virus: PCR Three Axioms

Eric Boyd (
Sun, 21 Sep 1997 09:40:11 -0500

Tadeusz Niwinski wrote:
> Eric Boyd wrote:
> >A=A is only a model, and the map is never the terrain. One must be
> >prepared to abandon A=A if it gets falsified. But more than that,
> >actually, one of the first requirement of science and PCR is that the
> >statement to be analyzed must in principle *be* falsifiable. If it
> >ain't, it's either a "tautology" or an "axiom" -- and neither of those
> >are useful at all, for the first is *useless*, and the second is
> >assumption making. (are there any other possiblities besides these two,
> >and their combinations?)

> Thank you for a clear intro to PCR axioms (I couldn't get it
> from David R's posts):
> (1) Any statement is either falsifiable or it's either a
> "tautology" or an "axiom".

Elementary group theory, eh? It's either in A, or it's in not-A. ie
A=A. hmmm. I think all dualities ultimatly come down to this, eh? I
did ask for more options, but I don't think that matters. As long as
the choices remain *finite*, the axioms A=A still holds. For it is the
act of saying there are recgonizable options to choose from that makes
the axiom assumed.

Does this mean that ultimatly any decision between options, any
*premeditated* act makes the assumtion A=A?

And does that mean the the Zen monks, who act on the spur of the moment
-- on the "suchness" -- have finally evaded the axiom? (and accepted
the axiom that "right action" is spontanous)

> (2) Falsifiable statements are useful, tautologies and axioms are not.

Axioms can be useful (mathematics is based on axioms, after all) But
they are assumption making. How do your justify your assumptions?
Tautologies ("existance exists") are circular platforms, like axioms, on
which you can build. I think it's in the nature of knowledge that we
build upon things we already have. It is the way we learn.

Circular constructs are very important. Some time I'm going to update
that page on my Church's webpage about circular constructs. Much need
to be said. We are born, and then we die -- a circular platform.
Knowledge bootstraps itself, and meme's evolve. Life comes about only
becuase of the "life" before it, all the way back to some chemical soup
where some chemicals, by chance, were able to "replicate" themselves.

The most powerful force in the universe is *circular* -- the power of an
object to bring about more objects of it's own kind.

> (3) A falsifiable statement (A) cannot be a tautology or an
> axiom (B) at the same time. In other words A=A.

A=A. I grant your point: we all work with axioms. There is no escape
from the mythos.

> Seriously. Can we prove *anything* without axioms? Isn't a proof by
> definition something like: "If a then b". The first "a" (the "pra-a") must
> be assumed. The other option is to follow an authority (like Popper) and
> believe that "no-axiom" logic is possible.

Hmmm. It all comes down to faith in the end, eh? Who are you going to
believe? The sucessful people? (memetics says: NO!) The "intelligent"
people? (and who "is" that?) Your senses? Phaedrus was right: to think
you can go beyond the mythos is not to understand the mythos. For to go
beyond the mythos is to become insane.

However, Brodies "level 3" is NOT going beyond the mythos. It is
"flipping" between *different* mythos's. Thus, I think that while it is
possible to envision a "level 4" -- *freedom* from memes, from axioms,
from the mythos -- such a position seems inherently unstable. The idea
of Zen "no-mind" -- Nirvana -- is a high intellectual ideal. And like
Nietzsche said, the ideal is an intellectual horror. I'm liking
discordia more every week -- why worship order when clearly disorder is
a primary rule of the universe? (second law of thermodynamics, frosh!)

Umm. Actually, Level 3 -- flipping -- cannot be instataneous, right?
So what is the mind doing in the small interval between one axiomatic
set and another? Does this mean level 3 is impossible? Or does this
mean that the mind is capable of "level 4", as it were?

Or: another possibility: can the mind actually be implementing one
axiomatic set *before* the removal of the other? (ie embracing
contractions for a short while) If so, can we expand the time of
contradictions and acheive multiple axiomatic awareness (and then call
*that* "level 4")?

Or maybe instantaneous flipping is possible. (Instanteanous rate of
change is possible -- that's calculus)

Do we have any *actual* level 3 people who can give us some idea of what
goes on between "flips"?


and about E-Prime: I try. Like Eva says, it*'s* very hard. Mostly
becuse E-Prime is about rejecting a large part of our mythos. A=A. I
make the assumtion 99.99999% of the time, I'm sure. And I'm not likly
to ever be able to stop that. It's how I've been raised, and it's all
around me. (BTW Eva, the problem was with the logic in the paragraph...
dualities rest on "is") But I still try...