Testimony (P and Contingency)

by Robert Danis [W]hat I like most about your writings for P is that your breaking it down into the smallest possible component. Most people try to take a something as a whole and you can’t – you have to break it down into components.

===IMPORTANT== 1. Continuous recursive disambiguation 2. Convert all speech to transactions stated in a series of subjectively (humanly) testable operations. Meaning: first causes. 😉 And as first causes, there are no contingent premises. And as non-contingent P is closed to deception by suggestion that is dependent upon ambiguity and contingency. This is why P defeats set logic – which is forever contingent.

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *