> My mistake. I didn't mean that objective reality is consistent, I meant
> that true isosemantic[1] statements about objective reality are consistent.
Very good, I can now agree with you without qualification!
> [1] New word, meaning that the meaning of words doesn't change from one
> statement to the next. For example here is an apparent contradiction:
> 1. This man is blue.
> 2. This man is not blue.
>
> The statements are not isosemantic if they refer to different men, or if
> "blue" in the first sentence means the man is depressed while "blue"
> refers to the color blue in the second sentence.
Also good! "Isosemantic" I like the word. It may help clarify things in
the future.
-Prof. Tim