RE: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics

Tim Rhodes (
Fri, 3 Oct 1997 10:54:37 -0700 (PDT)

On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, David McFadzean wrote:

> At 11:29 AM 10/2/97 -0700, Tim Rhodes wrote:
> >On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, David McFadzean wrote:
> >> 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?
> >
> >You realize, of course, that by the very nature of the question you won't
> >be able to use the scientific/logical belief system to get your answer.
> >You do realize that, right?
> Well that is a problem, isn't it?

Only if you can't step outside the system to talk about its weaknesses
and strengths. In any logical system it is useful to step outside from
time to time in order to see where you need to work once you're back
/inside/ the system, no?

> Do you think every belief system is equally valid?

Of course not. No more than mathematics is the best way to write music
(and all the composers who *do* write music based on number theory do a
lot of tweaking with the outcome afterwards in order to make it aestheticaly
interesting). Some systems are better for answering some questions. Some
better for answering others. *They all have blind spots.* (Godel anyone?)
Do you agree with that statement?

> If not, what are your criteria?

How you answer a question always depends on the question asked. If I
asked, "What areas of knowledge are not addressable using the Christian
six-day creation model?" you wouldn't try to answer it from *inside* the
six-day model would you?

Why do you think the scientific/logical system is immune from Godel's

Or is that what you're saying?

-Prof. Tim