| RHF Joke Archives |

I wrote this a few years ago while I was writing a philosophy essay. At
the time I had no respect for the topic I was given (can't even remember
what it was, probably something about how language is a hinderance in
philosophical discussions), and wrote this out of spite, just to release
the tension and ease the boredom.  Since most terminals cannot display
greek letters, I'm using the character _@_, to represent "phi" and
the digit zero, 0 to represent "theta".
---

       On the Philosophical Implications on Interior Design
             if Rocking Chairs Were Made from Pretzels
                                or
       The Relativistic Quantum Mechanical Interpretation of
                        The English Language

      By Professor  Theodore "The Meat" Cleaver, PhD, MD, etc.
                       **********************


Abstract
       The subject of the first phrase of the title has long been a
   favourite argument at tupperware parties.  We will, however,
   dispense with any discussion on that topic since it has absolutely
   nothing to do with the main subject of this paper, which is our
   second topic in the title.


Introduction
    Philosophers have long argued about the importance of language in
discussions of the philosophy of science.  (They also argue about many
other things, one of which is exactly what the should be arguing
about, and also what type of beer they should have on hand during such
arguments, and, indeed, whether or not different beers have different
effects on the thinking powers of the group, and whether or not a
different beer may have resulted in a different route for said
arument.  Most of the arguments end with the almost unanimous
agreement that the will, in fact, try the same argument again next
time, with a diffferent brand of beer.  This invariably leaves most
topics of discussion in more or less the same state of disarray, if not
greater, than when they started the discussion.  This has led to a more
or less universal feeling among non-philosophers that philosophers are
really just a bunch of societal rejects who drain the life blood of --
well, for more detail see T. Cleaver, "Why Philosophers Are Just A Bunch
Of Societal Rejects Who Drain The Life Blood of -- Well, Read The
Paper" in Peterson's _Philosophical Transactions and Refunds_.)


The Main Body
    These discussions on the influence of language on any type of
roughly coherent thought, especially scientific thought, do have merit.
Scientists are, after all, usually people too, and as such, communicate
their ideas through words, with the occasional equation thrown in for
good measure and a comfortable feeling of objective rigour.

    There is a topic, though, that has been neglected by the
philosophers in their study of words and phrases.  Recent work (T.
Cleaver, _On the Philosophical Implications on Interior Design if
Rocking Chairs Were Made from Pretzels, or The Relativistic Quantum
Mechanical Interpretation of The English Language_) has shown that,
unbeknownst to philosophers and others, some, in fact most phrases
in the English language (for example) have a relativistic quantum
mechanical interpretation.

    Take the short and woefully incomplete phrase "going to".  It
is, brace yourself, actually a four-vector with both space and time
components.  The connexion with quantum mechanics is that the _phrase
function_

                    @ = "going to"                             (eq. 1)

will collapse to having either a space- or time- only component, only
after it has been observed in its realm of applicability, ie., in a
sentence.  Here we must introduce the concept of a _phrase factor_,
by which a phrase function @ is changed by the factor

                   0 = "out"                                   (eq. 2)

for example.  We may now give a full example.


An Example
    Consider the sentence "We are going to see a movie."  As it stands,
this sentence is pitifully incomplete, having both a space and a time
commponent.  In other words, the sencence, inpomplete as it is, could
have two orthogonal meanings.  Either 1) you are going from where you
are to a movie theatre, or wherever, to observe the movie (this is the
space component), or 2) you are staying where you are (probably at
home), to watch the movie on your own television set, either with or
without a VCR, but you are going to see it *later*. This is the time
component of the sentence.  (The explicit definition of VCR and it's
implications on the morals of a just society are out of the scope of
this paper.  See T. Cleaver, _The Moral Implications of VCR's in a Just
Society_.  Of course, whether this question can be discussed at all, or
especially if there is or ever has been a moral and just society to start
with, is another story.  See T. Cleaver, _Another Story_.)


Conclusions
    The only way to collapse the phrase function @ is to introduce a
phrase factor, for example 0 = "out".  This modifies the sentence to
become "We are going out to see a movie" (emphasis added for clarity)
and, as intended, the phrase has a more specific meaning -- it has 
collapsed into a time-*independent* phrase.  (The actual time of the
movie is fixed at the movie theatre, and is thus a scalar invariant.)
The phrase is, needless to say, still incomplete.  We must still
resolve the space-dependence into its three components _@_(x), _@_(y)
and _@_(z).  Also note that the precise co-ordinates are indeterminate
until actually inside the theatre to occupy any discrete eigenseat,
and even then the state is still indeterminate to those who remain
outside.  Thus future indeterminicy and locality seem to hold.


Edge-of-yer-seat clincher
    In my next paper, I will examine the application of Bell's
Inequality on the nature of language, showing that the inequality is
in fact violated, and that thus language strictly defies common sense.

| RHF Joke Archives |