Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Mathematical creationism (re-post)

1 view
Skip to first unread message

david petry

unread,
Sep 1, 2005, 5:44:03 PM9/1/05
to

Cantor's theory (the intuitions underlying classical set theory) has
the
same relationship to the mathematical sciences as Creationism theory
has to the physical sciences. They are similar in content and similar
in
origin. Cantor's theory is essentially a creation myth.


Both Cantor's theory and Creationism theory are founded on the
proposition that we must acknowledge the existence of some abstract
infinite entity lying beyond what we can observe in order to understand

the reality that we do observe.


Furthermore, both have religious origins, and both try to hide their
religious origins. Creationism comes from ancient Jewish religious
teachings about the origin of the universe, and Cantor's theory of the
infinite has its origins in Medieval Jewish religious/mystical
teachings
known as Kabbalah, wherein the world of the infinite is a higher level
of existence.


Both Cantor's theory and Creationism theory are pseudoscience. Both the

Creationists and the Cantorians impose upon their disciples a world
view
in which people must modify their thinking to incorporate certain
axioms
handed down from higher authority, and they are then compelled to
accept
any "logical" conclusions derived from those axioms. Anyone who dares
to
suggest that those axioms and the conclusions derived from those axioms

don't pass reality checks, is demonized as an idiot, imbecile,
crackpot,
heretic, or some other kind of subhuman, and excluded from the
community.


Both theories do interfere with scientific, technological and social
progress.


A new world view, and a new paradigm for mathematics, have emerged
from the computer revolution. This new world view strips away the
mysticism from the mind, and from the foundations of mathematics.


We now think of the brain as a computer, and the mind as the software
running on the computer. Mathematics is a tool invented by the mind to
help it understand the world in a precise, quantitative way. The brain
and the mind (and mathematics) have co-evolved, and this evolution
can be explained without recourse to abstract entities lying outside
the world we observe.


Furthermore, due to the existence of computers which are clearly
distinct from the human brain, we are forced to admit that there is
something about the virtual world that has an objective existence.
>From a mathematical perspective, we can think of the computer as a
microscope which helps us peer into a world of computation, and then
mathematics itself is the science which studies the phenomena observed
in that (virtual) world. The world of computation can be accepted as
a given, just as the physical world is accepted as a given in the
physical sciences. The fundamental objects living in the world
of computation are data structures and algorithms, and a foundation
for mathematics can be built on those objects. We study mathematics
because the phenomena observed in the world of computation can serve
as a model for phenomena observed in the physical world.


For those who accept this new world view, it is quite absurd to think
that the mind, which lives in the world of computation, can "prove"
the existence of a super-infinite world which has no connection to the
phenomena observed in the world of computation. The explanation for
Cantor's theory lies in the ability of the mind to delude itself.


Footnote 1: Everyone in the United States knows what Creationism is,
but perhaps other people don't. The Creationists take the biblical
creation myth as literal scientific truth, and they want the public
schools to teach this theory as an alternative to evolution.


Footnote 2: One interesting difference between the Cantorians and
the Creationists is a political difference. The Creationists have
strong connections to Christian/conservative politics, and the
Cantorians have connections to Humanistic/liberal politics.


Footnote 3: Debunking pseudoscience is a noble endeavor.

Proginoskes

unread,
Sep 1, 2005, 6:34:51 PM9/1/05
to

david petry wrote:
> Cantor's theory (the intuitions underlying classical set theory) has
> the
> same relationship to the mathematical sciences as Creationism theory
> has to the physical sciences. They are similar in content and similar
> in
> origin. Cantor's theory is essentially a creation myth.
>
>
> Both Cantor's theory and Creationism theory are founded on the
> proposition that we must acknowledge the existence of some abstract
> infinite entity lying beyond what we can observe in order to understand
> the reality that we do observe.

If you don't like infinity, stick with finite sets.

--- Christopher Heckman

Daryl McCullough

unread,
Sep 1, 2005, 6:49:23 PM9/1/05
to
david petry says...

>Cantor's theory (the intuitions underlying classical set theory) has
>the same relationship to the mathematical sciences as Creationism theory
>has to the physical sciences. They are similar in content and similar
>in origin. Cantor's theory is essentially a creation myth.

