| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Tom Potter" |
| Date: |
26 Sep 2006 07:33:58 AM |
| Object: |
The Laws of Thought |
The Laws of Thought
==============
Western logic, science and philosophy are based on "Three Laws of Thought".
1. The law of identity:
A thing is what it is.
It can't be something else,
at the same time, and in the same respect.
P = P
not(P) = not(P)
2. The law of noncontradiction:
A thing cannot be both true and false at the same time.
Not( P and not(P))
3. The law of the excluded middle:
Either p is true or p is false;
one or the other, but not both at the same time.
P or not(P)
These laws are in conflict with observed reality and need to be reexamined.
1. Law number one is in conflict with Special Relativity. The measure of a
thing is relative to the observer. For example, various observers see the
color of a LASER beam differently depending upon their velocity relative to
the beam. Of course, the hedging phrase "in the same respect" qualifies the
error by suggesting that we ignore more fundamental laws which render law
number one invalid.
2. Law number two is in conflict with quantum and classical physics. Things
are composites of P's and not(P)'s properties where the P's have a clockwise
sense, and the not(P)'s have a counter-clockwise sense. ( Plus and minus
charges, hypercharges, baryon number, etc.) This can be expressed in
classical physics as: period * precession = (mass(A) * G / C^3) * (mass(B) *
G / C^3)
3. Law number three also ignores the properties mentioned in 2. P cannot
exist without not(P). Zero is, in fact, the null point between P (
clockwise) and not(P) ( counter-clockwise) from which time and space arises.
( Or more correctly, is perceived.) The "excluded middle" is light, or more
correctly, energy times distance.
For more details on this,
visit my web site.
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: The Laws of Thought |
26 Sep 2006 08:37:48 AM |
|
|
"Tom Potter" <tdp1001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:451916b3$0$19695$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
| The Laws of Thought
| ==============
|
| Western logic, science and philosophy are based on "Three Laws of
Thought".
|
| 1. The law of identity:
| A thing is what it is.
| It can't be something else,
| at the same time, and in the same respect.
|
| P = P
| not(P) = not(P)
|
| 2. The law of noncontradiction:
| A thing cannot be both true and false at the same time.
|
| Not( P and not(P))
|
| 3. The law of the excluded middle:
| Either p is true or p is false;
| one or the other, but not both at the same time.
|
| P or not(P)
|
| These laws are in conflict with observed reality and need to be
reexamined.
| 1. Law number one is in conflict with Special Relativity. The measure of a
| thing is relative to the observer. For example, various observers see the
| color of a LASER beam differently depending upon their velocity relative
to
| the beam. Of course, the hedging phrase "in the same respect" qualifies
the
| error by suggesting that we ignore more fundamental laws which render law
| number one invalid.
|
| 2. Law number two is in conflict with quantum and classical physics.
Things
| are composites of P's and not(P)'s properties where the P's have a
clockwise
| sense, and the not(P)'s have a counter-clockwise sense. ( Plus and minus
| charges, hypercharges, baryon number, etc.) This can be expressed in
| classical physics as: period * precession = (mass(A) * G / C^3) * (mass(B)
*
| G / C^3)
|
| 3. Law number three also ignores the properties mentioned in 2. P cannot
| exist without not(P). Zero is, in fact, the null point between P (
| clockwise) and not(P) ( counter-clockwise) from which time and space
arises.
| ( Or more correctly, is perceived.) The "excluded middle" is light, or
more
| correctly, energy times distance.
I always lie. True or False?
If true then it is false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OG" |
|
| Title: Re: The Laws of Thought |
26 Sep 2006 12:52:01 PM |
|
|
"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
news:M2aSg.34581>
I always lie. True or False?
If true then it is false.
So "False".
What's the problem?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: The Laws of Thought |
26 Sep 2006 01:33:25 PM |
|
|
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:4nt7m2FbudkdU1@individual.net...
|
| "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
| news:M2aSg.34581>
| > I always lie. True or False?
| > If true then it is false.
| >
|
| So "False".
|
| What's the problem?
