Ugly buildings. It's all yours. You can have it.
On Dec 29, 2012, at 4:14 PM, Julian Leviston wrote: > <sarcasm> But don't you understand? Falun Dafa is the new answer-for-it-all! > </sarcasm> > > When will people simply address their fears? We *are* going to die. > > Julian > > On 30/12/2012, at 11:08 AM, John Carlson <yottz...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Sorry, I use "it" too much. What I was trying to say was that science >> doesn't have an axiom for Falun Dafa, like science has for a point. >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:03 PM, John Carlson <yottz...@gmail.com> 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
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
