Re: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics

Tadeusz Niwinski (
Mon, 22 Sep 1997 00:37:43 -0700

David McFadzean wrote:
>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?

Yes to both.
Great idea -- to the second. (Seems like a two year project :-)).

(1) Objective -- we may eliminate this word from the statement (it may save
us six months...). The word "Objective" makes the statement stronger, but
reality cannot be subjective, it ceases to be reality, it becomes fantasy.
Reality is what's real as opposed to imagined. Imagination is always

This way we are left with: "Reality is consistent".

(2) Reality. A primary concept and no definition necessary. As axioms do
not need proof, primary concepts (I am not sure if this is a correct English
term, but I am sure they have a name in math) are not definable. "Reality
exists" can be an axiom derived from two primary concepts (I heard about
this axiom somewhere :-)).

(3) Is (this one may be the most difficult). How do we define "to be"? In
fact Reality in order to be consistent (or not) has "to be" first. It looks
like a good idea to split our statement and make "Reality is" the first
statement. In fact "to be" is "to exist". So: "Reality exists". The
shorter version may be also easier to agree upon. For those who want to
assume the opposite is true -- no problem: if reality does not exist there
is no point talking about it, period. Plato can still be put within
"reality exists" axiom: we may only see shadows of reality, but nonetheless
there is some reality behind the shadows (forms, memes or angels) which
constitute the "real" reality, which we can still try to understand (so when
Plato shows up, we still have something to talk about).

(4) Consistent = predictable. Making experiments possible and worth
performing. In fact making evolution and life possible. I know it's not
the best definition... Well, it's an 18 month project...

What happens when we assume that the statement "Reality is consistent" may
not be true? One camp says "nothing will work anymore" the "MayBe" camp
says "may be only some parts of universe won't work and the rest will be fine".

I think I have a way of getting together. So far we have experienced a
predictable, knowable, consistent reality. It gives us ways to leave caves,
build houses, planes, computers, etc. If tomorrow the world will not be
consistent we may all evaporate. There are hundreds of other ways we may
find ourselves in trouble tomorrow. Why don't we accept that so far, as
much as we know, Reality Is Consistent and think how we can use it to make
our life better and if it is not consistent tomorrow -- too bad -- wasn't it
a wonderful experience anyway?

Regards, Tadeusz (Tad) Niwinski from planet TeTa (604) 985-4159