Memory Alpha
Memory Alpha

Vulcan origin

Did they actually say Kiri was a Vulcan in ENT, also I'd like to hear the exact line. --TOSrules 22:27, Nov 23, 2004 (CET)

Arev is quizzing Archer on Surak's teachings and he asks him about Kiri-kin-tha's First Law of Metaphysics (which he says is a more basic fact than T'Plana-Hath's quote). I think it's a fair assumption to say that someone who contributed a basic tenet of Surak's philosophy would be Vulcan.
Also, lists Kiri-kin-tha as a Vulcan. -- EtaPiscium 22:35, 23 Nov 2004 (CET)

I don't watch Enterprise, so I don't follow what you are saying. It also does not matter how credits him, it's about what is said on TV. Also the article is poorly done in one respect. His first law of physics is not "The First law of Physics" it is "his first law of physics". Basically his first law in his theorom. Einstein has his first law of physics, and Hawking has his.

I am not tring to make a fuss, I just need to know the exact line that states he is a Vulcan --TOSrules 22:45, Nov 23, 2004 (CET)

If you believe that the article is poorly worded you are more than welcome to change it. -- EtaPiscium 22:53, 23 Nov 2004 (CET)

I would, but since I do not know the Enterprise refrence, I would not know how to change it. --TOSrules 23:10, Nov 23, 2004 (CET)

I'd pull it up for you, but Enterprise Closed Captions Logs seems to be down right now. --Steve 00:05, 24 Nov 2004 (CET)
The site's back up, but he hasn't uploaded the logs for "The Forge" yet... --Steve 05:55, 24 Nov 2004 (CET)
BTW, its metaphysics, not physics, TOS. there's a big difference ;) -- Captain Mike K. Bartel
Enterprise reference
  • AREV: How long have you tried to understand Vulcan logic?
  • ARCHER: Ever since I met T'Pol.
  • AREV: Very well, student of Surak. Who said, "Logic is the cement of our civilization, with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide"?
  • ARCHER: I'm new at this. You tell me.
  • AREV: Something more basic then. What's Kiri-kin-tha's First Law of Metaphysics?
  • ARCHER: I'm familiar with Newton's First Law of Motion. I imagine they're pretty much the same.
--Steve 05:55, 24 Nov 2004 (CET)

You know, I've been thinking about it, and I think calling him a follower of Surak's teachings is uncalled for. Undoubtedly he is a follower, but it would be like calling Sarek a follower of Surak's teachings, duh. --TOSrules 23:51, Nov 30, 2004 (CET)

Long background section

I am moving the following here. It is quite long and I am not sure that something this long is needed for an article like this, especially when all we have on it in canon is stated in one sentence.:

  • "The First Law of Metaphysics may sound like a tautology, devoid of any informative content. It seems to state that what is real is real. The assumption made is, of course, that to be real is the same as to exist.
  • "But the Law actually makes a statement in real-life formal logic and philosophical metaphysics.
  • "Consider this: Obviously, there are some things which do not exist, like Mr. Spock or unicorns. But on the other hand, usually we take "there are some things" to mean the same as "there exist things" in logical analysis. But then our statement that there are some things which do not exist is equivalent to the statement that there exist things which do not exist. But that's a contradiction!
  • "There are two ways to react to this problem:
  1. We may not take the "there are some things" in our original statement to mean the same as "there exist things". One option to do this is to read "there are some things" as "there are some things which might have existed", but to take existence as actual existence only, not just as possible existence. Then the statement that there are some things which do not exist is to be construed as: Some things might have existed but actually do not. This last statement is true of Mr. Spock and of unicorns. On this account you have to divide total reality into actually and possibly existing objects. The formal logic of this account of existence is explored in Free Logic.
  2. "There are" does always mean the same as "there exist". Therefore, the statement that there are some things which do not exist is indeed contradictory. What is intended to be expressed by this contradictory statement is to be rephrased somehow. For example, we could say that there are some linguistic expressions, like "Mr. Spock" and "unicorn" which do not refer to anything. This strategy was endorsed by U.S. philosopher and logician Willard Van Orman Quine. As a consequence, according to Quine, the correct answer to the question "What exists?" (or equivalently: "What things are there?") is simply: Everything! This is so because there is nothing which does not exist. (See the essay On What There Is in Quine's book From a Logical Point of View, Harvard University Press 1980.)
  • "In view of these logical considerations, Kiri-kin-tha's First Law is not devoid of information. It seems to agree with solution 2. That nothing unreal exists seems to say, equivalently, that everything real exists. Therefore there is no realm of real things which do not exist, like in solution 1. To discard solution 1 in favor of solution 2 is an important decision on how to conduct logic as well as metaphysics.
  • "(That nothing unreal exists was assumed here to say the same as that everything real exists. This presupposes the Law of Double Negation of classical logic:
  • "''not not A implies A. But this Law is not valid in Intuitionistic Logic. Why did Kiri-kin-tha state the more complicated "Nothing unreal exists" instead of the more straightforward "Everything real exists"? Did Kiri-kin-tha endorse intuitionistic logic?)

