-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Phil Thayer Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 12:57 PM To: Luke -Jr; [email protected] Subject: RE: Recycling subject lines saves trees (was Re: Stop editingthedamnsubject (was Re: The End Of Western Civilization(wasRe:RoadRunner nonsense (was Re: fwd: RE: STFU RE))
That is only true to a limited extent. You omit to consider that Islam is false. When taken into consideration that only one religion is in fact true, you will realize that heresy, as well as morality and such, as quite objective.
True. There is only one true religion. That would be the one that a
person believes to be true.
Whatever that religion may be. Which is all relative to that person.
So what about the concept of Absolute or Universal or Objective Truth? If I'm reading your statement above, you're saying that there is NO Absolute Truth. Is that a true statement?
On Tuesday 11 March 2008, Gene Dascher wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Phil Thayer Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 12:57 PM To: Luke -Jr; [email protected] Subject: RE: Recycling subject lines saves trees (was Re: Stop editingthedamnsubject (was Re: The End Of Western Civilization(wasRe:RoadRunner nonsense (was Re: fwd: RE: STFU RE))
That is only true to a limited extent. You omit to consider that Islam is false. When taken into consideration that only one religion is in fact true, you will realize that heresy, as well as morality and such, as quite objective.
True. There is only one true religion. That would be the one that a person believes to be true. Whatever that religion may be. Which is all\ relative to that person.
So what about the concept of Absolute or Universal or Objective Truth? If I'm reading your statement above, you're saying that there is NO Absolute Truth. Is that a true statement?
"Depends on what you believe." -.-
-----Original Message----- From: Gene Dascher [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 1:11 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Phil Thayer Subject: RE: Everything Is Relative
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Phil Thayer Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 12:57 PM To: Luke -Jr; [email protected] Subject: RE: Recycling subject lines saves trees (was Re: Stop editingthedamnsubject (was Re: The End Of Western Civilization(wasRe:RoadRunner nonsense (was Re: fwd: RE: STFU RE))
That is only true to a limited extent. You omit to
consider that Islam
is false. When taken into consideration that only one
religion is in
fact true, you will realize that heresy, as well as
morality and such,
as quite objective.
True. There is only one true religion. That would be the one that a
person believes to be true.
Whatever that religion may be. Which is all relative to that person.
So what about the concept of Absolute or Universal or Objective Truth? If I'm reading your statement above, you're saying that there is NO Absolute Truth. Is that a true statement?
True. Because Absolute implies that everyone knows all things, whether they are currently known or not. In monotheistical faiths the only Absolute is the Absolute of a divine power or entity. As far as religion goes it is and will always be a personal choice by which people live their lives and pay the consequences for. Don't confuse religion with a belief in the Absolute truth, or a belief in a devine power or entity. Religion is a means by which people can congregate in an manner agreeable to a group so that they can share in their common convictions. Because two groups of people choose to commune with an Absolute entity or power in different ways does not make one group right while the other may be wrong. They are both communing with the same Absolute power or entity but are doing it in a different manner that may not be agreeable with the other group. What would happen in this world if all the groups gathered together and tried to commune at the same time with the Absolute power or entity? The only true belief would be the last person standing.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Phil Thayer [email protected] wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Gene Dascher [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 1:11 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Phil Thayer Subject: RE: Everything Is Relative
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Phil Thayer Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 12:57 PM To: Luke -Jr; [email protected] Subject: RE: Recycling subject lines saves trees (was Re: Stop editingthedamnsubject (was Re: The End Of Western Civilization(wasRe:RoadRunner nonsense (was Re: fwd: RE: STFU RE))
That is only true to a limited extent. You omit to
consider that Islam
is false. When taken into consideration that only one
religion is in
fact true, you will realize that heresy, as well as
morality and such,
as quite objective.
True. There is only one true religion. That would be the one that a
person believes to be true.
Whatever that religion may be. Which is all relative to that person.
So what about the concept of Absolute or Universal or Objective Truth? If I'm reading your statement above, you're saying that there is NO Absolute Truth. Is that a true statement?
True. Because Absolute implies that everyone knows all things, whether they are currently known or not. In monotheistical faiths the only Absolute is the Absolute of a divine power or entity. As far as religion goes it is and will always be a personal choice by which people live their lives and pay the consequences for. Don't confuse religion with a belief in the Absolute truth, or a belief in a devine power or entity. Religion is a means by which people can congregate in an manner agreeable to a group so that they can share in their common convictions. Because two groups of people choose to commune with an Absolute entity or power in different ways does not make one group right while the other may be wrong. They are both communing with the same Absolute power or entity but are doing it in a different manner that may not be agreeable with the other group. What would happen in this world if all the groups gathered together and tried to commune at the same time with the Absolute power or entity? The only true belief would be the last person standing.
Kclug mailing list [email protected] http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Would someone please care to explain to me why the hell people are talking about the nature of reality on a LUG mailing list?
