[MD] Is the MOQ static, or a static pattern?

[craigerb at comcast.net]

[Craig, previously]
2 + 2 = 4.  What possible revision?

[Horse]
> Doesn't 2 + 2 = 4 by convention upon which it is provisional?

Symbols have meaning, which is determined by convention/use.  Conventions are provisional; they can & do
change.  No one doubts this (I hope).  Is this what is meant by "Truth is provisional"?
If so, I suggest for clarity sake we replace it with "Words can change meaning".

[Arlo]
2+2=4 is only useful inside a specific symbolic system where we agree on a certain set of shared axioms.
> Change the axioms, remove the usefulness, and this statement means nothing. 
> "Shape" is a pattern we apply, for its usefulness.

Yes, meaning depends on use & we tend to use things that are useful.
This the case for what's true & what's false. 

[Horse]
>  After all:
1 + 1 = 10

1 + 1 = 10 is true in binary notation, just as 1 + 1 = 2 is true in decimal notation.
Each is true relative to its notation system, but neither revises the truth of the other.  

[Horse]
A + B = 15
A + B = 21

This just seems like "A + B" is being used ambiguously.
Compare:
Elizabeth never married.
Elizabeth married Philip.
The first is Elizabeth I, the next Elizabeth II.  That Elizabeth II married Philip does not revise
the truth of Elizabeth I never marrying.  Now we might uncover evidence that Elizabeth I was secretly
married, and so revise our belief that she never married.  
Is this what is meant by "Truth is provisional"?  If so, I suggest for clarity sake we replace it with
"Beliefs can change".

[Craig, previously]
> But that the sailor successfully used a map of the West Indies to navigate the islands of the East Indies
> doesn't make it a correct map of the East Indies.  

[Arlo]
> You're confusing 'useful to a sailor' with 'useful to a cartographer', or assuming one defines objectively true
> and untrue. In either case, both maps are 'right' to their respective users so long as they are useful,
> when this breaks down for either the map becomes (for them) the 'wrong' map.

[Horse]
> if a pedestrian managed to find Oxford St in London 
> by using a map of Manchester would the map be useful - it would be by 
> luck and not design, so, overall the map wouldn't be useful.
> And she wouldn't find it useful for very long anyway as it would be unlikely to 
> work more than once and for the most part you'd have no idea where you 
> are! Not a good map.

Good point & helps solve Arlo's problem.
Craig