Greg: While language may just be symbolic, our senses evolved in the reality of our environment, and so are not really flawed, as they are simply not as acute as we need them to be. Reality is Truly mostly as we perceive it to be. The reality of everything involved with our computers could be said to only be its binary nature, 1 and 0, yes and no, on and off, but the binary programming allows the True Reality to be far more then that. Abstract views, Theoritical views, Imaginary views, and even views that precisely emulate reality can be expressed here. The Universe is synonymous with this view in that God Created it as an incubator for the Creation of New Life, and also, through its Nature, to teach that Life all there is to Understand about Being, Even Unto God. The numerical or symbolic components of math may simply be an abstract concept, but what they represent is very real, and we are very aware of that reality, or else we could not construct the abtract sybolism. If you doubt it, look upon the date of Aug. 6, 1945, and what it will always be remembered for. Mathematical Comprehension alone led to the reality realized that day.

tenacious: Well Greg first off, I still hold that our senses are in fact flawed, and I think you may be agreeing with me. By flawed I mean that they are inaccurate, and can be fooled. If you've ever perfomed the experiment of placing one hand in cold water and one hand in hot; then place them both in warm water, each of your hands will feel a different temperature. There are 1) "a priori" statements, that is they could be determined without need of empirical evidence - we know them by definition, and 2) "a posteriori" statements, that is we can know them only through observation of the physical world. A commonly used example is that if you understand the definitions of "married" and "bachelor", you know that it is impossible to be both purely by definition. I'm asserting that mathematical statements are "a priori", we don't need to apply them to the real world (ie. pure mathmatics), but math has developed out of our need to explain the world. Also I think we have differing definitions of what reality is. You said: "Reality is Truly mostly as we perceive it to be." I believe there are two kinds of reality:1) subjective reality= that which exists only in our own minds, or our perception of the universe, and 2) objective reality= that which really exists independant of what your perception may be. There is only 1 objective reality my friend. Are you suggesting that ideas Now, we have only 5 senses (I won't insult your intelligence by listing them all), so how do know all that exists in the universe can be interpreted by only these 5 senses? We experience time in a linear path, but how do you know time really travels that way? Einstein's theory of relativity states that time is the measure of distance traveled in space. This means that time really doesn't exist without an event to mark it (ie. if an object at time A, but is found to be in the exact same spot at time B, we could never really determine if time had really passed or not). On earth we used revolutions around the sun, but someone living on Jupiter would have a completely different conception of time. All I'm really saying is that ideas (abstract concepts, theories, etc.) exist only in the mind. Is that so radical? Greg: First, allow us to understand reality as you define objective reality. You and I both accept it as Being the Only Reality. How we perceive it to be, does not change it, even though experiments in quantum physics suggest that the outcomes of those experiments are dependant upon the observer. Now, allow me to suggest to you that the Universe is the way it is because God made it that way. Also, that He made it so that the Life Created in that Universe would perceive it, even as it was made. This being the case, it is available for us to perceive reality even as, in fact, it IS. God does not mean to deceive us, but He has given us Free-Will, and thus we are prone to error. Einstein's Theory of Relativity does not say that Time is a measure of distanced "traveled" in space, that is the view of Time prior to Einstein. Rather, Einstein said that Time is a dimension in and of itself. The measure of Time is according to its proximity to an object of mass, OR, according to the measure of one's acceleration in relation to the Speed of Light. This IS Objective Reality, Mathematical Comprehension, proven by Experimentation. The other view of Time is plausibly influenced by Subjective Reality. Einstein's view is not. We know that our five senses are not adequate to perceive all of reality, that is why we produce instruments that can translate reality into a view our five senses Are capable of perceiving. However, we are capable of perceiving whether or not those instruments are perceiving accurately or not, and thus we are capable of perceiving the accuracy of the reality that only they can perceive. That is why I say our senses are not flawed, but simply not as acute as we need them to be.

• RE: "Greg"arious one - tenacious - October 2, 1999 - 00:12 UTC
  • Re: RE: "Greg"arious one - Greg_Armel/">Greg Armel - October 2, 1999 - 03:49 UTC
    • WOW! - Phil.o.sofir - October 2, 1999 - 05:25 UTC
      • Re: WOW! - Greg_Armel/">Greg Armel - October 2, 1999 - 10:36 UTC
    • Supposed to go with (hindu truth post below) No text this one - Phil.osofir - October 2, 1999 - 06:05 UTC
      • Yup. I guess i have an insatiable curiosity. no text - tenacious - October 2, 1999 - 20:28 UTC
      • ALL RIGHTY THEN, GREGO!!!! - tenacious - October 2, 1999 - 20:41 UTC
        • Re: My tenacious Friend - Greg_Armel/">Greg Armel - October 3, 1999 - 00:28 UTC
          • Greg - tenacious - October 3, 1999 - 20:46 UTC
          • Why appealing to free will isn't a good argument - tenacious - October 3, 1999 - 21:16 UTC