"You Can’t Prove A Negative"

[chaz wyman]

Wrong, misinterpretation, illogical, preposterous, pathetic squirmy word play, irrepresentational of irrational irreality, in a pedalogical shrillness of prehistoric numbering systems, which is not related to whining about archaeological permutations of the linear order of supposedly circular arguments.

Congratulations for finding a Thesaurus, it's a pity little of this is relevant.

In order for the premise to be true, the computational derivatives would have to be bullshit garbage, which as Kant clearly stated, is not found within the realm of paradoxical newsgroups.

The notion of "bullshit computational derivatives" was not in Kant's vocabulary, nor was the existence of any kind of Newsgroups know in his time.

Further, the derivational value of math myths is due to the metaphysical questions which will be knocking at our door sooner or later.

I doubt if you know what you mean by this.

So there! If you are so STOOOPID as to debate these obviously obvious points, the burden of pudding is on you!!

!

[Typist]

Gotcha Chaz!

[chaz wyman]

Gotcha Chaz!

In what sense?

[Typist]

Gotcha again!

[chaz wyman]

Gotcha again!

Are you clinically insane?

[Typist]

Will you ever learn the quote function???

[chaz wyman]

Will you ever learn the quote function???

Will you ever learn to answer a simple question?

[evangelicalhumanist]

Are the above exchanges really "philosophy?" Goodness, how it has degraded...

[Typist]

Are the above exchanges really "philosophy?" Goodness, how it has degraded...

I dunno. It's a reasonable theory to propose that most ideological oriented threads (especially anything related to religion or politics) are more about the experience of arguing than about the topic itself.

Philosophy is about the "love of wisdom". Wisdom seems to involve seeing things for what they are.

In a way, degraded threads are more honest than the ones where we're all pretending we're motivated by a deep concern for the topic.

So EH, to invite you in to this honest food fight, I would like to make the point that YOU SUCK!!!

[evangelicalhumanist]

So EH, to invite you in to this honest food fight, I would like to make the point that YOU SUCK!!!

I think I've described myself well enough by now that you will not be surprised if I don't "bite" on that misguided attempt at calumny.

[Typist]

Uh oh, I've stuck my um, foot in it now, haven't I?

[chaz wyman]

Uh oh, I've stuck my um, foot in it now, haven't I?

Are you not going to tell me what you mean by "Gotcha"?

[bytesplicer]

Apologies to Aetixintro and everyone else for hijacking this thread with my attention seeking ways, and to Chaz for telling you you were wrong about the aiming ability of computers, when you were of course totally essentially correct as always. Off now to split some hairs with a sharp object, before inserting it into myself.

[chaz wyman]

Apologies to Aetixintro and everyone else for hijacking this thread with my attention seeking ways, and to Chaz for telling you you were wrong about the aiming ability of computers, when you were of course totally essentially correct as always. Off now to split some hairs with a sharp object, before inserting it into myself.

Everyone is welcome. Is it possible to actually hijack a thread?

[Aetixintro]

Ive been thinking some more and I come to believe, hypothetically, under the following assumptions/premises that if we get to know all of the universe, every other universe, and all of science in its utmost precision, we should be able to say why the laws of nature are this way and not any other way. Thus, even for the most radical "negative", that of proving a negative natural law, there may be this kind by this description. Obviously, it's at the very far end, one, perhaps, equal to Heaven, only, possibly, theoretically achievable.

Cheers!