Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

From: Eric Cavalcanti <eric.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:33:46 +1000

On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 08:39, Georges Quenot wrote:
> Hal Ruhl wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > The idea that defining a thing actually defines two things seems self
> > evident [once you notice it].
> > At least one case of unavoidable definition also seems self evident
> > [once you notice it].
>
> The problem with evidence is that on one side there is no other
> known basis to build certainties and on the other it appears to
> be very relative [once you notice it]. :-)

But that's inevitable, or isn't it?
Can we have any certainty other than those logically
derived from assumed principles?

And in this case, isn't it desirable that at least the
assumed principles are self-evident? Could we have
something better?

> Also, (self) evidence that seems so sounds like a pleonasm to me.

Yes, I think I agree with you, but that's the common usage.
A'self-evident' means evident without proof. But can
something be 'evident' only after proof? It seems to me
that an 'evident' proposition doesn't need proof either.

Eric.
Received on Tue Nov 16 2004 - 19:40:56 PST