If it is false then it is true. Duh!
.
|
|
|
| User: "OG" |
|
| Title: Re: The Laws of Thought |
27 Sep 2006 01:58:19 PM |
|
|
"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
news:VneSg.33987$aP3.14765@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:4nt7m2FbudkdU1@individual.net...
|
| "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
| news:M2aSg.34581>
| > I always lie. True or False?
| > If true then it is false.
| >
|
| So "False".
|
| What's the problem?
If it is false then it is true. Duh!
No, if you sometimes lie then saying "I always lie" is False. But that's
OK. No paradox.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: The Laws of Thought |
27 Sep 2006 05:55:31 PM |
|
|
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:4nvvucFcdlqbU1@individual.net...
|
| "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
| news:VneSg.33987$aP3.14765@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >
| > "OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
| > news:4nt7m2FbudkdU1@individual.net...
| > |
| > | "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
| > | news:M2aSg.34581>
| > | > I always lie. True or False?
| > | > If true then it is false.
| > | >
| > |
| > | So "False".
| > |
| > | What's the problem?
| >
| > If it is false then it is true. Duh!
|
| No, if you sometimes lie then saying "I always lie" is False. But that's
| OK. No paradox.
Cool. I never lie.
Einstein sometimes lies and his paradoxes are well known. True or false?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Tobin" |
|
| Title: Re: The Laws of Thought |
26 Sep 2006 04:42:01 PM |
|
|
In article <VneSg.33987$aP3.14765@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Sorcerer <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote:
| > I always lie. True or False?
| > If true then it is false.
| So "False".
If it is false then it is true. Duh!
If it's false, you don't always lie. How does that make your statement
true?
-- Richard
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: The Laws of Thought |
26 Sep 2006 07:09:52 PM |
|
|
"Richard Tobin" <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:efc6r9$6dk$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk...
| In article <VneSg.33987$aP3.14765@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
| Sorcerer <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote:
|
| >| > I always lie. True or False?
| >| > If true then it is false.
|
| >| So "False".
|
| >If it is false then it is true. Duh!
|
| If it's false, you don't always lie. How does that make your statement
| true?
|
I never lie.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Laws of Thought |
26 Sep 2006 01:13:00 PM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
The Laws of Thought
==============
Western logic, science and philosophy are based on "Three Laws of Thought".
1. The law of identity:
A thing is what it is.
It can't be something else,
at the same time, and in the same respect.
P = P
not(P) = not(P)
These laws are in conflict with observed reality and need to be reexamined.
1. Law number one is in conflict with Special Relativity. The measure of a
thing is relative to the observer. For example, various observers see the
color of a LASER beam differently depending upon their velocity relative to
the beam. Of course, the hedging phrase "in the same respect" qualifies the
error by suggesting that we ignore more fundamental laws which render law
number one invalid.
It's a common misconception that physical properties must necessarily
be observer-independent, as though the very notion of "physical
property" demands that. This leads to the kind of abuse shown above,
where, for example, one supposes that Western logic insists that the
following two statements cannot be simultaneously correct.
a) This car has a speed of 35 mph.
b) This car has a speed of 66,345 mph.
This illustrates both a profoundly poor understanding of physical law,
how physical laws pertain to physical properties, and what constraints
"Western logic" imposes on that.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: The Laws of Thought |
26 Sep 2006 01:37:06 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159294379.974430.110610@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
|
| Tom Potter wrote:
| > The Laws of Thought
| > ==============
| >
| > Western logic, science and philosophy are based on "Three Laws of
Thought".
| >
| > 1. The law of identity:
| > A thing is what it is.
| > It can't be something else,
| > at the same time, and in the same respect.
| >
| > P = P
| > not(P) = not(P)
| >
| >
| > These laws are in conflict with observed reality and need to be
reexamined.
| >
| > 1. Law number one is in conflict with Special Relativity. The measure of
a
| > thing is relative to the observer. For example, various observers see
the
| > color of a LASER beam differently depending upon their velocity relative
to
| > the beam. Of course, the hedging phrase "in the same respect" qualifies
the
| > error by suggesting that we ignore more fundamental laws which render
law
| > number one invalid.
| >
|
| It's a common misconception that physical properties must necessarily
| be observer-independent, as though the very notion of "physical
| property" demands that. This leads to the kind of abuse shown above,
| where, for example, one supposes that Western logic insists that the
| following two statements cannot be simultaneously correct.
| a) This car has a speed of 35 mph.
| b) This car has a speed of 66,345 mph.
|
| This illustrates both a profoundly poor understanding of physical law,
| how physical laws pertain to physical properties, and what constraints
| "Western logic" imposes on that.
|
| PD
ROFL!
a) This car has a speed of 35 mph and the headlight emission has a speed of
186,000 mph
b) This car has a speed of 66,345 mph and the taillight emission has a
velocity of -186,000 mph
How does that work, dork?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Laws of Thought |
26 Sep 2006 08:29:39 AM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
The Laws of Thought
==============
Western logic, science and philosophy are based on "Three Laws of Thought".
1. The law of identity:
A thing is what it is.
It can't be something else,
at the same time, and in the same respect.
P = P
not(P) = not(P)
2. The law of noncontradiction:
A thing cannot be both true and false at the same time.
Not( P and not(P))
3. The law of the excluded middle:
Either p is true or p is false;
one or the other, but not both at the same time.
P or not(P)
These laws are in conflict with observed reality and need to be reexamined.
1. Law number one is in conflict with Special Relativity. The measure of a
thing is relative to the observer. For example, various observers see the
color of a LASER beam differently depending upon their velocity relative to
the beam. Of course, the hedging phrase "in the same respect" qualifies the
error by suggesting that we ignore more fundamental laws which render law
number one invalid.
2. Law number two is in conflict with quantum and classical physics. Things
are composites of P's and not(P)'s properties where the P's have a clockwise
sense, and the not(P)'s have a counter-clockwise sense. ( Plus and minus
charges, hypercharges, baryon number, etc.) This can be expressed in
classical physics as: period * precession = (mass(A) * G / C^3) * (mass(B) *
G / C^3)
3. Law number three also ignores the properties mentioned in 2. P cannot
exist without not(P). Zero is, in fact, the null point between P (
clockwise) and not(P) ( counter-clockwise) from which time and space arises.
( Or more correctly, is perceived.) The "excluded middle" is light, or more
correctly, energy times distance.
For more details on this,
visit my web site.
Why bother--Thanks for registering at crank dot net!
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Tom+Potter%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
http://www.google.com/search?q=potter+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Laws of Thought |
26 Sep 2006 09:23:13 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Tom Potter wrote:
The Laws of Thought
==============
Western logic, science and philosophy are based on "Three Laws of Thought".
1. The law of identity:
A thing is what it is.
It can't be something else,
at the same time, and in the same respect.
P = P
not(P) = not(P)
2. The law of noncontradiction:
A thing cannot be both true and false at the same time.
Not( P and not(P))
3. The law of the excluded middle:
Either p is true or p is false;
one or the other, but not both at the same time.
P or not(P)
These laws are in conflict with observed reality and need to be reexamined.
1. Law number one is in conflict with Special Relativity. The measure of a
thing is relative to the observer. For example, various observers see the
color of a LASER beam differently depending upon their velocity relative to
the beam. Of course, the hedging phrase "in the same respect" qualifies the
error by suggesting that we ignore more fundamental laws which render law
number one invalid.
2. Law number two is in conflict with quantum and classical physics. Things
are composites of P's and not(P)'s properties where the P's have a clockwise
sense, and the not(P)'s have a counter-clockwise sense. ( Plus and minus
charges, hypercharges, baryon number, etc.) This can be expressed in
classical physics as: period * precession = (mass(A) * G / C^3) * (mass(B) *
G / C^3)
3. Law number three also ignores the properties mentioned in 2. P cannot
exist without not(P). Zero is, in fact, the null point between P (
clockwise) and not(P) ( counter-clockwise) from which time and space arises.
