Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

From: Georges Quenot <Georges.Quenot.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 02:15:44 +0100

Eric Cavalcanti wrote:
>
> 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?

That's part of the problem, yes.

> And in this case, isn't it desirable that at least the
> assumed principles are self-evident?

Oh, lots of things appear desirable. That does not make them
true (unfortunately in many cases). And when desirableness
comes in as a cause (if not a reason) things turns even more
relative.

> Could we have something better?

That's another part of the problem.

>>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.

Yes and no. I don't feel it is neutral, even if frequent.

> 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.

I meant: did anyone ever encounter such a thing as an evidence
that did not seem to be so ? How can one discriminate between an
evidence and something that would just seem to be an evidence ?

Georges.
Received on Tue Nov 16 2004 - 20:19:50 PST