Started by Baruch, June 10, 2017, 08:13:31 AM
Quote from: Baruch on June 14, 2017, 09:30:53 PMYou already ignored posts on QM logic by actual PhD folks ... but you know better than them ... sure you do ;-)
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 15, 2017, 02:18:22 PMYou disingenuously ignore most of the text of the very wiki pages you cite and you have the nerve to accuse me of ignoring your nonsense posts. Just like Casperov, you quote Ph.D.s without even the slightest inkling of understanding of what they're actually talking about, and I won't even dignify them with a response. You are in no mood to learn, and I can't make someone learn who doesn't want to learn.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 15, 2017, 09:53:28 PMBetter a big frog than a fly. I don't think you understand the subject matter as well as you think you do. I don't actually pretend to know more than my studies justify, though it may seem that way to you. I just know enough to know that you're talking crap here. As always, knowledge is demonstrated, not asserted.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 14, 2017, 12:13:54 PMSince a pure liar always lies, such a person claiming that they are a pure liar would be telling the absolute truth â€" therefore, the pure liar cannot say that he is a pure liar, because he only lies. On the other hand, because a pure liar can never claim to be a pure liar, any person claiming to be a pure liar is not; they tell the truth sometimes, just not here.The key here is just because you're able to articulate a thought, doesn't mean that the thought describes a logically coherent situation. Your brain is not a logical system, but an evolutionary one. While it can emulate a logical system with training, you can entertain thoughts that are contradictory. It is, after all, why we have peer review.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 18, 2017, 04:06:28 AMThat's why I said "pure".