( Or more correctly, is perceived.) The "excluded middle" is light, or more
correctly, energy times distance.
For more details on this,
visit my web site.
Why bother--Thanks for registering at crank dot net!
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Tom+Potter%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
http://www.google.com/search?q=potter+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
It is interesting to see that ex-stable cleaner
and stress analysis grunt Sam Wormley
continues to be a faithful reader of my posts,
and his primary reference continues to be
the web site of an unemployed programmer
who took some data processing classes
at a third rate California college.
Excerpts from Sam's primary reference source's resume follows.
===================================================
Erik Max Francis
San Jose, CA, USA
Formats: HTML, text, PostScript, PDF.
EMAIL
WEB http://www.alcyone.com/max/
UPDATED 2004 Jun 19
OBJECTIVE
To obtain gainful employment in a challenging position at a
forward-looking company, utilizing my particular skills and talents
under a Unix, Unix-like, or platform-agnostic environment.
SKILLS
Operating systems: Linux, Solaris and other Unix-like operating systems
(System V and BSD); IRIX, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc.
WORK EXPERIENCE
Voluntary time off work. (2002-)
Pursued recreational programming projects and released numerous open
source contributions; familiarized self with basics of new languages
such as APL/J, Io, Scheme, Tcl; strengthened Python programming skills;
increased Python programming community involvement (see Relevant
Activities below).
EDUCATION
Attended De Anza College (Cupertino, CA), with particular emphasis on
computer science courses.
==================
End of quote.
If anyone can use an unemployed programmer,
get in contact with Sam's primary reference.
On the other hand, if you need a stable cleaned,
get in touch with Sam.
It is also interesting to see that Sam apparently
thinks <sic> as Dork moortel does,
that when someone demonstrates that they are a horse's *****,
that they perceive this as some kind of fumble.
As can be seen, when someone's ignorance or immaturity is exposed
in the news groups, they either feature the messenger on a personal
attack web site,
or nominate them for some kook award,
or they bushwhack their messenger, as Sam often does.
(Sam also takes pot shots at messengers on his phony wannabe edu web
site.)
It's sad that the egos of some people controls their minds,
and when they are unable to address messages in a rational, intelligent
way,
their egos force them to attack the messenger,
rather than engage in constructive dichotomies.
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: The Laws of Thought |
27 Sep 2006 05:45:50 PM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
The Laws of Thought
==============
Western logic, science and philosophy are based on "Three Laws of Thought".
An endless wellspring of erroneous ideas, aren't you Mr. Potter?
What you described are fundamental concepts of arithmetic. As such
they may have *some* bearing on logic - *formal* logic, that is.
Informal logic has its roots in rhetoric.
Science is based on the scientific method, of which a linchpin is
empiricism. Empirical validations are totally illogical, but absolutely
correct and essential to a valid science.
Philosophy obeys no "laws," but appears to make up its own rules as it
needs to. Philosophy has given us many laws which are often
incompatible as each is valid only from a specific viewpoint. Sharia
and the Bill of Rights, for example, are sets of laws that come from
different philosophies and are completely incompatible and
irreconcileable.
It takes a substantial amount of arrogance and narrowness of mind to
make such blanket generalizations which could be falsified by a single
example, obtainable on a moments reflection. Are these traits
hereditary, or have you been training?
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: The Laws of Thought |
28 Sep 2006 04:29:57 AM |
|
|
"tadchem" <thomas.davidson@dla.mil> wrote in message
news:1159397149.998377.325970@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
|
| Science is based on the scientific method,
Chemistry is based on the chemical method,
History is based on the historical method,
Crossing the street is based on the street crossing method,
Ranting nonsensical tautologies is based on the Davidson method.
