Re: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics

David McFadzean (
Mon, 22 Sep 1997 15:07:36 -0600

At 12:37 AM 9/22/97 -0700, Tadeusz Niwinski wrote:

>(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".

Since Reed changed "objective" to "implied", which he later equates with
subjective, I don't think we can get away with dropping the adjective
and assuming everyone is on the same page.

By "objective" I meant something along the lines of "for all observers using
the same definitions". Of course this has problems too because some definitions
are inherently relative like "I", "behind" and "after", but it's a start.

>(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...

Actually I meant "consistent" in the logical sense, as in non-contradictory.
So, substituting...

1. For all observers using the same definitions, any true statement about
reality will not contradict other true statements about reality.

Here's an example that avoids the relativity problems I mentioned:

2. All humans have a common ancestor.

and its negation:

3. It is not the case that all humans have a common ancestor.

I'm claiming that if (2) is true, then (3) will be false (and vice versa) for
everyone using the same definitions.

David McFadzean       
Memetic Engineer      
Church of Virus