Re: virus: TT and The Absolute Truth

David McFadzean (
Tue, 05 Nov 1996 10:56:50 -0700

At 01:01 AM 05/11/96 -0800, Tadeusz Niwinski wrote:

>An apple is objective reality. What do you call the fact that this apple is

To the extent that this apple is indeed red I'd call it a true statement.
Of course it depends on what you mean by 'apple' and 'red'.

>I didn't say you did. I am not talking about inventions. I am talking
>about this incredible consistency of Nature. You can pretend you don't see
>what I write and win the argument, if this is your purpose. It is not my
>purpose, David. OK, you win...

I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion here and you're trying to turn
it into a fight. Look at what you wrote: "Nothing would be possible if pi
was once 3.14 and some other time 8.25." Is this supposed to be an argument
against my position? Well it isn't my position.

>>No I do not. Maybe you can explain what Jason meant.
>Jason is talking about the same incredible consistency of Nature I call TT.

OK, I agree Nature is incredibly consistent and we can call that consistency
TT if you like. Let's assume the objective reality (OR) exists and it has
the property of being incredibly consistent (TT).

Unfortunately that says nothing about whether or not there is an
Absolute Truth (AT) which is the point of the discussion.

>OK, I'll try. David, do you believe that the Universe is consistent in it's
>Does the objective reality has this property (I call TT and you are welcome
>to name as you like) that causes it to be predictable and knowable? Can you
>add your wisdom to a mutually agreeable definition of this peculiar

Do you agree that truth is a property of statements about OR and TT and not
a property of OR or TT?

David McFadzean       
Memetic Engineer      
Church of Virus