Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-kirk!williams From: williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: What you never saw Part II Message-ID: <1548@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Mon, 8-Apr-85 14:14:38 EST Article-I.D.: decwrl.1548 Posted: Mon Apr 8 14:14:38 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 12-Apr-85 03:50:11 EST Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: DEC Engineering Network Lines: 100 From: RHEA::DECWRL::"sun!rhiannon!sunny" "Ms. Sunny Kirsten" 5-APR-1985 15:20 To: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-kirk!williams Subj: RE: Support and Catastrophy Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Fri, 5 Apr 85 12:14-PST Received: by decwrl.ARPA (4.22.01/4.7.34) id AA25098; Fri, 5 Apr 85 12:15:28 pst Received: from rhiannon.sun.uucp by sun.uucp (1.3/SMI-1.2) id AA17951; Fri, 5 Apr 85 11:53:42 pst Received: by rhiannon.sun.uucp (4.24/3.14) id AA00364; Fri, 5 Apr 85 11:53:20 pst Date: Fri, 5 Apr 85 11:53:20 pst Return-Path: Message-Id: <8504051953.AA00364@rhiannon.sun.uucp> Return to Sender Addressee Refuses Receipt Remove from Mailing List -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >From decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-kirk!williams Fri Apr 5 11:41:37 1985 Received: from sun.uucp by rhiannon.sun.uucp (4.24/3.14) id AA00314; Fri, 5 Apr 85 11:41:31 pst Return-Path: Received: by sun.uucp (1.3/SMI-1.2) id AA16516; Fri, 5 Apr 85 10:41:04 pst Received: from DEC-RHEA.ARPA by decwrl.ARPA (4.22.01/4.7.34) id AA23365; Fri, 5 Apr 85 10:06:34 pst Message-Id: <8504051806.AA23365@decwrl.ARPA> Date: Friday, 5 Apr 1985 10:03:30-PST >From: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-kirk!williams (John Williams 223-3402) To: rhiannon!sunny@sun.uucp Subject: Support and Catastrophy Status: R How is it possible for two people to both be right and disagree? Perhaps they are not using the same definitions for words. I tried to clarify this for you with the word " reality ". We should first determine whether we are talking about the same objects and actions. I have tried to do this with you. I have further attempted to expand your understanding of certain words. After a protocol is established, we can then compare proposed objects and actions, and see if the is a contradiction, or if you will, a paradox. In alot of cases, in fact most, the contradiction is centered around false assumptions, but in some cases, the observations are consistent, but are made on distinctly different phenomena. That is, a general theory that is consistent with one set of phenomena contradicts a theory that takes into account a completely different set of phenomena. It is this case where the participants should compromise to find a general theory, if possible, that takes both sets of phenomena into consideration. But in a valid contradiction, or if you will, a useful argument, both participants simply can't be right. It is inconsistent with the basic premises of relativity. How about that, I'm using the theory of relativity to explain the absolute nature of the universe. I think what we have here is more than just a language barrier. I think your definitions of words are egocentric, and I say that not as a derogatory opinion, but simply to point out what I believe to be an error in your judgement. You have taken many words that should have a general meaning to describe your own personal phenomena. You further conclude that there is no absolute reality because there is no absolute proof. We have no absolute proof that the universe will not cease to exist tomorrow, yet the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the probability that the universe will go on exactly as it has throughout eternity. The theory of relativity demonstrates this by asserting that our observation of physical laws is uneffected by our position in the spacetime continuum. What makes me think you will ever change your mind? To tell you the truth, you may very well refuse to acknowledge this aspect of reality, and you very well might continue through life believing that evidence is created, and that people deliberately manufacture evidence to support their own theories. This illusion may make you personally feel more secure. I understand why, and now I believe I'm beginning to understand why not. You feel that the study of nature does not help you " spiritually ". Well, if what you want is confidence, I will tell you now that the study of nature will not necessarily validate your own conclusions. If you wish a quick answer for all questions, then believing that others know nothing about your own " reality " will help you, because that releases the burden of having to " understand " from your shoulders. I can see how the whole thing is quite appealing to you. But, you can't have that and expect to get along with me. I simply refuse to support you. John