Re: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics

Marie Foster (
Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:14:39 -0700

Tim Rhodes wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, David McFadzean wrote:
> > OK, let's say for the sake of argument that we live in a world that
> > is an ongoing creation of an all-powerful, all-knowing god. In this world,
> > reality has no physical basis, it just appears that way because this god
> > makes it so. Now say two people are arguing over the existence of angels,
> > one says they exist and one says they don't (except in fiction and the
> > imagination, ie. <angels> exist but not real angels). Since the world
> > and everything in it are this god's creation, he can make it so that
> > angels actually exist for one person, and do not exist for the other.
> > So the statement and its negation are both true and both false in this
> > world, even though "angel" and "exist" are unambiguous.
> Thanks I understand now. Is this conversation about angels taking place
> on the North Pole, by any chance? :-)
> -Prof. Tim

Prof. Tim... How I agree with you. Actually, reading much of this I
think of the years wasted by very good thinkers on how many angels could
dance on the head of a pin...

If we are going to be able to really make this a science we must come up
with some simple assumptions we can test. I have a study I would like
to do if I had the time. I am feeling that memetics has already split
between theorists and pragmatists.