"Science cannot believe X because scientific theorem A1 says..."
Here is what I know: the theorem of atoms was ascertained without Godel. It was done in ancient Greece. On Dec 29, 2012, at 4:03 PM, John Carlson wrote: > John, > > The FONC grant is done. Let it be. Please leave your email behavior at the > door. As to why science cannot believe in such things is because of Godel's > Incompleteness Theorems. Science doesn't have an axiom for it like it does > for a point (in math). > > Find the most succinct axiom you can find, and bring it to us. Here are two > that could be improved: > > Something doesn't come from nothing. > Complexity doesn't increase. > > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:33 PM, John Pratt <jpra...@gmail.com> wrote: > These are larger issues, rarely brought up anywhere except in > places where people don't counter the mainstream. How is it > that FONC needs to exist? Because people don't consider things > like this. > > > > On Dec 29, 2012, at 3:27 PM, David Leibs wrote: > >> Are you sure you don't want a response from me? Are you trying to put Alan >> in a petri dish? >> -David Leibs >> >> On Dec 29, 2012, at 3:23 PM, John Pratt <jpra...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> I want a response from Alan Kay on this thread. Then I will leave you all >>> alone. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Dec 29, 2012, at 3:16 PM, David Harris wrote: >>> >>>> What are you on about? How is this related to FONC? >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 3:10 PM, John Pratt <jpra...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> What sickness science brings to everyday people! They cannot even believe >>>> in mysterious things, such as the divine, without first thinking it has to >>>> show up on a laboratory microscope. >>>> >>>> The petri dish has to exist before the thing will be acknowledged as >>>> fitting inside a petri dish. >>>> >>>> "We don't have a petri dish for that. It cannot exist. I cannot study it >>>> inside of its petri dish." >>>> >>>> "Tell me where its petri dish is first, then I will believe you and we >>>> will go study it." >>>> >>>> Mystical things of the past are regarded as superstition, described in >>>> terms of theoretical, mechanical concepts. Automobiles, air planes, and >>>> light rail trains are the indicators of supreme accomplishments given to >>>> man by this modern science. >>>> >>>> Computers, electronics are never questioned for what they are underneath-- >>>> a huge mess of chemical circuits. Contemptible expediency in its approach >>>> to making its own version of warped plastic and silicon clockwork. >>>> >>>> Cram as much as you invent into the smallest space possible, sheath it >>>> with cosmetic jewelry cases, and sell it to the world, telling the world >>>> it is pure jewelry, inside and out. When it happens to hit the floor, the >>>> lie is exposed-- a mess of soldering, wires, and toxic chemicals. >>>> >>>> Dazzling athletics, to cram this inelegant approach to match the world's >>>> demand for novelty and excitement. >>>> >>>> Pack it all into a tiny package. Call it sheer wizardry and a triumph of >>>> modern science. Its engineers confounded by accusations of philistine >>>> circuitry-- "engineering, math, and science works! our engineering campus >>>> buildings are not ugly-- they are utilitarian! I like math and was good >>>> at it in high school." >>>> >>>> If the shoe fits, wear it regardless of whether the shoe is distasteful in >>>> appearance on the outside. Make a distasteful shoe, cover it up with a >>>> cosmetic shell. Where there is a problem, an engineer will solve it. >>>> Make sure that you don't need a solution you want to know about, however. >>>> Just be content that a problem was solved and look the other way when the >>>> details are explained of its operation. >>>> >>>> "That'll do the trick." >>>> >>>> I didn't like parabolas because the world cannot be reduced to two, three, >>>> or four axes, thank you very much. >>>> >>>> I don't like polynomials because I want to draw the line before I call it >>>> a function of the world, saying that the world consists only of >>>> deterministic, reductionist functions. "Oh, then you are just tired of >>>> 'discreteness' and you need its polar opposite of discreteness, >>>> non-discreteness." >>>> >>>> Such is mathematics and science today. "Why does no one want to learn >>>> math and science anymore??" >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> fonc mailing list >>>> fonc@vpri.org >>>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> fonc mailing list >>>> fonc@vpri.org >>>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> fonc mailing list >>> fonc@vpri.org >>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> fonc mailing list >> fonc@vpri.org >> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
