Re: a comment on The Golden Rule by Quarton	17-Jan-03/9:42 AM
"Prima facie" just means "on the face of it". I said that logic, on the face of it, is correct. You agree with that. How can you then ask for "prica facie evidence?" If we agree that logic is, prima facie, correct, then by definition of "prima facie", the burden of evidence is on you. Photons are not both particles and waves. "Photon" is just a term used in a particular model of light; one that models light as a particle. In fact light is neither a particle nor a wave; in some models we model it as a particle and in some models we model it as a wave. There is no contradiction here. And even if it were true that light was both a particle and a wave, you have not shown that there is a contradiction in "X is a particle and X is a wave". You are overestimating what logic is supposed to be. Logic (or a logic) is just a set of rules for manipulating symbols. I doubt it is "a tool used to understand our perceived realities by valid inference". I do not see how there is anything illogical about there being a nine-dimensional space. To show that there is something illogical, you will have to derive "A & ~A" from some necessary premise of there being a nine-dimensional space. Your move, creep.
Re: a comment on The Golden Rule by Quarton	17-Jan-03/8:54 AM
Logic is, prima facie, obviously right. Therefore the burden of argument is on you. I have described what you need to show in order to make your case, and you have admitted you cannot do so. I know who Stephen Hawking is, he lives next door to me. However, his work is entirely irrelevant to the debate we are currently having. Putnam and Dummett have written on precisely our topic.
Re: a comment on Perversions 3: Payback by razorgrin	17-Jan-03/6:46 AM
What? I don't know it either. I was expressing my delight, not disapproval.
Re: a comment on No future by Freethinker1602	17-Jan-03/5:29 AM
What a dull comment. This is nowhere near as bad as most adolescent poetry. It doesn't rhyme "lies" with "eyes", "be" with "me" or "face" with "disgrace". You have become a lifeless parody of yourself.
Re: a comment on The Golden Rule by Quarton	17-Jan-03/4:57 AM
So you concede defeat? Your books sound rubbish. If you want to read about the conflict between logic and quantum physics, I recommend Hilary Putnam's article 'The Logic of Quantum Mechanics', which can be found in Volume 1 of his Philosophical Papers; and Michael Dummett's response also titled 'Is Logic Empirical?' which I believe is in 'Truth and Other Enigmas'.
Re: a comment on Perversions 3: Payback by razorgrin	17-Jan-03/1:08 AM
The best part is the way each limerick has a title. And the way each one is supposed to be a perversion, but the first one is "midgets". Midgets are a pervsion. hasdhasdjkhasa
Re: Mystery by Katie2	16-Jan-03/2:08 PM
Note to nentwined: QUESTIONS MARKS ARE STILL APPEARING AT RANDOM. P.S. This doesn't rhyme very well.
Re: <{Grasping^Grendals}> by Bachus	16-Jan-03/1:57 PM
ACE TO THE MAX
Re: a comment on All you can eat by flatliner	16-Jan-03/1:51 PM
Your sporadic flirting with obesity makes me hot.
Re: a comment on On Wanting to Know The Truth by dougsoderstrom	16-Jan-03/8:44 AM
Goodness me! It's not like you to get so cross, Doug. Are the inherent contradictions of being a Christian Humanist finally getting to you :) asl?
Re: the midget of humiliation by Bill Z Bub	16-Jan-03/8:28 AM
I very much enjoyed the title and the first four lines. I did not enjoy the rest.
Re: a comment on lost love by cherish	16-Jan-03/1:30 AM
No.
Re: Perversions 3: Payback by razorgrin	15-Jan-03/4:59 PM
Very good, but please correct 'beastiality' to 'bestiality'. You must realise it's not even a pun, since they're derived from the same root.
Re: a comment on Mommy, why does -=DarkAngel=- use 'an' so much? by <{Baba^Yaga}>	15-Jan-03/2:42 PM
An Gentleman shall not remove his Bowe Tie!
Re: The blue light special. by Jeremi B. Handrinos	15-Jan-03/1:55 PM
I believe this is the 22nd poeme on poemeranker to be -=Dark_Angel=--related.
Re: a comment on On Wanting to Know The Truth by dougsoderstrom	15-Jan-03/1:53 PM
Dear Jeremi: Thanks for your comment. With this haiku, I wanted to explore what we do when we think about things. To me, the idea of The Truth is very intriguing -- what do you think? Your friend, Doug
Re: a comment on The Golden Rule by Quarton	15-Jan-03/11:36 AM
I present the Bertrand G. Wronglotion Quantum Challenge 2003: Derive from observational statements about particle behaviour two statements of the form 'A' and '~A'. Please do recommend some books on the subject.
Re: a comment on The Golden Rule by Quarton	15-Jan-03/8:26 AM
Light isn't a wave. Light isn't a particle. Light is light. It is simply useful to model it as a wave under certain conditions, and as a particle under certain other conditions. Do you see? In my experience, a 'photon' is the term used to describe a particle of light when we choose to model light as a beam of particles. When we model light as a wave, we do not consider light to consist of photons. Your idea that logic becomes wrong just because light interacts differently under different circumstances is sheer arrogance!
Re: a comment on The Golden Rule by Quarton	15-Jan-03/7:55 AM
I'm a property dualist lol asl (not a substance dualist).
Re: a comment on The Golden Rule by Quarton	15-Jan-03/7:54 AM
What are you talking about? Logic doesn't change or become inadequate. It's still the case in quantum mechanics that A-> ~(~A). Notions such as that a thing can only be in one place at once are what are inadequate.