John, check out Munchhausen's Trilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma as to why belief systems as are they are. Everyone has a belief system, including scientists, engineers,and mathematicians. Nothing is firm, including Falun Dafa. Enjoy the mystery of everything, including math, science and engineering.
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:05 PM, John Pratt <jpra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > "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 > >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
