Re: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics

David McFadzean (
Sun, 21 Sep 1997 12:31:03 -0600

At 12:58 PM 9/20/97 -0700, Tim Rhodes wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, David McFadzean wrote:
>> Does 2+2=4 describe anything outside of mathematics?
>Yes, but only to the extent that the isomorphism is correct. And the
>isomorphism in the point (mine at least) and the subjective part of the
>equation. If you say the numbers stand for atoms, the isomorphism holds.
>But if, for instance, you say that the numbers stand for molecules, 2+2
>may or may not equal 4 molecules. Two hydrogen and two oxygen molecules
>can just as easily add up to two molecules (one H2O and one hydrogen) as

I took it as a given that the plus operator is a symbol for numerical
addition (and not, for example, chemical combination). If you redefine
that it isn't too surprising the isomorphism is lost.

>> What you said about possible contradictions is like saying that maybe
>> 2+2 doesn't equal 4 under 12,000 lbs of atmospheric pressure.
>You were right. We are talking about two different things. You're saying
>the mathematics/logic holds up under all possible conditions, and I agree
>with that. I'm saying that the isomorphism may not be that stable. And
>that we must keep that in mind when we say that anything *other than*
>mathematics or logic is as consistent as they are.


Let's see if I can distill the essence of this thread so far. The point
is question seems to be this:

1. Objective reality is consistent.

One camp thinks that it is very important to hold this statement as true,
while the other camp is saying that assuming it is true might make one
blind to certain parts of reality where it isn't true.

Before proceeding, is that an accurate characterization? If so, would it be
worthwhile defining all terms in (1) in detail?

David McFadzean       
Memetic Engineer      
Church of Virus