Re: virus: maxims and ground rules

psypher (
Tue, 11 May 1999 09:54:36 -0400 (EDT)

...allow me to take a whack at this (bearing in mind that I've been
conscious now for a mere 17 minutes and may not be up to full form)

...the truth of the statement


depends on how equivalence is defined. Within a particular context (in this case symbolic logic) the equivalence is manifest through the extreme abstraction of the properties of entity [A]. In the example you used in your original proposal you offered a polar bond in atomic structure as a possible substitute context, but even in that minimalist context the ground for equivalence needs to be defined.
...f'rinstance, in an atomic pair-bond the entities might be
equivalent in charge and strength of bonding but are not necessarily equal in properties that have no bearing on that particular context.

...unless you are supposing that it is possible for two seperate
entities to be identical, a concession which I'm unwilling to make.'s not enough to say 2 things ARE equivalent and offer that as
an example of a truth, HOW those things are equivalent is a necessary piece of information.(and one relative to context)

-psypher Fastmail's Free web based email for Canadians