Re: UFO Debunkers

From: |-|erc (gotch_at_beauty.com)
Date: 07/24/04 

Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 01:36:14 GMT

"Fletch F. Fletch" <notme31415@yahoo.com> wrote in
> Pepe le Pew wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 13:04:20 -0500, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Pepe le Pew wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 20:43:51 -0500, Uncle Al
> >>> <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> > ...
> >>>>>>>> Outworld technology
> >>>>>>>> will be instantly recognizable for not being recognizable.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hmmmm...
> >>>>>> Nice self contradiction there, Al.
> > ...
> >>> Hi UncleAl,
> >>> I know what you meant to say. I'm just so amused that you missed
> >>> the contradiction. You know as well as I do that the carnivores
> >>> here just love to eat this kind of stuff right up. Oh well....
> >>
> >> My sentence was elegantly and compactly constructed. It says
> >> exactly what it was meant to say. For those of you with
> >> defective minds, here is the long form:
> >>
> >> Outworlder technology will not share local aesthetic, cultural,
> >> historic, economic, biological... biases. If it travels
> >> interstellar it is like nothing we can presently imagine.
> >> Outworlder technology will be visibly striking, as stealth
> >> technology planes from the SR-71 through the B-2 bomber and
> >> unmanned drones are visibly striking - and more so for the
> >> outworlder stuff. They will have options of materials of
> >> construction and its engineering that we do not have. It will
> >> look different for that reason, too, as stuff made out of leather
> >> cannot do what spandex does.
> >> 83 words for the stooopids.
> >>
> >> Outworld technology will be instantly recognizable for not being
> >> recognizable.
> >> 10 words for the functional.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Uncle Al
> >
> > OK Al,
> > Lets substitute some other adjective for recognizable and then
> > see if the sentence still rings logical. Lets substitute in blue.
> >
> > So now your sentence reads something like;
> >
> > Outerworld technology will be instantly blue for its not being blue.
> >
> > (OK, so I added a word for clarity.)
> >
> > Is it still logical? Is it self contradictory?
> >
> > Later,
> > Pepe le Pew aka Pat Sullivan
>
> Outworld technology will be instantly recognizable [as outworld technology]
> for not being recognizable [as terrestrial technology].
>

No.

not recognizable as set T -> recognizable in some set -> recognizable

this negates "not being recognizable" which is the literal interpretation of the original.

the sentence parses because of self reference, not because it can be parsed as "is different".

"This is unclassifiable" is a true statement, much like Godel's statement
"This does not belong to the set of all truths".

Herc

Relevant Pages