RE: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics

David McFadzean (
Sun, 28 Sep 1997 12:58:18 -0600

At 11:20 PM 9/26/97 -0700, Richard Brodie wrote:
>On Friday, September 26, 1997 5:52 PM, David McFadzean
>[] wrote:
>> 1. It is not a tautology that logic is consistent.
>Is not consistency an axiom of a logical system? I.e., a statement is
>either true or false but not both?

It can be, and almost always is. But it is not necessarily true, and
therefore not a tautology in the usual sense.

>> 2. I wasn't talking about the consistency of logic.
>When you use the word "true" you are, in my mind, talking about logic.
>Truth is a property of a logical proposition. Truth is not a property of
>reality. Birds, universes, and photons are not "true" or "false."

I was using logic to talk about reality. I agree only statements can be
true or false. That doesn't mean they have no relation to reality. In fact,
their truth value, if the statement is contingent, comes precisely from
their relation to reality.

>> 4. Which 'reality' are you talking about?
>Is there more than one?

Yes, people are always confusing subjective reality with objective reality.

>> Let me rephrase to be more clear:
>> Are true isosemantic statements about objective reality
>non-contradictory? Yes or no?
>Yes. True isosemantic statements about anything are, by definition,
>non-contradictory. And that tells you nothing about reality.


It is possible that true isosemantic statements could be contradictory
if objective reality was in fact derived from the mental, e.g. if the
world is a reflection of the mind of God, or if objective reality is
socially-constructed, e.g. the world is brought into existence by
conscious observers, and does not exist otherwise.

I believe my conjecture to be falsifiable, so it cannot be a tautology.

David McFadzean       
Memetic Engineer      
Church of Virus