M
Michel Walsh
Hi,
And me, I say, what is a straight line? Draw two (segment of) line,
parallel (appreciatively), vertical, on a piece of paper. Done? OK, now,
take a fisheye lens and pass it over the paper, you get now two curves, that
looks like the profile of a barrel. Not only you don't perceive lines, but
that is also amuse you if someone tell you that these are "parallel" (since
they don't even are at a constant distance from each other)... if you didn't
got the whole knowledge of the story. Ok, now, brace yourself, if you
perceive two curves... are they, in reality "lines", and "parallel"? is
there an anti-fisheye lens that would make them straight and parallel?
Since the "nature" of the lines (curves) cannot be simply linked to YOUR
perception, are there a simple answer to "what is a line"? "what are
parallel lines"?
Sure, mathematically, lines and points and parallelism is well defined
through a set of axioms, and (mathematical) logic, help to derive not
trivial facts. We call that a model. A model is defined thought its axioms.
So a plane on its trajectory can be consider as a point on a line, even if
the plane has dimension (that a point does not) and even if the trajectory
is "curved". Sure, a plane has color, mass, and other properties, but when
we "abstract" it to fit our "model", those properties are considered
irrelevant to the discussion. Being a concept, an abstracted property, it is
"ill" defined. If a point was a plane, a point could not be a car, a truck,
etc. Being "ill" defined, a point can be a plane, a car, a truck. It is ill
defined in itself, in terms of concrete entities, but well defined concept,
mathematically, through the axioms that have to be validated to be "a
point", "part" or "a line", and so on.
Same thing occurs about truth. It is a part of a model, binary logic,
not a property of the concrete entity being in the process of being
abstracted ... a little bit as the plane is a point, but we do NOT say the
point is a plane. If you prefer, no one ever "die" for a point on a line,
and it is also irrelevant to "die" for the truth. No one spend his live in
search of the "line", and also is absurd to search the "truth". We can
search "where is the plane" on its trajectory, but we do not search the
"point" itself. We should not search the "truth" itself, but the concrete
entity abstracted by the "truth" concept.
It is a sophism and illogical metonymy (transfer of property through a
relation) to end a rhetoric argument through simple invocation of "the truth
is". There is not more absolute truth than there is an absolute "point", or
absolute "parallel lines".
Vanderghast, Access MVP
And me, I say, what is a straight line? Draw two (segment of) line,
parallel (appreciatively), vertical, on a piece of paper. Done? OK, now,
take a fisheye lens and pass it over the paper, you get now two curves, that
looks like the profile of a barrel. Not only you don't perceive lines, but
that is also amuse you if someone tell you that these are "parallel" (since
they don't even are at a constant distance from each other)... if you didn't
got the whole knowledge of the story. Ok, now, brace yourself, if you
perceive two curves... are they, in reality "lines", and "parallel"? is
there an anti-fisheye lens that would make them straight and parallel?
Since the "nature" of the lines (curves) cannot be simply linked to YOUR
perception, are there a simple answer to "what is a line"? "what are
parallel lines"?
Sure, mathematically, lines and points and parallelism is well defined
through a set of axioms, and (mathematical) logic, help to derive not
trivial facts. We call that a model. A model is defined thought its axioms.
So a plane on its trajectory can be consider as a point on a line, even if
the plane has dimension (that a point does not) and even if the trajectory
is "curved". Sure, a plane has color, mass, and other properties, but when
we "abstract" it to fit our "model", those properties are considered
irrelevant to the discussion. Being a concept, an abstracted property, it is
"ill" defined. If a point was a plane, a point could not be a car, a truck,
etc. Being "ill" defined, a point can be a plane, a car, a truck. It is ill
defined in itself, in terms of concrete entities, but well defined concept,
mathematically, through the axioms that have to be validated to be "a
point", "part" or "a line", and so on.
Same thing occurs about truth. It is a part of a model, binary logic,
not a property of the concrete entity being in the process of being
abstracted ... a little bit as the plane is a point, but we do NOT say the
point is a plane. If you prefer, no one ever "die" for a point on a line,
and it is also irrelevant to "die" for the truth. No one spend his live in
search of the "line", and also is absurd to search the "truth". We can
search "where is the plane" on its trajectory, but we do not search the
"point" itself. We should not search the "truth" itself, but the concrete
entity abstracted by the "truth" concept.
It is a sophism and illogical metonymy (transfer of property through a
relation) to end a rhetoric argument through simple invocation of "the truth
is". There is not more absolute truth than there is an absolute "point", or
absolute "parallel lines".
Vanderghast, Access MVP