Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation: Is ehird still a Player?

Craig Daniel on Mon, 5 Jan 2009 14:48:09 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation: Is ehird still a Player?

To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation: Is ehird still a Player?
From: "Craig Daniel" <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 16:48:03 -0500
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender :to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references :x-google-sender-auth; bh=iivSlr8FbY0QWZohyIvfkVIACA66ulO0FNoMOjwNFY8=; b=n95VURvJa5vU8SNKWfJiU0AVq+jF/yGOUEoor278bUnbdgxZwaxnq66oh5yv+fZBs5 CLZEJdpC3+Yag4y5X2pTNX819Gackr4pFxio7gwCRX8+rEYnjcXmG5DW3e7jCp0ILKn3 A3ddFa3cq02ReyEA9nRpPu/4h3JWTrZlUmw18=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references:x-google-sender-auth; b=l5IBBtlCR75fnbO40CEfL4OF7qdKRnT04jNvNhoMfydS4wjEWRrbGf0vHbPRkWqmuQ 5FZzVif6L4AKnzXVQ9jCBPKPmYZS0vN5/oWttZ+SW0N9+7j69T2Z+hwuu2EFoxt/D3CC lgv/yhpxPTf3/ePjrZMeTmDx3Tot+Wn63mjo0=
In-reply-to: <dbedf4da0901051336o582e5815g2f1fa0e25c053478@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <49613267.5050300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <7db5cba20901042033i28f7899bq23eac85258d08a02@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <55b258c20901050628r2a1e7398nb8da4cc9f7c7f8aa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <dbedf4da0901051136u62aaf799na599e2b1ed9cfd2a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <55b258c20901051214i7928a3b3p1294597a5fd79501@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <dbedf4da0901051336o582e5815g2f1fa0e25c053478@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ok, I'll buy it. But I would have preferred you had sealed off any
> possibility of 9999 being the correct number by saying it's false anyway.
> You would have been saying, "If that possibility is true, it's false." So it
> couldn't be true, then. But if you answer PARADOX, you are saying, "If the
> possibility is true, then it's paradoxically so."

True. But that's the case, in my mind - it can't be non-paradoxically
true, but the judgment can't exist if it's non-paradoxically false.

 - teucer
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss

References:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation: Is ehird still a Player?
  - From: Tyler
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation: Is ehird still a Player?
  - From: Craig Daniel

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Temporally Displaced Forfeiture
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] logical hand grenades
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation: Is ehird still a Player?
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation: Is ehird still a Player?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread