Re: Mathematical and Absolute truth

Bruce Edmonds (B.Edmonds@MMU.AC.UK)
Thu, 21 Sep 1995 09:25:30 GMT


> Don Mikulecky,MCV/VCU,Mikulecky@gems.vcu.edu
> reply to Bruce's reply to Jeff:
> The way you phased the question about the definition of "absolutist" seems to
> make it an anjolog to Rosen's definition of a mechanism? That would mean that
> it can't be self referential, no? Seems like an interesting analogy to me.

There is a connection, but it is not quite the same.

Many (probably most) absolute mathematical systems are
self-referential, but they would still be considered true independent
of non-mathematical contexts. Also things can be non "absolute"
without being obviosly self referential (like the chair in the door
example), of course, it is not clear that this is not due to some
self-reference in our semantic model of language/rooms etc.

Certainly when you have a system with the "downward causation" type
of self-reference, then this might well make the truth of any
statement dependent on the context.

This needs more thinking about, the connection might be quite strong.

----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Edmonds
Centre for Policy Modelling,
Manchester Metropolitan University, Aytoun Building,
Aytoun Street, Manchester, M1 3GH. UK.
Tel: +44 161 247 6479 Fax: +44 161 247 6802
http://bruce.edmonds.name/bme_home.html