In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:22:09 -0600, Virgil <email@example.com> wrote: > > >In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > > > > > >> I always have doubts about assumptions until > >> they're demonstrable by regression to something other than further > >> assumptions. > > > >As Zick provides o evidence that such 'regression' is possible, he must > >be totally agnostic about everything. > > Don't know what you're getting on about here. Theorems always regress > to axioms in math. Such a regression is obviously possible.
But as axioms are always themselves assumptions, how is that "regression to something other than further assumptions"? > > >> >What do "absolute falseness" and "universally true" mean? > >> > >> They're tautological alternatives in that what is not absolutely false > >> must perforce be universally and absolutely true. > > > >Why cannot what is not absolutely false be only conditionally true? > > If tautological alternatives exhaust the possibilities for truth as in > "A, not A" the honest-to-god absolute truth must rest with one > possibility or the other.
But It need not be possible to tell *which* of a set of exhaustive alternatives is the true one. In which case you are no wiser.