quote:
2 + 2 = 1 (modulo 3). There are just a finite number of rational numbers if you are considering a finite field. Two parallel lines: 1) never meet; 2) always meet; 3) don't exist depending on what geometry you are considering. At one time, each of these mathematical statements was considered to be absolutely untrue and even to be absurd until a more advanced (more general) mathematical structure was discovered (or invented, depending on your beliefs). So, even if there was total agreement that some statement were absolutely true, might that just be a temporary consensus awaiting discovery of a larger but more tenuous truth?
Don't get to technical or you'll miss the point.
1) 2+2=1 (modulo 3) Please explain as I am not familiar with this. I haven't had a situation in my short engineering career or at any time in my life for that matter where I had 2 of something and 2 more of that same something and ended with 1 of it.
2) Missed why you mention that there are a finite number of rational numbers if you are considering a finite field. If we are talking about finding a Truth I guess theres no point in limiting the field because then that would be a truth. Let the number line be what it is; infinite.
3) Don't understand as well why you bring up parallel lines. Is that a multiple choice question for me?
4) To answer your question I think I established a difference between theories and laws for my simple analysis. I guess I agree when you say that another truth can be discovered that would make 2+2=3 correct and the accepted 2+2=4 wrong. But since that is so highly improbable if not impossible, I'm sticking with it as a Truth and not a truth.
quote:
Would the statement "There are no absolute statements, except for this one." solve the conundrum of the self-contradictory statements discussed in previous posts? Or, is this issue just a distraction from the intent of the OP?
No. It would be better to just say "The only absolute statement is this one" and we would easilya void self-contradiction with it. I don't see a distraction if things are expressed correctly.
quote:
Some logicians attempt to bypass the problems of the self-referential statement but still create the innately contradictory situation through use of set theory: Define "S" to be the set of all sets that do not contain themselves as an element. Does S contain itself as an element? I actually don't see the difference or that anything has been achieved in this way.
Agreed. It raises more questions than it gives answers
Mangekyo Sharingan. Youre trapped in my genjutsu now!
™ Version 4.2