Re: UFO Debunkers

From: Loogie (loogie_at_snot.com)
Date: 07/24/04 

Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 06:21:33 -0300

"|-|erc" <gotch@beauty.com> wrote in message
news:i2jMc.13398$K53.8755@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "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

so what are you saying? 

--
hawktooie
Loogie out