Re: virus: accurate statements vs The Absolute Truth
Fri, 6 Dec 1996 10:01:39 -0600 (CST)

On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, Jason McVean wrote:

> Kenneth Boyd wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, Jason McVean wrote:
> > > I'm not sure it needs to be made of anything. Is the value of pi
> > > made of anything? Crudely it is made of numbers, but the constant
> > > pi would still have a definite value if we didn't invent
> > > numbers. The value of pi, the speed of light, the charge of an
> > > electron, etc., are all embedded in OR. The absolute truth is
> > > embedded in OR.
> > Let's see [Fixed Width Font is desirable]:
> > Ultimate reduction to primitive terms:
> > pi Matter/energy
> > [via class theory] [via current physics; ignore GUTs]
> > True space-time
> > False photons
> > either "Not, And" or NAND [CIS] 6 quarks [CERN data seems to claim
> > "in" this exactly]
> > 6 leptons [ditto?]
> >
> > Yes, pi is made of 'something'. So is mass-energy. It is *critical*
> > that we are immersed in the material world, and fail to be immersed in
> > mathematics.
> Huh? I was unable to extract any meaning from this. Not that
> there isn't any...

The "point" is that when I forget the semantics, and go to the equivalent
of subatomic physics for both physics and mathematics, that I am reduced
to a few undefined terms, which are formally combined in very complicated
way to get to the more conventional constructions [matter, etc. for
physics; numbers, etc. for mathematics.]

It's easy to say that the computer terminal, etc. is "concretely real",
because we are immersed in the physical world. It is harder to see that
numbers, etc. are "concretely real", since we are NOT immersed in

/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/ Kenneth Boyd