1998-09-21 - RE: atheism (was: RE: Democracy… (fwd)) (fwd)

Header Data

From: Matthew James Gering <mgering@ecosystems.net>
To: “Cypherpunks (E-mail)” <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net>
Message Hash: 098fc86c9db2be81b5236f904074a50671eb0d1b3bb6cf53ca6448fd27e480dc
Message ID: <33CCFE438B9DD01192E800A024C84A192846CE@mossbay.chaffeyhomes.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1998-09-21 07:08:50 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 15:08:50 +0800

Raw message

From: Matthew James Gering <mgering@ecosystems.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 15:08:50 +0800
To: "Cypherpunks (E-mail)" <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net>
Subject: RE: atheism (was: RE: Democracy... (fwd)) (fwd)
Message-ID: <33CCFE438B9DD01192E800A024C84A192846CE@mossbay.chaffeyhomes.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Jim Choate wrote:
> As I've demonstrated before (and for the last time):
> 
> ^(A) = (^A)

f() = belief function
A = hypothesis
^ = not

f(^A) != ^f(A)

At least not without placing requirements on f().

Then you claim everything is a belief, so f() is meaningless. But then
you deny A == A when you claimed that metaphysical objectivity is a
belief, so what was the point in writing the equation in the first
place?

Go transcend.

	Matt





Thread