Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[IamanElfCollaborator]

((So if he looked at a theory, would he be able to discern the parts of it that are the absolute truth and the parts of it that are not? For example, if say, the non-deterministic phenomena of quantum physics had a yet to be to found basis that is entirely deterministic, would he know that the effects are the absolute truth but the true randomness of it is not?))

((He wouldn't know anything they didn't already, but apart from that, he would know which was true and which was complete lies.))

[Empiricist]

((What if the theory had the correct results but the incorrect reasoning? Is it "absolute truth" or "truth as we know it"?))

[IamanElfCollaborator]

((What if the theory had the correct results but the incorrect reasoning? Is it "absolute truth" or "truth as we know it"?))

((Truth as you know it. Corvus would know it was lies, but he wouldn't be able to say what the real reason was unless some other form of non-godly creature figures it out.))

[Empiricist]

((So if the accepted reasoning contradicts it he would know it is false? What if it is true and the accepted reasoning is false whilst there is nothing to vindicate the former or refute the latter?))

[IamanElfCollaborator]

((So if the accepted reasoning contradicts it he would know it is false? What if it is true and the accepted reasoning is false whilst there is nothing to vindicate the former or refute the latter?))

((Former: He would.
Latter: He would know that the accepted reasoning is lies and that the former is true, but not why, unless, again, a non-godly entity figures out why.))

[Empiricist]

((So to sum it up, knowing the absolute truth of all mortal ideas yet knowing why?))

[IamanElfCollaborator]

((Lemme put it like this;
Mortal A proposes Idea A, which is bull, to Corvus, who can tell it is, but he doesn't know the real explanation nor why it is bull. Mortal B proposes a rebuttal to Idea A, Idea B, which is also bull, and Corvus knows.
Mortal C proposes Idea C, which is right, and Corvus knows, and instantaneously adds that to his pool of knowledge on the side of 'real knowledge' rather than 'speculation'. ))

[Empiricist]

((Cue half the knowledge pool being incomprehensible ramblings of madmen who stumbled across the truth ))

[IamanElfCollaborator]

((Cue half the knowledge pool being incomprehensible ramblings of madmen who stumbled across the truth ))

((Most likely.))

[Empiricist]

((How truthful is the absolute truth anyway? Would he discern that phenomena X occurs because of reason Y to be true, or would he instead declare that phenomena X occurs because setting creator Z says so, is in fact true? Or is what I have presented a mere false dichotomy and both will be declared true/false?))

[IamanElfCollaborator]

((How truthful is the absolute truth anyway? Would he discern that phenomena X occurs because of reason Y to be true, or would he instead declare that phenomena X occurs because setting creator Z says so, is in fact true? Or is what I have presented a mere false dichotomy and both will be declared true/false?))

((Whichever one is more convenient at the time.))

[Empiricist]

((So if he were to discern the same two propositions at a later time, their truthfulness may have changed?))

[IamanElfCollaborator]

((So if he were to discern the same two propositions at a later time, their truthfulness may have changed?))

((*shrug*))

[Empiricist]

((What if he is asked to resolve a matter such as Hempel's Raven, The Ship of Theseus or a paradox? Is there truth within "This statement is false"?))

[IamanElfCollaborator]

((What if he is asked to resolve a matter such as Hempel's Raven, The Ship of Theseus or a paradox? Is there truth within "This statement is false"?))

((As the truth would blow out a mere mortal's mind, he would calmly decline to prove the matter....or leave it to the Trickster.))