On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/9/16 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Therefore: I judge CFJ 2086 FALSE, CFJ 2087 FALSE.
>> --
>> ais523
>>
>
> With two support I intend to appeal this judgement.
>
> Arguments:
>
> See, "initiation" is the process by which something not existing is
> made to exist.
>
> {moment before initiation | doesn't exist}
> {moment of initiation | transitioning from not existing and existing}
> {moment after initiation | exists}
>
> If something is transitioning from A to B it is neither A or B.
>
> Therefore both neither exist or don't exist.
>
> Therefore they cannot be judged TRUE or FALSE.
>
> Therefore they should both be judged UNDECIDABLE.Why is your interpretation of the moment of initiation better than ais523's? -root