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Laws of Thought |
28 Sep 2006 09:43:59 AM |
|
|
ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha... AHAHA....
"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
news:pCMSg.53661$wg.23323@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"tadchem" <thomas.davidson@dla.mil> wrote in message
news:1159397149.998377.325970@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| Science is based on the scientific method,
[Sorcerer]
Chemistry is based on the chemical method,
History is based on the historical method,
Crossing the street is based on the street crossing method,
Ranting nonsensical tautologies is based on the Davidson method.
[hanson]
ahahaha... OK. What is the Sorcerers's method based on?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: The Laws of Thought |
28 Sep 2006 10:59:14 AM |
|
|
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:PcRSg.3478$Kw1.2706@trnddc05...
| ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha... AHAHA....
| "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
| news:pCMSg.53661$wg.23323@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| > "tadchem" <thomas.davidson@dla.mil> wrote in message
| > news:1159397149.998377.325970@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| > | Science is based on the scientific method,
| >
| [Sorcerer]
| > Chemistry is based on the chemical method,
| > History is based on the historical method,
| > Crossing the street is based on the street crossing method,
| > Ranting nonsensical tautologies is based on the Davidson method.
| >
| >
| [hanson]
| ahahaha... OK. What is the Sorcerers's method based on?
As Shakespeare wrote:
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the cauldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg and owlet's wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and Einstein bubble.
Pop!
Where do we get aspirin and cocaine from anyway?
Curare:
The bark of Strychnos toxifera or S. guianensis (Family Loganiaceae) and
of the Menispermaceae, especially Chondrodendron tomentosum or Sciadotenia
toxifera.
It all grows on trees. Magic!
If they don't understand it then it's magic, of course.
Magic has always been science, when I was a kid there
were jokes about pills to get a hard on, now there's Viagra,
love potion #9. Magic is based in the magical method.
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Laws of Thought |
28 Sep 2006 01:48:34 PM |
|
|
ahahaha.. AHAHAHA... Not bad!... Not bad!!... ahahahaha...
But they will never admit to that.... ahahaha... ahahanson
"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
news:mjSSg.54901$wg.18924@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:PcRSg.3478$Kw1.2706@trnddc05...
| ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha... AHAHA....
| "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
| news:pCMSg.53661$wg.23323@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| > "tadchem" <thomas.davidson@dla.mil> wrote in message
| > news:1159397149.998377.325970@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| > | Science is based on the scientific method,
| >
| [Sorcerer]
| > Chemistry is based on the chemical method,
| > History is based on the historical method,
| > Crossing the street is based on the street crossing method,
| > Ranting nonsensical tautologies is based on the Davidson method.
| >
| >
| [hanson]
| ahahaha... OK. What is the Sorcerers's method based on?
[Andro]
As Shakespeare wrote:
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the cauldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg and owlet's wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and Einstein bubble.
Pop!
Where do we get aspirin and cocaine from anyway?
Curare:
The bark of Strychnos toxifera or S. guianensis (Family
Loganiaceae) and of the Menispermaceae, especially
Chondrodendron tomentosum or Sciadotenia toxifera.
It all grows on trees. Magic!
If they don't understand it then it's magic, of course.
Magic has always been science, when I was a kid there
were jokes about pills to get a hard on, now there's Viagra,
love potion #9. Magic is based in the magical method.
[hanson]
ahahaha.. AHAHAHA... Not bad!... Not bad!!... ahahahaha...
But they will never admit to that.... ahahaha... ahahanson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: The Laws of Thought |
28 Sep 2006 02:17:38 PM |
|
|
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:6OUSg.9256$422.6374@trnddc03...
| ahahaha.. AHAHAHA... Not bad!... Not bad!!... ahahahaha...
| But they will never admit to that.... ahahaha... ahahanson
| >
| "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
| news:mjSSg.54901$wg.18924@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >
| > "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
| > news:PcRSg.3478$Kw1.2706@trnddc05...
| > | ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha... AHAHA....
| > | "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message
| > | news:pCMSg.53661$wg.23323@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| > | > "tadchem" <thomas.davidson@dla.mil> wrote in message
| > | > news:1159397149.998377.325970@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| > | > | Science is based on the scientific method,
| > | >
| > | [Sorcerer]
| > | > Chemistry is based on the chemical method,
| > | > History is based on the historical method,
| > | > Crossing the street is based on the street crossing method,
| > | > Ranting nonsensical tautologies is based on the Davidson method.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | [hanson]
| > | ahahaha... OK. What is the Sorcerers's method based on?
| >
| [Andro]
| > As Shakespeare wrote:
| >
| > Fillet of a fenny snake,
| > In the cauldron boil and bake;
| > Eye of newt and toe of frog,
| > Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
| > Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,
| > Lizard's leg and owlet's wing,
| > For a charm of powerful trouble,
| > Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
| > Double, double toil and trouble;
| > Fire burn, and Einstein bubble.
| > Pop!
| >
| > Where do we get aspirin and cocaine from anyway?
| > Curare:
| > The bark of Strychnos toxifera or S. guianensis (Family
| > Loganiaceae) and of the Menispermaceae, especially
| > Chondrodendron tomentosum or Sciadotenia toxifera.
| >
| > It all grows on trees. Magic!
| >
| > If they don't understand it then it's magic, of course.
| > Magic has always been science, when I was a kid there
| > were jokes about pills to get a hard on, now there's Viagra,
| > love potion #9. Magic is based in the magical method.
| >
| [hanson]
| ahahaha.. AHAHAHA... Not bad!... Not bad!!... ahahahaha...
| But they will never admit to that.... ahahaha... ahahanson
|
Yeah... that toothless old hag, too crippled to go to church,
had to be burned at the stake for boiling willow bark and
drinking it. Obviously witchcraft, it made my cow barren.
Pass the isquebaugh. Hic!
Androcles, professional sorcerer.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Laws of Thought |
26 Sep 2006 09:51:13 AM |
|
|
You begin to sound like that other senilo-geriatric
patient poster, the unkosher Osher, you starting to
(P)iss onto yourself with your "(P) or not to (P)"
Don't be so incontinent, Tom. Stay competent instead.
Thanks for the laughs, Tom.
ahahaha... ahahahanson
"Tom Potter" <tdp1001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:451916b3$0$19695$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
The Laws of Thought
==============
Western logic, science and philosophy are based on "Three Laws of
Thought".
1. The law of identity:
A thing is what it is.
It can't be something else,
at the same time, and in the same respect.
P = P
not(P) = not(P)
2. The law of noncontradiction:
A thing cannot be both true and false at the same time.
Not( P and not(P))
3. The law of the excluded middle:
Either p is true or p is false;
one or the other, but not both at the same time.
P or not(P)
These laws are in conflict with observed reality and need to be
reexamined.
1. Law number one is in conflict with Special Relativity. The measure of a
thing is relative to the observer. For example, various observers see the
color of a LASER beam differently depending upon their velocity relative
to the beam. Of course, the hedging phrase "in the same respect" qualifies
the error by suggesting that we ignore more fundamental laws which render
law number one invalid.
2. Law number two is in conflict with quantum and classical physics.
Things are composites of P's and not(P)'s properties where the P's have a
clockwise sense, and the not(P)'s have a counter-clockwise sense. ( Plus
and minus charges, hypercharges, baryon number, etc.) This can be
expressed in classical physics as: period * precession = (mass(A) * G /
C^3) * (mass(B) * G / C^3)
3. Law number three also ignores the properties mentioned in 2. P cannot
exist without not(P). Zero is, in fact, the null point between P (
clockwise) and not(P) ( counter-clockwise) from which time and space
arises. ( Or more correctly, is perceived.) The "excluded middle" is
light, or more correctly, energy times distance.
For more details on this,
visit my web site.
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
