Origins of the "double-truth"

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

>On Einstein and Newton:
>This is no case of double truth; if the theory of relativity is true, then
>Newtonian mechanics is not - it is only a good approximation. As the
This would be rejected by many philosophers of science, who'd like to
distinguish between scientific theories and physical
laws. Absolute truth may negate relative truth, but relative
truth still remains practical, at least in Advaita Vedanta.
Likewise, there is more to Newtonian mechanics than being just
a good approximation of relativisitc mechanics. And one can
debate what is meant by "good" here. Anyway, Newton's laws of
motion are not completely invalidated, and pedagogy demands
Newtonian physics to be taught before moving to relativistic
physics. In all these things, the structure of science and the
transmission of its knowledge are very similar to those of
traditions that have the so-called "double-truth" theories.

statement
>"pi = 3.14" is not true, although it is an often useful approximation.
>

The nature of this approximation is quite different, pi being
an irrational number, which 3.14 is not. Pi and 3.14 belong to
entirely different kinds of numbers. Relativistic and classical
physics do not constitute different kinds of scientific theories.
On the other hand, quantum physics is an entirely different kind
of theory as compared to classical physics.

Best wishes,
Vidyasankar

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.