It seems to me that the opposition to Cantor's theory is more
like the opposition to evolution and relativity. It's pseudo-science
that appeals to people who don't have the intellectual rigor or
patience for actual science, and who are jealous of its prestige.

Opposition to Cantor is like creationism or intelligent design in
the sense that it has nothing *positive* to offer in its place; it
is an entirely negative endeavor.

This is completely different from the Darwinist attack on creationism.
Darwin *didn't* go around bad-mouthhing creationism. Instead, he
concentrated on offering a coherent, scientifically motivated
*alternative*. Evolution only threatened creationism through its
*existence*. If a coherent theory of the origin of species is possible
without reference to God, then the reasons for believing in creationism
are undermined.

The anti-Cantorians in contrast have no coherent theory to offer
in replacement of classical mathematics. If they did, there would
be no need for their attacks on classical mathematics. It actually
works the other way around: it is *classical mathematics* whose
very existence is threatening to the anti-Cantorians.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Chris Menzel

unread,
Sep 1, 2005, 8:55:35 PM9/1/05
to
On 1 Sep 2005 15:49:23 -0700, Daryl McCullough

<stevend...@yahoo.com> said:
> david petry says...
>
>>Cantor's theory (the intuitions underlying classical set theory) has
>>the same relationship to the mathematical sciences as Creationism
>>theory has to the physical sciences. They are similar in content and
>>similar in origin. Cantor's theory is essentially a creation myth.
>
> It seems to me that the opposition to Cantor's theory is more
> like the opposition to evolution and relativity. It's pseudo-science
> that appeals to people who don't have the intellectual rigor or
> patience for actual science, and who are jealous of its prestige.
>
> Opposition to Cantor is like creationism or intelligent design in
> the sense that it has nothing *positive* to offer in its place; it
> is an entirely negative endeavor.

That's just so exactly right.

fishfry

unread,
Sep 1, 2005, 9:47:20 PM9/1/05
to
In article <1125611043....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"david petry" <david_lawr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Cantor's theory (the intuitions underlying classical set theory)

You lost me right there.

Cantor's theory is anything BUT intuitive. It's the exact opposite of
"intuitive." It's counterintuitive. It's hard to believe. It amazes
people the first time they see it.

If it were intuitive, it would not have received opposition when it was
first proposed, and people would not be on sci.math claiming it's false.

Cantor's theory is a theory that SEEMS false and absurd at first. It's
only when you study the mathematics that you come to understand that the
theory is mathematically true, even though highly counterintuitive.

be...@pop.networkusa.net

unread,
Sep 2, 2005, 1:41:41 AM9/2/05
to

david petry wrote:
> Cantor's theory (the intuitions underlying classical set theory) has
> the same relationship to the mathematical sciences as Creationism
> theory has to the physical sciences. They are similar in content
> and similar in origin. Cantor's theory is essentially a creation myth.
>
>
> Both Cantor's theory and Creationism theory are founded on the
> proposition that we must acknowledge the existence of some abstract
> infinite entity lying beyond what we can observe in order to understand
> the reality that we do observe.
>

Not quite. Cantor's theory says that in order to understand the
abstract infinite entities postulated by conventional mathematics, we
must postulate multiple abstract infinite entities lying beyond them.

>
> Furthermore, both have religious origins, and both try to hide their
> religious origins. Creationism comes from ancient Jewish religious
> teachings about the origin of the universe, and Cantor's theory of the
> infinite has its origins in Medieval Jewish religious/mystical
> teachings known as Kabbalah, wherein the world of the infinite
> is a higher level of existence.

It's true that Cantor's theories were probably inspired by the
Kabbalah, but noone has ever tried to hide it; moreover, several other
branches of mathematics were influenced by religion. For example,
geometry was heavily inspired by the religious beliefs of Plato and
Pythagoras.

>
> Both Cantor's theory and Creationism theory are pseudoscience. Both the
> Creationists and the Cantorians impose upon their disciples a world
> view in which people must modify their thinking to incorporate certain
> axioms handed down from higher authority, and they are then compelled to
> accept any "logical" conclusions derived from those axioms. Anyone who dares
> to suggest that those axioms and the conclusions derived from those axioms
> don't pass reality checks, is demonized as an idiot, imbecile, crackpot,
> heretic, or some other kind of subhuman, and excluded from the
> community.
>

The difference is that any person who thinks a mathematical theory
doesn't pass "reality checks" is an "idiot, imbecile, crackpot,
heretic, or some other kind of subhuman", since the only "reality
checks" that matter in mathematics are internal consistency. Agreement
with the real world is irrelevant.


> Both theories do interfere with scientific, technological and social
> progress.
>

Neither theory interferes with scientific or technological progress;
Cantor's theory has actually aided progress in these areas (by
ecouraging developments that contributed to the understanding of modern
physics, for example); Creationism has no effect, because real
scientists don't believe it.
As for social progress, Cantor's theory has no direct effect, because
most people have never heard of it. I will grant that Creationism
interferes with social progress, though.

> A new world view, and a new paradigm for mathematics, have emerged
> from the computer revolution. This new world view strips away the
> mysticism from the mind, and from the foundations of mathematics.
>
>
> We now think of the brain as a computer, and the mind as the software
> running on the computer.

Thus we have replaced one analogy with another; hardly an improvement.
Especially since fewer people understand computers than understand the
clocks which were the old analogy.

[...]


>
> Furthermore, due to the existence of computers which are clearly
> distinct from the human brain, we are forced to admit that there is
> something about the virtual world that has an objective existence.

If people can make sculptures of dragons, does that prove that dragons
have objective existence?

Herman Jurjus

unread,
Sep 2, 2005, 2:54:50 AM9/2/05
to
david petry wrote:
[snip]

> A new world view, and a new paradigm for mathematics, have emerged
> from the computer revolution. This new world view strips away the
> mysticism from the mind, and from the foundations of mathematics.

But does this new paradigm have a -formalism- as elaborated as FOL+ZFC?
Or at least some first attempts? If you know one, please tell what it is.

Or do you think that the new paradigm doesn't need unambigous, formal
elaboration? If you do, then wouldn't your paradigm bring mathematical
practice back to what it was around 1850: no rigor, and mathematicians
had to rely on common sense in everything they did?

--
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus

Jesse F. Hughes

unread,
Sep 2, 2005, 4:13:20 AM9/2/05
to
"david petry" <david_lawr...@yahoo.com> writes:

> Both Cantor's theory and Creationism theory are pseudoscience. Both
> the Creationists and the Cantorians impose upon their disciples a
> world view in which people must modify their thinking to incorporate
> certain axioms handed down from higher authority, and they are then
> compelled to accept any "logical" conclusions derived from those
> axioms. Anyone who dares to suggest that those axioms and the
> conclusions derived from those axioms don't pass reality checks, is
> demonized as an idiot, imbecile, crackpot, heretic, or some other
> kind of subhuman, and excluded from the community.

This paragraph describes neither Creationism nor the behavior of
classical set theorists. Of course, to be a Creationist, one must
believe the basic tenets of Creationism. In that sense, Creationists
do indeed exclude others from their community, but I suppose that's
true of every group defined by a set of beliefs.

I haven't seen "mainstream" Creationists (almost an oxymoron, I know)
demonizing their opposition as subhuman. Neither have I seen
classical set theorists demonizing real constructivists, folks capable
of doing actual mathematics. I have seen insults directed to some
people that complain about ZF by claiming vague platitudes show that
ZF is nonsense. But these folk offer no alternative to ZF nor any
philosophically persuasive criticisms.

If you want to do mathematics in some finitary alternative to ZF,
well, do it. See what you can show us. But don't expect the
mathematical community to be so impressed with your
"computer-as-microscope" story that they'll do this work for you.


[...]

> We now think of the brain as a computer, and the mind as the software
> running on the computer.

Do we? Seems to me that the computational theory in the philosophy of
mind is controversial and the question is unsettled. In any case, I
don't recall any serious philosopher claiming that the mind is the
software. Where do you get these ideas?

> For those who accept this new world view, it is quite absurd to think
> that the mind, which lives in the world of computation, can "prove"
> the existence of a super-infinite world which has no connection to the
> phenomena observed in the world of computation.

You seem to be confused about the role of mathematical proofs and
axioms. No one assumed they could prove the existence of infinite
sets[1]. Instead, they investigated consequences of the axiom of
infinity in ZF. Thus, the theorems can be viewed as conditional
statements or statements like: any structure satisfying these axioms
must also satisfy |X| < |P(X)| for all sets X and hence that there is
a transfinite hierarchy.

Only mathematical realists are committed to the actual existence of a
model of ZF and most of them admit that this commitment is revisable
in principle (if ZF is shown to be inconsistent, say).

Footnotes:
[1] Well, that's not quite right, I guess. I think that Dedekind
tried to prove that at one point, didn't he? But I refer here to the
modern understanding of ZF and the axiom of infinity.

--
Jesse F. Hughes

"What you call reasonable is suspect since you've proven yourself to
be an enemy of mathematics." -- James S. Harris defends the cause.

Lee Rudolph

unread,
Sep 2, 2005, 9:40:24 AM9/2/05
to
"Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> writes:

>"david petry" <david_lawr...@yahoo.com> writes:
...
>>We now think of the brain as a computer, and the mind as the software
>>running on the computer.
>
>Do we? Seems to me that the computational theory in the philosophy of
>mind is controversial and the question is unsettled. In any case, I
>don't recall any serious philosopher claiming that the mind is the
>software. Where do you get these ideas?

A core dump.

Lee Rudolph

William of Ockham

unread,
Sep 2, 2005, 4:43:44 PM9/2/05
to
fishfry ---

Cantor's theory is anything BUT intuitive. It's the exact opposite of
"intuitive." It's counterintuitive. It's hard to believe. It amazes
people the first time they see it.
---

What is Cantor's Theory? Cantor's 'Theorem' is not counterintuitive.
"The child thinks to itself: how am I to do this, when I should have to
look at all the numbers at once, to prevent what I write down from
being one of them? Now the method says: Not at all: change the first
place of the first number, the second of the second one &c. &c., and
you are sure of having written down a number that does not coincide
with any of the given ones. The number got in this way might always be
called the diagonal number."

fishfry ---


Cantor's theory is a theory that SEEMS false and absurd at first. It's
only when you study the mathematics that you come to understand that
the
theory is mathematically true, even though highly counterintuitive.

---

Why should it SEEM false and absurd that any list of lists of elements,
omits some list of elements. On our understanding of 'list', 'element'
&c, I would say that is almost a logical truth. Here is the argument

1. Take any list you like, call it L.
2. Take any function you like, whose arguments are elements of L, and
whose values are lists of those elements
3. Then there exists a list D containing each element n which is NOT
in the corresponding list f(n).
4. Suppose D is a value of f for some m in L. Then if m is in D, it
isn't, and if it isn't, it is. Contradiction.
5. So D is not a value of f.
6. But f was any function you like. Hence, for any such function,
there is a list of elements D of L, that is not a value of f.

This seems more like a logical proof to me. Except for step 3,
perhaps, but the idea of comprehension (as the Latin term indicates) is
much older than Cantor, and was generally considered a part of logic
(e.g. by Mill). So what is there that "seems false or absurd"? But
that is Cantor's Theorem (actually Zermelo's Theorem). What do you
mean "Cantor's Theory"? Cantor's Theorem does not tell us whether a
list of all numbers (finite or real) exists (or can exist).

Cantor himself tells us this: "The sequence (I) of positive integers
1,2,3...,v,... has its ground of origin [Entstehungsgrund] in the
repeated positing [Setzung] and uniting [Vereinigung] of underlying
unities [Einheiten], which are regarded as alike; the number v is the
expression for a [definite] finite number [bestimmte endliche Anzahl]
of such positings following one another in a sequence; it is also the
expression for the unification [Vereinigung] of the posited unities
[gesetzten Einheiten] into a whole [zu einem Ganzen]. The formation of
the finite real integers [i.e. natural numbers] thus rests upon the
principle of adding a unity to an already formed and existing number; I
call this principle (which, as we shall soon see, plays an essential
role in the generation of the higher integers) the first principle of
generation. The number [Anzahl] of the numbers v of class (I) formed
in this way is infinite and there is no greatest among them. However
contradictory it might be to speak of a greatest number of class (I),
there is nevertheless nothing offensive in thinking of a new number
which we shall call w, and which [my emphasis] will be the expression
for the idea [fact] that the entire assemblage [aggregate, Inbegriff]
(I) is given in its natural, orderly succession [natural succession
according to a law] (Just as v is an expression for the idea that a
certain finite number [Anzahl] of unities is united to form a whole [zu
einem Ganzen vereinigt wird].) "

But this is of course gobbledegook. In what sense is it
"mathematically true"?

Torkel---
> Just keep in mind Cantor's dictum that pure mathematics is free mathematics.

Cantor says " Mathematics, in the development of its ideas, has only to
take account of the immanent reality of its concepts and has absolutely
no obligation to examine their transient reality." But this is more
gobbledegook.

Michael Gray

unread,
Sep 3, 2005, 5:27:17 AM9/3/05
to
On 1 Sep 2005 15:49:23 -0700, stevend...@yahoo.com (Daryl
McCullough) wrote:

Hear, hear!
You said it all for me.

Michael Gray

unread,
Sep 3, 2005, 5:30:04 AM9/3/05
to
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 10:13:20 +0200, "Jesse F. Hughes"
<je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:

:


>I haven't seen "mainstream" Creationists (almost an oxymoron, I know)
>demonizing their opposition as subhuman. Neither have I seen

:

You should visit alt.atheism some time.
The self-proclaimed creationists who post (uninvited) there, do it
most, if not all, of the time.

William of Ockham

unread,
Sep 3, 2005, 7:10:20 AM9/3/05
to

> Opposition to Cantor is like creationism or intelligent design in
> the sense that it has nothing *positive* to offer in its place; it
> is an entirely negative endeavor.

>The anti-Cantorians ... have no coherent theory to offer


>in replacement of classical mathematics. If they did, there would
>be no need for their attacks on classical mathematics. It actually
>works the other way around: it is *classical mathematics* whose
>very existence is threatening to the anti-Cantorians.

Therefore you cannot criticise a theory, unless you can offer a better
theory? Most better theories arise in the context of people thinking,
there's something wrong with the existing one.

I don't know much about the intelligent design controversy. Cleary
there's nothing to it unless it can produce coherent argument or
evidence against the prevailing theory. To the extent that it does,
it's healthy. It causes us to re-examine assumptions or arguments that
we may have been to lazy to question.

There's plenty of evidence that academic theories are self-perpetuating
in the sense that there is no interest in challenging them.
Advancement and preferment all depend on support of the existing
theories. That is why many advances in one discipline come from
people who were not originally educated in that discipline.

Frege is one who immediately comes to mind. I'll try to think of some
others. Another is Keynes's refutation of the classical theory of
economics - Keynes was orthodox, but some of his key ideas came from a
writer who was on the lunatic fringe - I'll try and find the reference.

The problem is that 99% of apparently crackpot ideas really are
crackpot. Let's not forget Cantor himself, who spent much of his time
and money in the 1890's on trying to prove that Bacon was really
Shakespeare. Also think of Berkeley, who had two separate crackpot
schemes (one to establish a university in Bermuda, the other a theory
about tar-water) as well as his "successful" theory of Idealism (itself
a bit cracked, in my view).

Hypothesis: there is a "crackpot gene". Distinguished by an inability
to accept the ideas one was educated to believe (and often
characterised by inability to master said subjects), plus the
advancement of ideas, often strange, that challenge the conventional
wisdom. Refusal to accept any argument to the contrary.

How many of the great innovators actually had the crackpot gene?
Remember it is awfully hard to challenge the accepted wisdom. The
dogged determination to succeed at all costs, regardless, is a
prerequisite.

Jesse F. Hughes

unread,
Sep 3, 2005, 8:24:00 AM9/3/05
to
Michael Gray <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> writes:

Well, I did put "mainstream" in the description. I don't consider
alt.atheism to be populated by run-of-the-mill Creationists,
evolutionary biologists, Christians or atheists. It's filled with
people that have some compulsion to argue over these things, even
though nothing ever gets settled.

Not that there's anything wrong with that compulsion, but I'm not
surprised if the folks there turn heated.

But if you'll look at the Creationist literature and the language that
Creationists[1] use when pressing their agenda, I think you'll have
trouble finding what David Petry describes.

But, of course, he's only after one inference:

Creationism = "Cantor's theory" (whatever that means)
Creationism is bad.
------------------------------------
Therefore, "Cantor's theory" is bad.

(Note: I don't defend Creationism in general. I just think that
Creationists do not typically treat their opponents as "subhuman". He
only made that claim because he wanted to apply it to mathematicians --
sorry, "Cantorians"[2] -- too.)

[Note followups]

Footnotes:
[1] I guess I better add a caveat for Jack Chick here.

[2] It is to laugh.

--
"Sorry, wakeup to the real world. You're on your own dependent on me
as your guide. Luckily for you, I'm self-correcting to a large extent,
so if the proof were wrong, I'd tell you. It's not wrong."
--- James Harris confirms that his proof is correct.

Daryl McCullough

unread,
Sep 3, 2005, 10:04:44 AM9/3/05
to
William of Ockham says...

>Therefore you cannot criticise a theory, unless you can offer a better
>theory?

There are already several alternatives to classical mathematics.
There's constructive logic, intuitionism, category theory.

>Most better theories arise in the context of people thinking,
>there's something wrong with the existing one.

Not in the sense of David Petry's complaints. Better theories
arise when people try to answer questions that can't be answered
in the current theory, or which give inconsistent answers, or
answers that are in disagreement with observations.

David Petry's complaints about classical mathematics don't
have that character at all.

>There's plenty of evidence that academic theories are self-perpetuating
>in the sense that there is no interest in challenging them.

I don't think that's true at all. You are much more likely to
become a famous scholar by doing something new than by following
traditional lines. The problem is that coming up with something
really new and really *good* is very, very hard. It doesn't
happen very often.

>Advancement and preferment all depend on support of the existing
>theories. That is why many advances in one discipline come from
>people who were not originally educated in that discipline.

There used to be very few professional mathematicians, so it's
not surprising that there was a lot of untapped mathematical
talent.

>Frege is one who immediately comes to mind. I'll try to think of some
>others. Another is Keynes's refutation of the classical theory of
>economics - Keynes was orthodox, but some of his key ideas came from a
>writer who was on the lunatic fringe - I'll try and find the reference.

The problem with crackpots in physics and mathematics today is that
they really aren't lunatics. It's not that they have great, bold
new ideas that are rejected by the mainstream, it is that they are
complainers and incompetents.

>How many of the great innovators actually had the crackpot gene?
>Remember it is awfully hard to challenge the accepted wisdom. The
>dogged determination to succeed at all costs, regardless, is a
>prerequisite.

The only crackpot who fits your profile is, I think, James Harris.
He really does have an idea that he is pursuing doggedly, which is
to come up with an elementary proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. The
other crackpots don't have a positive agenda at all, they are just
interested in complaining about the mainstream.

david petry

unread,
Sep 3, 2005, 4:44:07 PM9/3/05
to
>the only "reality
>checks" that matter in mathematics are internal consistency

That's what they say.

david petry

unread,
Sep 3, 2005, 4:52:00 PM9/3/05
to
Daryl McCullough wrote:


>Opposition to Cantor [...] has nothing *positive* to offer in its place; it


>is an entirely negative endeavor.

The purpose of the opposition is to clear out the deadwood so that
new ideas can take root.

david petry

unread,
Sep 3, 2005, 5:01:16 PM9/3/05
to
Herman Jurjus wrote:

>> A new world view, and a new paradigm for mathematics, have emerged
>> from the computer revolution. This new world view strips away the
>> mysticism from the mind, and from the foundations of mathematics.

>But does this new paradigm have a -formalism- as elaborated as FOL+ZFC?

It has a perfectly rigorous foundation.

Robert Low

unread,
Sep 3, 2005, 5:29:08 PM9/3/05
to
david petry wrote:

> Herman Jurjus wrote:
>>But does this new paradigm have a -formalism- as elaborated as FOL+ZFC?
> It has a perfectly rigorous foundation.

I think that something more than a 'yes' was really
being looked for there.

Jesse F. Hughes

unread,
Sep 3, 2005, 5:55:10 PM9/3/05
to
"david petry" <david_lawr...@yahoo.com> writes:

How's it going?

--
What you want with a hen? What you want with a woman
Won't cackle when she lays when she won't do nothin' I say?
What you want with a hen? -- Charlie Patton,
Won't cackle when she lays "Banty Rooster Blues"

Daryl McCullough

unread,
Sep 3, 2005, 5:52:17 PM9/3/05
to
david petry says...

>The purpose of the opposition is to clear out the deadwood so that
>new ideas can take root.

I think you have a mistaken idea of where ideas come from.

david petry

unread,
Sep 4, 2005, 4:59:33 PM9/4/05
to

Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
> "david petry" <david_lawr...@yahoo.com> writes:

> > The purpose of the opposition is to clear out the deadwood so that
> > new ideas can take root.


> How's it going?

Not so hot. I really used to believe I would win this battle. Now, I
believe nothing short of a holocaust, or perhaps divine intervention
(you never know), or both, will clear out the deadwood.

Sad, really.

david petry

unread,
Sep 4, 2005, 5:01:54 PM9/4/05
to
Daryl McCullough wrote:

>>The purpose of the opposition is to clear out the deadwood so that
>>new ideas can take root.

>I think you have a mistaken idea of where ideas come from.

I think you mistakenly think I care what you think.

david petry

unread,
Sep 4, 2005, 5:03:59 PM9/4/05
to
Robert Low wrote:

FWIW, the answer wasn't "yes".

David Kastrup

unread,
Sep 4, 2005, 5:08:08 PM9/4/05
to
"david petry" <david_lawr...@yahoo.com> writes:

Give you a hint: as long as it sprouts, blossoms, bears fruit, is
robust and sound and stands up solidly to a beating, chances are that
insisting on a classification as deadwood is not the best way to
advance one's reputation as an arborist.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Robert Low

unread,
Sep 4, 2005, 5:16:17 PM9/4/05
to

Well, if it was 'no', I think a 'no, but...' would
have been more appropriate. Just claiming 'perfectly
rigorous' is not hugely informative.

Jesse F. Hughes

unread,
Sep 4, 2005, 5:31:00 PM9/4/05
to
"david petry" <david_lawr...@yahoo.com> writes:

Well, fight the good fight, brother. If you win, then I'm behind you
all the way.

But you're right. It is simply amazing that a guy posting on Usenet
can't persuade the mathematical community to forsake their
mathematical foundations in favor of some theory to be named later. I
mean, what does it take anyway?

Well, anyway, good luck. And if I were you, I'd go for the divine
intervention. Folks that write the history books look more kindly on
that one than the alternative[1].

Footnotes:
[1] To be honest, I think tossing about the term "holocaust" like
that is in very bad taste.

--
"No feeling sympathy for mathematicians who start marching with signs
like 'Will work for food' in the future... I will not show mercy
going forward. I was trained as a soldier in the United States Army
after all... We play to win." --James Harris, feel his wrath!

Herman Jurjus

unread,
Sep 5, 2005, 2:40:12 AM9/5/05
to

Apparantly we disagree on the meaning of 'rigor'. But never mind that.

Can you give examples of mathematical statements that are true according
to standard theory and false according to yours? (Or vice versa).

Second question: suppose someone wants to define a mathematical
structure, as an abstract model for some part of physical reality. Can
you give examples of the constructions you would want to allow, and of
those you wouldn't want to allow?
Or don't you allow any such models, because they're of no use, anyway?

--
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

unread,
Sep 6, 2005, 7:54:43 AM9/6/05
to
In <dfcah...@drn.newsguy.com>, on 09/03/2005

at 07:04 AM, stevend...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) said:

>Not in the sense of David Petry's complaints. Better theories arise
>when people try to answer questions that can't be answered in the
>current theory, or which give inconsistent answers, or answers that
>are in disagreement with observations.

Or when they unify existing theories. But, of course, that's not what
DP is trying to do; he's simply rejecting a theory that works because
he finds it emotionally unsatisfying.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org

david petry

unread,
Sep 6, 2005, 4:16:29 PM9/6/05
to

Herman Jurjus wrote:

> Can you give examples of mathematical statements that are true according
> to standard theory and false according to yours? (Or vice versa).

I have been arguing that in order for a statement to be true, it must
be
meaningful, and in order to be meaningful, it must have observable
implications (i.e. it must make predictions about the results of
experiments).
I have illustrated this point with lots of examples. So, the answer to
your
question is...

Yes.

0 new messages