Yeah, kinda long. Perhaps this could be served better with a simple link to wikipedia on the subject? --OuroborosCobra talk 18:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Too long in what regard? Of course the background information is long as compared to the article on Kiri-kin-tha. But it is not very long as compared with the scope of the First Law of Metaphysics.
What has the lack of any further canon information on the First Law to do with the length of the background information?
What Wikipedia article? One dealing with Free Logic and Kiri-kin-tha? Won't find it!
If these questions are not answered, there is no reason to move the background article to the discussion section. :The reasons given ("too long" and "link Wikipedia") are completely insufficient to motivate canceling the background from the article. Answer the questions, then we will see. If no sufficient answers are given, the background information will be put back.
Note: I am not insisting on the background article being included in the main article. But I am insisting on its removal being properly justified.

Well, for one thing, this is not an article on the First Law of Metaphysics. It is an article on a Vulcan scholar. For another, you added a lot of information on the real world First Law of Metaphysics. The only one mentioned is the Vulcan scholar's Law. What I suggest is not an article comparing the two in Wikipedia, but a link to an article about the real world First Law of Metaphysics. I suppose it would be OK to have a really short comparison in this article, but I really would not suggest it. Your comparison was very very long. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a real world First Law of Metaphysics. I described how the First Law of the Trek universe can be interpreted as to be meaningful, using the resources of real life logic. That Kiri-kin-tha devised the First Law is about everything we know about that person. So I think the discussion is well placed here. Of course I could create a new article "Kiri-kin-tha's First Law of Metaphysics" and add the background to THAT article. But is that not an inflation of articles? The new article could only state the First Law and that it was devised by Kiri-kin-tha, the same content, in essence, as the present article.
Again my background article is criticized for being too long. First, what problem is there with length? It can be read in two minutes. Second, I do not see a way to write it shorter without becoming cryptic and unclear. Some things simply take time (and accordingly, space, when they are written) to be done properly. I oppose to a fastfood mentality when it comes to feeding the mind!
As I see it, my background information is only criticized for being too long (and maybe for being misplaced, but I do not buy that completely, as I pointed out above). I think the removal should rather be motivated by concerns with the content, not with the length.
Skon August 31, 04:48

In that case, this is even worse, and does not even deserve mention on MA. This is an essay opinion peace, and MA is not a place for you to spread personal opinion. Still does not belong. Length also is still an issue, dismiss it or not. I have started a forum discussion on these "essay" notes, and whether they should be allowed. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you suppose to be my personal opinion here? I did not mean to create the background article as an article on the First Law. I talked about creating an article on the First Law, stating the Law and its author as Trek canon information, and then ammending the background information to it. By the way, nothing in the background info is my personal opinion. Please look up the references! I have the impression that postings are not properly read here before they are criticized. Are the postings too long as well?
"Length also is still an issue" Why? I can claim that length is not an issue. Tied! Starting a forum talk does not concern me here. Who criticizes this article here should state his reasons here!
Skon 31 August

Skon, I created a forum thread because this effects more than one article. I am trying to open a discussion to the community on MA policy. Those properly should take place in Ten Forward. You can ignore it if you want, but all you will achieve by doing that is not getting your voice heard. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, as I explained on Talk:Logic, articles are not for arguments, opinions (personal or otherwise), theories, reports, comments, essays, critiques, or anything else irrelevant to the topic. This includes the background section, which should only include production information related to the topic. If Rick Berman, Gene Roddenberry, Leonard Nimoy, or anybody else gave comments or descriptions regarding a subject, those are acceptable. But the theories or evaluations of a person not affiliated with the production is not acceptable... in fact, it's not even relevant for the purposes of this wiki. Furthermore, as was already stated, the information does not belong in this article, as it is not about metaphysics. --From Andoria with Love 01:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Credit Where Credit is Due

It has been many years since I last saw this movie during it's theatrical release. Tonight I had it on television playing in the background when I caught the question posed to Spock. The phrase "nothing unreal exists" is so familiar to me that I was astonished to hear it out of context in a Star Trek movie. I have the entire quote etched on the face of my IPad but I know it from it's original source, not scifi. I had to back up TiVo several times to make sure I heard it correctly. I'm not Entirely surprised though. Many episodes and movies in the Trek universe use eastern philosophies as the basis for a plot. What surprised me is that I had seen this film before and never caught the reference until now. More surprising is my search did not turn up a single credit to the original author of the phrase on any Trek website or Wiki, even after all these years. I felt the need to give credit where credit is due. 04:18, February 14, 2011 (UTC) Note: I contributed from an account created via facebook. It doesn't seem properly represented by the sig below. I can be found on facebook as Papahbear 04:08, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting, but here on MA we need a citation for claims that "X was inspired by (somewhat similar) Y". Sometimes it's just a coincidence, or the writers were referring to something else. –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 08:48, February 14, 2011 (UTC)


Hi All, please refer to the Journey Home. Spock is undergoing a computer test (to check his newly reunited Katra), Majel asks him "What is Kiri Kin Tah's first law of metaphysics?" He answers and later explains that Kiri Kin Tah was the "father of Vulcan Metaphysics". It's hard to think that the "father" is not a native Vulcan. Cheers The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Thanks, but I'm not really seeing where someone is questioning whether he is a Vulcan or not. 31dot (talk) 20:32, November 28, 2012 (UTC)