RE: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics

Tadeusz Niwinski (
Wed, 01 Oct 1997 16:50:10 -0700

David McF wrote
>I wrote:
>>1) Are we ready to "start exploring the weird and wonderful territory
>>entailed by the aforementioned conjecture" ? (Allowing dead Goliath to flip
>>here and there, of course).
>Sure, I think we have enough of a consensus to continue. Assuming the
>conjecture is true, can we figure out what parts of physical reality
>(if any) are inaccessible to someone hosting the scientific/logical
>belief system?

Memetics? :-)

Here is a falsifiable statement: Someone hosting the scientific/logical
belief system has access to no less parts of physical reality than anybody
else. In other words, scientific/logical belief system does not hurt when
exploring reality.

>>2) Can we use A=A as a shorthand notation for your conjecture?
>Not if the Objectivists have given it another meaning.

Good point. Hitler abused the word "freedem" a bit in "work will make you
free" posted in concentration cams. Is this enough of a reason to stop
using the word? If Objectivists (which ones, btw, as I know of at least two
different camps?) use A=A in another meaning, nothing stops us from using
A=A as a shorthand for your conjecture.

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