I do think in binary. It saves a lot of time in my life that I don't waste discussing theoretical "what ifs" and truisms. I determine what I think is right or wrong and act accordingly. But where did I say I don't believe in a continuum? You are repeating my words when I said it is true. I just don't live my life in a continuum. I have to make decisions in order to continue living.
Particle physicists are beginning to think of n-dimensional space and parallel universes. Last month's tests at Brookhaven (smashing gold atoms together at the highest voltage they can generate) indicate parity doesn't exist at the sub-particle level. This concept of parity has implications with the broader theory of "dark matter" but all that is way beyond my ability to comprehend. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ricardo Aráoz" <[email protected]> To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 10:26 PM Subject: Re: [OT] The Fallacy of Gray > Nicholas Geti wrote: >> To say the notion of right to wrong is a continuum is a truism. I don't >> see >> the point of debating that. >> > > Errhhh.... sorry people. You seem to imply the right/wrong issue is > inscribed in a bidimensional space. Where did you get that notion? > Let's say it's a tri-dimensional space, then truth is a point or a line? > If it is a line, in which direction and how long is it? > And I wouldn't want to start imagining it might be a 4-dimensional thing. > In my experience, real world, life, are multi- dimensional (and usually > more than 4 dimensions), and as we all know, there is no order once you > get more than two dimensions, so there is no way to say if something is > definitely better (or right/wrong if you prefer) than some other thing. > >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Ed Leafe" <[email protected]> >> To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 2:49 PM >> Subject: Re: [OT] The Fallacy of Gray >> >> >> >>> On Feb 25, 2010, at 2:12 PM, Nicholas Geti wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Doesn't look to me like you ever took a course in experimental design >>>> and >>>> measurement. >>>> >>> Ah! I knew that my Six Sigma green belt would come in handy some day! >>> >>> Yes, you can say what the correct value of something is, based on >>> statistical analysis, and you can also state the precision of that >>> value. >>> Refining your test can produce results with less statistical variance, >>> which allows for a more precise knowledge of the true value. >>> >>> You can make similar inferences with life experiences that do not lend >>> themselves to statistical analysis, and the more experience you have, >>> the >>> better your understanding of the truth. >>> >>> But let's get back to the original topic: the notion that since there >>> isn't an absolute right or wrong, everything is equivalent, as they are >>> all 'gray'. It's a continuum, and it is possible to be closer or further >>> from the truth. >>> >>> >>> -- Ed Leafe >>> >>> > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/939db5beef76418a9bd1bd64d7784...@dual ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
