RE: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics

David McFadzean (
Sat, 04 Oct 1997 16:40:29 -0600

At 03:06 PM 10/4/97 -0700, Tim Rhodes wrote:

>I think you are deceived if you believe that you don't step outside of the
>system all the time in order to gain insights about the nature /of/ the
>system itself.
>Or you're just being stubborn.

Or you don't recognize rationality when you see it.

>> *They all have blind spots.* (Godel anyone?)
>> >Do you agree with that statement?
>> Godel's theorem only applies to formal systems.
>Are you saying *logic* and *math* are not ***formal systems?***

No, but this mailing list is not a formal system. These messages
don't look much like formal proofs to me, so Godel's theorem does
not apply to them.

>Were back to the reasoning/reasonable thing again in a different form.
>This is the direction that thinking heads you in:
>How could evolution select so well without logic? There must be without a
>watchmaker at the heart of it all, no? Therefore God exists.
>You and I both know the the failings of that argument.

I don't think they are analogous.

>A system is better at answering questions if it gives better answers. You
>can /test/ which answers are better by using scientific or logical means.
>ANSWERS TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTIONS!* Just because a program is good at
>debugging does not mean I want to use it for my OS!!!

Again I don't think you know when you are using logic. If you can tell
which answers are better then you are using logic at some level.

>> And even if you could, how would you know that
>> your conclusions aren't nonsensical? Or do you care?
>If they are giving you what you evaluate as "good" answers I find it hard
>to dismiss those as "nonsensical" answers. I don't see a question here.

You can ignore it but that doesn't make it disappear.

>> Godel stated that there are truths that can't be proven deductively from
>> within a sufficiently complex formal system. Statements like "this statement
>> cannot be proven".
>Or "this is the truth"

Nope, that doesn't look like a Godel statement.

>> I believe that is true and I don't see that as much of a limitation.
>Then recognize it in your own internal system as well and lighten up a
>little! :-)

I realize (now) I'm getting too worked up over this argument. But I
blame you! :)

David McFadzean       
Memetic Engineer      
Church of Virus