> Daniel McCluskey wrote:
> Thus, in order to be valid, Glorantan metaphysics MUST be explainable
> in three ways:
> Materialist\Mystic -- Brithini, Kralorelan, Mostali "It's the Law of
> the Universe."
> Theist -- Orlanthi, Yelmic, etc "Because [my] God wants it that way!"
> Shamanic -- hsunchen, and um, well, hsunchen (aldrayami?)... "the
> Spirits did it"
> The reason that Richards theorems are incorrect, is that they violate
> this postulate.
Without going into details - I was not violating that postulate. I think I've been misunderstood.
I do not believe in absolute truth. I think all systems are correct. I proposed a theist logic system, and a scientific logic system, then I said that they're both right, everywhere. I then challenged myself by asking - "ok, how about here, or there, including hypothetical places, where it seems they _cannot_ both be right", and I replied "I think we can find a way in which we can make them right". In some cases, especially hypothetical ones, the answer is either such places don't exist, or that the scientists and theists are _equally_ wrong.
Anyway, it was these replies which led to the predictions which some people have found objectionable. But please remember, it was all derived from the postulate that there is no absolute truth, and I have never strayed from that belief.
Richard
- --
Richard Develyn Tel: (UK)-1732-743591 Principal Architect / Development Manager Fax: (UK)-1732-743597 Network People International http://www.nwpeople.com ------------------------------
Powered by hypermail