Truth Redux

I'm not smart enough to track with you on the finer points of "11th-dimension" projections and such. But I'm not sure I agree with you that the only "truth" is found within mathematical axioms. The same validity offered mathematical axioms can be offered to non-mathematical things as well:

• If Bill is a boy
• and if a child can't be both a boy and a girl
• then we know that Bill is not a girl

The key to that is the two premises established in bullets one and two -- we can argue for some time about what "boy" means, and whether Bill is, in fact a boy. The second bullet might illicit even more debate. But if we accept both assertions as given, then the third bullet follows.

However, if we deny either bullet one or two, then three falls.

If my thinking is false within the confines of multi-dimensional string theory ... :-) ... then I don't see how in the world anyone can have any confidence in mathematical axioms. "Let X = 1." Questions that follow:

• What if 1 is a fluid entity?
• What if X can't change state?
• What if X can't hold a state?
• What if the concept of "equal" is fundamentally flawed?
• What if X refuses to accept 1?
• What if 1 refuses to be labeled as X?
• What if you don't have the authority to assign X a value, but others do?
• What if by the simple act of assigning X a value, you change both X and the value?

* * *

However, I will never agree that just because we may not be able to discern "the truth" in our spatial dimension, that proves truth doesn't exist. We just may not see it. Absolute Truth -- however that may be defined -- by its very definition exists outside any other influence. It simply is. If not, then it's not absolute.

* * *

But maybe there is no absolute truth ... maybe all is truly gray ... ... That leads me to one conclusion ...

Ronnie: "Chrissy! Bring me the big knife!"

Chrissy: "No! I won't do it, I tell you! I won't do it!"

Ronnie: "She won't do it. Do you know about me?"