|
-
May 26th, 2000, 07:36 AM
#1
Thread Starter
transcendental analytic
kedamanology
Ok, i'm declaring my theory of what reality is here, and you can comment me as much as you want:
[CONCEPT]
1. FACT
2. Commonly known as prooved FACT
3. Commonly known as FACT
4. Theory
5. Commonly known as False
6. Commonly known as disprooved
7. FALSE
[/CONCEPT]
[UNIVERSE]
1. Reality
2. Subjective reality (this is what science is talking about)
3. Semi-Subjective reality (this is what we see)
4. Ideology
5. Unknown reality
6. False reality
7. Nothing
[/UNIVERSE]
Now here we have a complete load of bullshit, but consider it applyable on all concepts and references we make when were arguing.
I'm going into each of these.
1 and 7
There's probably hard to know if we actually know if something is true or not, but we have a so strong believe in ie 2 or 3 that we can actully think that we have 1. 7 Is a bit more reachable than 1 but on the other hand, how do we know something actually is false? Give me some statements!
3 and 5 This is how we see universe today, we take this and that for true, earth is round, people in Israel died again, universe is expanding, and more...
This is everything we can observe and also what we thrust is true because the newspaper tells it or because you feel pain when you bonk your head in the wall.
2 and 6. This is what those great greek philosophs have prooved or disprooved by logical and reasonable argumentation. This is not where you can put theories (4) like E=mc^2 and Universe is 10 dimensional. Not either commonly known things like Earth is round, because that's not prooved.
4. Theory. This is where most of things get, actually a lot of them goto 3 and 5 but a we must have them separated as something commonly known makes too much difference in argumentation, also it's not far from the next stage either.
a) Subjective theory: There's only one person that think's it teoretical. The rest have another view
b) minor or major theory: A big bunch of people believe in god, another not.
c) theory with a hole: A theory that lacks explanation of something. Someone have disprooved something in it, it's not yet clear if the disproof is correct or not
d) theory that stands: A theory that have no holes, and is true until something disprooves it. (the contradiction is not in this section)
e) physical or religious theory: Can be based on beliefs or a scientific view. beliefs can stand against holes with philosophic argumentation, scintific views can be backed up with math and observations. Prooving is hard in both cases.
All concepts have a relative aspect to different views and point in time. While if they are true or false, is the only real reference. But we live behind millions of filters so we can't see it. This is why we need to understand.
Also Bullshit, is another category, but i don't know where to put it. Can you help me with that? What about crap, and many more? I would appreciate any suggestions to make my theory more complete. Feel free to ask if you don't know about something, or point out lacks in my theory.
Use  
writing software in C++ is like driving rivets into steel beam with a toothpick.
writing haskell makes your life easier:
reverse (p (6*9)) where p x|x==0=""|True=chr (48+z): p y where (y,z)=divMod x 13
To throw away OOP for low level languages is myopia, to keep OOP is hyperopia. To throw away OOP for a high level language is insight.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width
|