Purple stoplights on a global conveyor belt

[vosti]

I remember reading an argument once (I think on a Discordian site) which used purple stoplights and a global conveyor belt to prove that there are more than just two dimensions of existence.

I think the argument went something like this:
Consider a global conveyor belt. Clearly this doesn't exist. So it's in the realm of non-existence. Now consider purple stoplights. These also don't exist. So they're also in the realm of non-existence. ...This is where I'm a bit confused. I know we end up saying that a global conveyor belt with purple stoplights on it must be in some new third realm (neither the realm of existence nor the realm of non-existence). I'm just not quite sure how we do it. I think the argument may have used some semantic or linguistic shenanigans.

Googling "purple stoplights" leads me to believe that either this argument has been lost, or I've misremembered it, or I've just hallucinated it entirely.

Does anyone remember this or have any ideas?

[LMNO]

Sounds like a bogus argument.

Two non-existing things combined simply make a third non-existing thing.  No meta level needed.

It doesn't even work when you combine the non-existing with the impossible (the impossible being on a higher order than the possible-yet-not-existant).  It simply is also impossible.

for example, you can have the non-existant (purple stoplight), but if combining that with 104 not paying for sex, it still falls in the realm of the impossible.




Sorry for the in-joke.  And welcome to the boards.

[hooplala]

It's possible he/she has misremembered some vital aspect of the argument which would make it fit together more.

I would be interested in knowing more about this.

Also: welcome aboard!

[e]

Perhaps the key word is "the realm of nonexistence"

That or it's the opposite of Gorgias' "On Not-Being and Nature", which claims that neither being nor not-being could exist and is probably my single favourite piece of Greek anything.

Perhaps it had something to do with being able to envision non-existent things, thus making them extant in some way?   Who knows.

As a tangent, below is the remaining text ofa link to the Gorgias piece (it's too long for a quote/threadjack), since it amuses me and is somewhat related kind of if I lie about it.

http://sbaker.infomancy.net/etc/GorgiasNotBeing.html

The basic ideas:  Nothing exists.  Neither being nor not-being can exist.  (insert spurious reasoning).  Even if it exists it's incomprehensible.  Even if it's comprehensible it's incommunicable.

Fun stuff. 

[TheLastLump]

Tried searching for it, but all I found was a funny question about whether or not a plane would fly if it was taking off from a moving conveyor belt. Ha.

Will try again later.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Tried searching for it, but all I found was a funny question about whether or not a plane would fly if it was taking off from a moving conveyor belt. Ha.

Will try again later.

Didn't Mythbusters tackle that one? I think the answer was "Yes" which surprised the hell out of the pilot who was in the plane.

[e]

Tried searching for it, but all I found was a funny question about whether or not a plane would fly if it was taking off from a moving conveyor belt. Ha.

Will try again later.

Didn't Mythbusters tackle that one? I think the answer was "Yes" which surprised the hell out of the pilot who was in the plane.

It could revolutionize airports!

[TheLastLump]

http://www.kottke.org/order/science

It spans anything from the analysis of a psychopath's mind to... um... thoroughly unimportant but incredibly interesting stuff. The exact section from the page is thus:

Here's the original problem essentially as it was posed to us: "A plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction). Can the plane take off?"

I'll give you a few moments to think about that before discussing the answer...

...

...

...

Cecil says that the obvious answer -- that the plane does not take off because it remains stationary relative to the ground and the air -- is wrong. The plane, he says, can take off:

But of course cars and planes don't work the same way. A car's wheels are its means of propulsion--they push the road backwards (relatively speaking), and the car moves forward. In contrast, a plane's wheels aren't motorized; their purpose is to reduce friction during takeoff (and add it, by braking, when landing). What gets a plane moving are its propellers or jet turbines, which shove the air backward and thereby impel the plane forward. What the wheels, conveyor belt, etc, are up to is largely irrelevant. Let me repeat: Once the pilot fires up the engines, the plane moves forward at pretty much the usual speed relative to the ground--and more importantly the air--regardless of how fast the conveyor belt is moving backward. This generates lift on the wings, and the plane takes off. All the conveyor belt does is, as you correctly conclude, make the plane's wheels spin madly.

[vosti]

Sounds like a bogus argument.

Two non-existing things combined simply make a third non-existing thing.  No meta level needed.

It doesn't even work when you combine the non-existing with the impossible (the impossible being on a higher order than the possible-yet-not-existant).  It simply is also impossible.

Yes, I'm quite sure it was a bogus argument. It was still delightful, though. I think most of the bogusness came from treating nonexisting things as actually existing in another realm (the realm of nonexistence).

Perhaps I did just dream this up. Oh well.

[Roo]

I don't know if this will help any, but the first thing I thought of when I saw this thread was Gary Zukav (author of The Dancing Wu Li Masters and several new-age books).