Re: The Laws of Thought
- From: tdp1001@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 26 Sep 2006 07:23:13 -0700
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 max-resume@xxxxxxxxxxx
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 ass,
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
.
- References:
- The Laws of Thought
- From: Tom Potter
- Re: The Laws of Thought
- From: Sam Wormley
- The Laws of Thought
- Prev by Date: Re: An electron is not a little ball. What is it?
- Next by Date: Re: Liquid Level Sensor: How ?
- Previous by thread: Re: The Laws of Thought
- Next by thread: Re: The Laws of Thought
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
