[UA] Re: [UA]

[Nick Wedig]

>The fundamental axiom of science is "what is observed empirically serves
>as a predictor for the future."  That's as unprovable as anything in
>religion, and as much of a leap of faith.  It's also susceptible to
>cultural whims in terms of how much we believe it -- it was /much/ less
>accepted a few centuries ago.

One of the British empiricist (Locke or Hume, I forget which) pointed out that any claims that the future will resemble the past (what you're stating there boiled down a bit) are inherently circular.  They claim that the future always has resembled the past, and therefore always will to a reasonable degree.  But to claim the future will look like the past based on past evidence is to assume what is trying to be proven.

So it must be a dogma, or an axiom, as you prefer, but it can't be logically proven.

The british empiricists seemed to have a way of destroying the validity of empirical evidence.

ObUA: claims that the future _won't_ resemble the past could make for interesting belief systems as well.  Adepts whose belief is based on the future becoming more and more unlike the past could have unusual effects.  Neomancy, the magick of creating something new but never being able to repeat yourself (no formula spells for that school... rules would need some warping to match it).  Perhaps a paradox of repeatedly performing certain acts and never repeating others...

Mr. teapot
neomancer

____________________________________________________
FREE Disinformation E-book - http://www.disinfo.com

_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua