Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!decwrl!ucbvax!jade!ig!uwmcsd1!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!markh From: markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) Newsgroups: alt.flame Subject: Re: pseudo-scientific gibberish Summary: Ignorance blinds the fool again Keywords: Pseudo-science, Convergence Message-ID: <4150@uwmcsd1.UUCP> Date: 11 Jan 88 07:01:11 GMT References: <3445@ihlpl.ATT.COM> <7706@eddie.MIT.EDU> <5409@sol.ARPA> <4079@uwmcsd1.UUCP> <534@gethen.UUCP> <4135@uwmcsd1.UUCP> <22516@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Sender: news@uwmcsd1.UUCP Reply-To: markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) Distribution: alt.flame Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Lines: 153 In article <22516@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: >In article <4135@uwmcsd1.UUCP> markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: >-In article <534@gethen.UUCP> farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) writes: >->> You did not say anything about my examples concerning Quantum Theory or >->>Cantor's theory of transfinite Cardinals and Ordinals. I recommend a book by >->>Rudy Rucker called "Infinity and the Mind." You do not mean to say that any >->>of these are pseudo-sciences do you? >-> >->No, I didn't say anything about them. The difference between them and the >->various Pre-Birth and Post-Death experience theories is, simply, that >->they, at least, are verifiable by means outside of the vagaries of the >->individual human mind. >- >-As a Logician (yes, I am also that), I can tell you that this is not true. No >-Mathematical theory can be employed to prove its own consistency ... unless it >-is inconsistent. > >Well, loathe as I am to argue with a real live capital-L "Logician" [TM] >(not to mention a Physicist to boot! Wow!) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ...and what's your excuse?! >I must disagree. That's okay by me. Monkeys have also been known to be disagreeable at times. One of the >One of the first things they teach in Logician School is that a "theory" is >different from a "formal system". I also recall that Goedel's theorem is >concerned with the latter. Good. I'm glad I didn't have to tell you. As I recall, we were discussing formal systems in the context you seemed to have removed. And we are free to invent a stronger system to >And we are free to invent a stronger system to prove the consistency of a >weaker system ... You obviously need to go to your "Logician School". (by the way, what do you think of Buechler?) Theories are weaker than formal systems. It is not even possible to come up with consistency proofs in formal systems, need I say more ... Oh sure, you can "prove" any system with a stronger system, especially if it be inconsistent, but whence the validity of the stronger system? > >-So, as far as Mathematics is >-concerned, there is no means of verification with the strictness you demand. > >Eh? I thought you were talking about "theories", a.k.a. "theorems", which >can often be verified with no trouble at all. But then I'm not a >Logician, so what do I know? Theorems can be verified, with the absolute certainty? (OOPS! You seemed to have remover another context, that which implied that we were talking about ABSOLUTE consistency, boy you're getting good at your deceit. It seems you have to remove just those things that give what I say coherence). How? If you're going to succeed, you'd better show me a consistency proof of the logic you use (sic). > >- It may be that >-infinite sets do not even exist in the first place (meaning that it may be >-possible to prove the Axiom of Infinity of set theory inconsistent with the >-rest of set theory). It all goes back to Mathematical intuition in the end. > >WTF are you talking about? The integers don't exist? Huh? And what's >this "Axiom of Infinity"? Does it have anything to do with the Axiom of >Choice? WTF are YOU talking about. You seem to know the ropes about Logician School, yet you can't even tell the difference between an infinite set and a whole number. I'm so sorry, I did not think the words would be too big for you. In one ear and out the other, you couldn't even quote me correctly ... Allow me to educate you on these issues, since you asked. The "Axiom of Infinity" states that infinite sets exist. Pick your favorite definition of infinite set, I like the one patterned after the saying "the whole lies in some of its parts". Infinite sets obviously have nothing to do with whole numbers, except that the whole numbers taken as a whole (PUN, PUN!) form an infinite set. That's all provided that it even makes sense to form such a set. Nobody may ever know for sure. > >->Various tenets of Quantam Theory have been >->PROVEN true - not by people asserting that they are true, but by >->experimentation. >- >-The Aspect experiments (which you refer to) did not prove the Copenhagen >-version of Quantum Theory. > >Do you know the difference between a formal system (like quantum theory) >and a theorem of that system (existence of local hidden variables)? > >Maybe they don't get to that until Graduate Logician School. Obviously, they gloss over a lot in your school (I passed out of my Quantum theory course, what's your excuse?!). First of all, Quantum theory is not a formal system. It is a Physical Theory based on experimental observations. There are many formal systems that can represent Quantum Theory (but not completely so, it may be), but Quantum Theory itself is not one. Perhaps, when you're older, you'll find out ... > >- This is very curious, because THERE ARE NO THEORIES ON NDE's TO DATE. > >Of course there are! You're full of shit! How would you know, when you can't even tell the difference between a number and an infinite set; or between a formal system and a Physical Theory. "I'm full of shit", wait till I tell my friends about that! We'll get a laugh out of that. Maybe you ought to put your postings into rec.humor, because you couldn't seriously be this stupid! > >-That is, the only way for the experiment TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF PERCEPTION >-AFTER BRAIN DEATH is if you assume that PERCEPTION AFTER BRAIN DEATH IS NOT >-POSSIBLE. > >I must admit, you seem eminently qualified to tell us what brain death is >like. ..and, I must confess, you seem eminently qualified to evaluate me on such matters. I mean, look!, you come from Berkeley and all. You MUST know everything! I bow before such intellect, as that of a Berkeley wimp (OOPS! I forgot, they call the freshmen at CAL TECH wimps!, wrong school. Sorry.). > >Look, calling yourself a Physicist or a Logician [TM] isn't going to impress >very many people on this net. Shit, I bet you're probably just a "IF I'M GOING TO BE DAMNED, THEN I WANT TO BE DAMNED FOR WHO I AM!" I'm not in a position where I NEED to impress anyone, as I seem to be the only one, besides Michael Farren, who is discussing these matters in any detail at all. You impress nobody, yourself, with your stupid "attacks" on others. You can't even get the issues straight. God! What do they teach you at Berkeley any way, I thought it was a school good enough to consider going to (to finish my grad studies in yet another department.) >wet-behind-the-ears undergrad who's taken a couple of courses and fancies ^^^^^^^^^ rec.humor is where you need to go! This is really funny! >himself an expert. That's what you sound like, anyway. Get a life! >-- Jim Lewis > U.C. Berkeley: (an obnoxiuos Berkeley freshman, and he's damn proud of it.)