quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
Speak for yourself!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
I think that P, being all propositions, is bad because some of the propositions are mutually contradictory, leading to a system failure.

---

Aah, but you see we are designed to have limited senses to prevent exactly that catastrophe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
Speak for yourself!

---

So, if you're denying that your knowledge is limited by your limited senses, or if you are denying that you have limited senses, then, you will very soon reach system failure, if you haven't got there already.

Anti-|P> presumably means the antisymmetric form, -|P>.

This excludes being able to "see" the universe from a boson's point of view, because anti-|P> would yield |P>, as they are symmetric under inversion.

So, from the point of view of the lonely electron, its antisymmetric partner, |P>, is its spatial brother-in-arms.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
Perhaps if we exhaust this thread using not more than first-order propositions, I'll start a higher-order thread.

---

Why doesn't anybody have negative-order propositions? Are you biased against negatives, Mandos? Hmmm? Are all pro-X'ers anti-negatifs?

So P, being the party of the first part, is the preposterous proposition of the past participle, partitioning P, the passive pronouncement from P, the pious protest. The positional pendulum of P pertaining to personal parties of the first part, is a priori pedantic, and thus precluded in our proof.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:
Perturbatively? (If you've done any math you know what perturbation theory is )

---

You are without a doubt, babble's master perturbator.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yossarian:
Coming soon ... the movie ... based on the best-selling graphic novel ... P for Pendantry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yossarian:
Tee-hee. He said "P."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
Okay, so if P is all propositions then it is necessarily both P and not P, and as Rasmus said, anything follows from that. Anything at all! So nothing I write can be wrong!

---

But we're supposed to be discussing from an anti-P point of view. So everything you write must be wrong!
(And everything I write. Including the above)

[ 04 April 2006: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erstwhile:
You are without a doubt, babble's master perturbator.

---

Good one

[ 04 April 2006: Message edited by: DrConway ]