Erwin Schrödinger’s Birthday

[O'Searcaigh]

Well, I will either be shocked or lmao at your
attire/lack of it

And my cat may or may not be sitting next to
me

-Don

Actually, it is a logically necessary truth that your cat is either sitting next to you or not sitting next to you, whether or not you even have a cat. Now, whether your cat can be both sitting next to you and not sitting next to you (without asserting a contradiction) depends on a number of things -- e.g., whether you have more than one cat, the fundamental natures of space and time and/or, as expressed in an infamous comment by a former U.S. President, on "what the meaning of 'is,' is."

[SorenMacTavish]

hehe

[unixken]

My cat (as with most house-kitties) loves to do figure-8s around ankles. . . perfectly situated to glance up and answer The Question.

The more accurately you seek to determine where the cat is, the less certain you will be of her motion, and vice-versa, I'm certain. Or maybe I'm not. But that's another question. Maybe.

[gwynng]

On the question of the cat...well I'm sorry, I don't have the time to answer it because there are an infinite number of monkeys outside who want to discuss the script of "Hamlet" they've worked out.* (and I think at least two are wearing kilts, so maybe they'd been working on "Macbeth")


* Thank you Douglas Adams

[Spartan Tartan]

this is/is not my favourite thread of the week!

[unixken]

...as expressed in an infamous comment by a former U.S. President, on "what the meaning of 'is,' is."

If that that is 'is' is that that is not 'not is', is that that is 'not is' that that is not 'is'?

[rondo]

I think you are all missing the point: the OP is talking about Schrodinger's boxers not his cat... so, until someone actually looks, the OP may or may not be wearing Schrodinger's boxers...I think...therefore... I am...what I am...oooooh! sparkly keys...
Rondo

[EagleJCS]

the OP may or may not be wearing Schrodinger's boxers...

I hope they were washed first... ewww...

[O'Searcaigh]

If that that is 'is' is that that is not 'not is', is that that is 'not is' that that is not 'is'?

Formally (syntactically) yes, whether the meaning of 'is' is an is of attribution (material implication) or is an is of identity (bi-conditional) because “that that is 'is' is that that is not 'not is' if and only if that that is 'not is' is that that is not 'is'” -- otherwise known as the “Law of Transposition.” However, informally (semantically) it all depends on what the meanings of all the is’s are and especially if the ‘is not’ is an is not of specific denial or an is not of nothingness and hence semantically open to a fallacy of ambiguity (equivocation). At least that’s my take on it as a student of nothing!

[McElmurry]

Sometimes an is is just an is.