Did someone bring up quantum computers and not tell me?
Would someone please care to explain to me why the hell people are talking about the nature of reality on a LUG mailing list?
Did someone bring up quantum computers and not tell me?
Reality and the meaning of it is critically important to the computer world.
Whenever two or more people come to a consensus on a subject and determine how the interpretation and experience of an event is, which is a definition of reality. As these interpretations and experiences become more common among people, these experiences and interpretations lead to a larger reality and displace alternate realities that may in fact be a much better experience and interpretation of the same event. However, since the more common reality is already embraced by a majority it becomes the accepted reality. And because of that we have Microsoft dictating how windows systems should work instead of Linux showing the world how it can be done right.
That's how a discussion of Reality belongs on a LUG list. :)
Kclug mailing list [email protected] http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:08 PM, feba thatl [email protected] wrote:
Would someone please care to explain to me why the hell people are talking about the nature of reality on a LUG mailing list?
That is what Luke-Jr does. It's somewhat of his speciality.
--- Steven Hildreth [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:08 PM, feba thatl [email protected] wrote:
Would someone please care to explain to me why the hell people are talking about the nature of reality on a LUG mailing list?
That is what Luke-Jr does. It's somewhat of his speciality.
Taking it back to Linux for a second, Luke-Jr does seem to have a rather dogmatic approach to Linux as well, since I seem to recall that he is always offended when someone mentions a device which requires a non-native-Linux workaround like ndiswrapper.
Given his strict definition of Linux as a "free" (as in beer AND speech) operating system, I guess I should have tread more carefully when bringing up words typically associated with religion, such as "heresy."
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
--- feba thatl [email protected] wrote:
Would someone please care to explain to me why the hell people are talking about the nature of reality on a LUG mailing list?
Did someone bring up quantum computers and not tell me?
Oddly enough the Microsoft vs. Linux competition bears a distinct resemblance to the Catholic vs. Lutheran conflicts: in 1991 Linus Torvalds "nailed" the 95+ lines of source code to his new kernel up on a newsgroup, and ever since then the Office of the Microsoft Inquisition has been torturing people with strange and inventive EULAs to get them to reformat their Linux installations, recently even taking a page out of the Scientology dogma by making distributors sign what are essentially "billion year contracts" to only distribute Microsoft products.
Which is the last I'm going to say on the nature of Reality as it resembles the Linux operating system.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Leo Mauler [email protected] wrote:
--- feba thatl [email protected] wrote:
Would someone please care to explain to me why the hell people are talking about the nature of reality on a LUG mailing list?
Did someone bring up quantum computers and not tell me?
Oddly enough the Microsoft vs. Linux competition bears a distinct resemblance to the Catholic vs. Lutheran conflicts: in 1991 Linus Torvalds "nailed" the 95+ lines of source code to his new kernel up on a newsgroup, and ever since then the Office of the Microsoft Inquisition has been torturing people with strange and inventive EULAs to get them to reformat their Linux installations, recently even taking a page out of the Scientology dogma by making distributors sign what are essentially "billion year contracts" to only distribute Microsoft products.
Which is the last I'm going to say on the nature of Reality as it resembles the Linux operating system
Recently, a project document from a nameless VAR contract broker asked me to sign off on this similar clause:
"You agree that if the site manager does not sign your paperwork that you will be responsible for all callbacks related to your work on that site for the next 10,000 years."
I found that vastly amusing and arguably disposable of by the "void term/s or concept/s" principle in most contract law. Which in english was explained to mean "Even if there is a clause in the contract forbidding you from thinking of radishes on company time it does not void the rest of the contract as that clause is itself void due to absurdity"
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Phil Thayer [email protected] wrote:
So what about the concept of Absolute or Universal or Objective Truth? If I'm reading your statement above, you're saying that there is NO Absolute Truth. Is that a true statement?
True. Because Absolute implies that everyone knows all things, whether they are currently known or not.
Are you absolutely sure that's a true statement? Of course you aren't, because it's not. Truth and Reality simply are. Whether any individual person knows a particular truth doesn't make it untrue; it just makes it unknown, to that person. It isn't necessary for everyone else to know something that I know for me to know it.
As Donald Rumsfeld famously alluded, there are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. (He left out unknown knowns.) But don't think for a moment that they aren't absolutely true, even when they're unknown.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Monty J. Harder [email protected] wrote:
As Donald Rumsfeld famously alluded, there are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. (He left out unknown knowns.) But don't think for a moment that they aren't absolutely true, even when they're unknown.
Brian Niffen likes to point out that he was quoting Aristotle. I do not care to research that lemma.
So you did understand the subtlety behind the statement I made.
True. Because Absolute implies that everyone knows all things, whether they are currently known or not.
Are you absolutely sure that's a true statement? Of course you aren't, because it's not. Truth and Reality simply are. Whether any individual person knows a particular truth doesn't make it untrue; it just makes it unknown, to that person. It isn't necessary for everyone else to know something that I know for me to know it. As Donald Rumsfeld famously alluded, there are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. (He left out unknown knowns.) But don't think for a moment that they aren't absolutely true, even when they're unknown.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Gene Dascher [email protected] wrote:
True. There is only one true religion. That would be the one that a
person believes to be true.
Whatever that religion may be. Which is all relative to that person.
So what about the concept of Absolute or Universal or Objective Truth? If I'm reading your statement above, you're saying that there is NO Absolute Truth. Is that a true statement?
I heard a nice quote the other day, and I don't know who to attribute it to: "Just because I'm right doesn't mean that you are wrong." Even in an Absolute or Universal of Objective Truth, there are many ways to interpret or understand it. Just because "the truth is out there" doesn't mean we actually understand or know it for what it is, though we might know a bit of it. That's one big problem I have with people who claim to have and fully know THE absolute truth. The "truth" is that the sun will rise tomorrow. But the more "full truth" is that the Earth will keep spinning and our side will eventually be turned towards the Sun again.
Jon.
On Wednesday 12 March 2008, Jon Pruente wrote:
The "truth" is that the sun will rise tomorrow. But the more "full truth" is that the Earth will keep spinning and our side will eventually be turned towards the Sun again.
Don't you mean that the Sun will keep orbitting the Earth and eventually rotate back toward our part?
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:
On Wednesday 12 March 2008, Jon Pruente wrote:
The "truth" is that the sun will rise tomorrow. But the more "full truth" is that the Earth will keep spinning and our side will eventually be turned towards the Sun again.
Don't you mean that the Sun will keep orbitting the Earth and eventually rotate back toward our part?
Geocentrism as a point of view means that your question would be right. Heliocentrism as a point of view means the mine is. However, they both illustrate different views of the same effect, and thus illustrates my point on truth. A persons view on truth depends highly on where they start looking at it, no mater what the actual workings of that truth are. Knowing the "full truth" requires perfect knowledge, and as most Christians believe than man is an imperfect being, we cannot posses "full knowledge" and thus anything and man claims to know is only a subset of the Truth, mitigated and/or biased by his point of view. This also leads us into the sciences with the Uncertainty Principle; in the physical world, we can't know everything. So, even in a non-religious context we are unable to attain "full knowledge" and thus fulfill my POV claim.
POVs as related to operating systems also illustrate why flame wars happen. One old friend of mine used to have a "CrApple" sticker on his car. Now he totes around a MacBook as his main rig. Different POVs, different times. Back in the day, Mac OS was a POS for many things...
Jon.
On Wednesday 12 March 2008, Jon Pruente wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:
On Wednesday 12 March 2008, Jon Pruente wrote:
The "truth" is that the sun will rise tomorrow. But the more "full truth" is that the Earth will keep spinning and our side will eventually be turned towards the Sun again.
Don't you mean that the Sun will keep orbitting the Earth and eventually rotate back toward our part?
Geocentrism as a point of view means that your question would be right. Heliocentrism as a point of view means the mine is. However, they both illustrate different views of the same effect, and thus illustrates my point on truth.
The center of the universe is not a matter of faith nor morals, so your claims regarding the truth of either position is accurate enough.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:
The center of the universe
This is totally irrelevant, but I knew someone once who used that phrase exclusively to refer to downtown Louisville, Kentucky.
--- David Nicol [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:
The center of the universe
This is totally irrelevant, but I knew someone once who used that phrase exclusively to refer to downtown Louisville, Kentucky.
Considering that the content of the discussion is completely irrelevant to the KCLUG list, I don't think that this is any more irrelevant than anything else has been... ;-)
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Leo Mauler <w
The center of the universe
This is totally irrelevant, but I knew someone once who used that phrase exclusively to refer to downtown Louisville, Kentucky.
I don't think that this is any more irrelevant than
On reflection, it wasn't downtown exactly, but a shopping district that had a three-lane street running through the middle of it with traffic lights that changed the direction of flow in the center lane depending on time of day.
Which is relevant to issues of "traffic shaping" in a network engineering sense. Adaptive trunking, anyone?
On reflection, it wasn't downtown exactly, but a shopping district that had a three-lane street running through the middle of it with traffic lights that changed the direction of flow in the center lane depending on time of day.
Which is relevant to issues of "traffic shaping" in a network engineering sense. Adaptive trunking, anyone?
Just be glad it wasn't Comcast running that 3rd lane. Otherwise they'd take all the blue cars (pick a color), make you call home saying you weren't coming, and then they'd dump the car (and probably you) down a bottomless pit.
-
David Nicol -
feba thatl -
Gene Dascher -
James Sissel -
Jon Pruente -
Leo Mauler -
Luke -Jr -
Monty J. Harder -
Oren Beck -
Phil Thayer -
Steven Hildreth