>
> It is possible for the universe to not have an unbranching time line and
> still
> have universal truths.  It is just that many of these universal truths
> have to
> be more complex.  So instead of the above statement one might need "Bette
> Davis played the part of a vulgar waitress in the move 'Of Human Bondage'
> in
> 1934 at all time points after X" where X is a point in time.  For some X,
> even
> the one where the seance occurs (which is before 1934), this might be true
> and
> for other X it might be false.  But in either case each instance of this
> enhanced statement with X replaced by a time point has a universal truth.
> (Yes, this is a bit sloppy.)
>
> The nature of time in the universe is unknown by any human at this time,
> as
> far as I know.  There could be a single unbranching time line.  Time could
> be
> like a tree, where at any point there is a single past but multiple
> futures.
> Time could be even more complex, where there are both multiple pasts and
> multiple futures.
>
> It is also possible that those things that we think of as unchangeable
> physical truths, and thus universal, are not really universal, perhaps
> needing
> to be stated about a point in time, or time-space, or even something more
> complex.  It is even possible, I think, that those things we think of as
> unchangeable mathematical or even logical truths are not really universal.
>
> Does this all matter for RDF?  Maybe.  What is certain is that some kinds
> of
> mixing of current truths and other truths can cause problems in RDF and in
> extensions of RDF.
>
>
> peter
>
>
> PS:  See
>
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CWM1zDcmWXs/TroD0VsX4WI/AAAAAAAAAVA/Jc5bN5xSTkc/s1600/ch930919.gif
> for an interesting universe where the laws of physics might have changed.
>
>
>