Modern science comparable with medieval theology

16 views
Skip to first unread message

Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue

unread,
May 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/22/00
to
<de lurks while drinking my "afternoon" coffee>
G'Day All
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert

Hi! z@z, the 6 billionth brith has come and well and truly gone, have
you dropped your claims re a fixed number of human souls, or have you
modified your theories to accomodate this fact :-)

On 21 May 2000 13:09:57 -0400, "z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:

>The state of modern science (theology) is in several respects similar
>to its state at the beginning of the 17th century.
>
>1) In PHYSICS and ASTRONOMY, it is the Lorentz transformation which
> plays today the role of the circle in the old astronomy. Even Galilei,
> the so-called founder of "modern science", adhered to the principle of
> epicycles and fought the essentially new astronomy of Kepler which was
> based on modern physical laws.

Actually, no. While Keplers eliptic orbits were correct, the physical
laws which desribed them weren't worked out until much later, using
Newtons laws of motion, which were ironically prefigured by Gallileo's
laws of motion.

> Many of the so-called 'elementary particles' such as virtual photons,
> quarks, gluons, gravitons and others have no more reality than medieval
> angels, devils and gods.

Hmm, quarks and gluons have been demonstrated using a variety of
experiments, and "virtual" photons have been demonstrated (indirectly
of course). Gravitions are consequences of a quantum mechanical
description of gravity, but no one has been able to get a test up yet.

>2) In BIOLOGY, panpsychism (also advocated by Kepler) still today waits
> for being generally acknowledged as a much better and more consistent
> basis for explaning living organisms than (materialistic) reductionism.

How about the more accurate "panpsychism is demonstarted to be
completely without foundation and unable to explain even the simplest
biological phenomenon, and the proposed test of panpsychism based on
the human population has falisifed this hypothesis"

>3) To the WITCH-HUNTING of the 17th century corresponds the AIDS-HYSTERIA
> of today. (Without Kepler's intervention, even his mother would have
> been tortured and killed for the sake of her own soul or of mankind.)
>
> Antibodies to a harmless retrovirus correspond nowadays to the devil
> birthmarks and signs having singled out witches from 'healthy' persons.

It's hardly harmless, HIV, like simian and feline immunodeficeny virus
causes a rather horrrible disease. The related T-cell leukeamia virus
is responsible for, well, T-cell leukamia

>Most convincing arguments against the HIV-AIDS thesis:
>
> Only a fraction of a microgram of HIV can be found in 'infected'
> people.

Not true, there is not much in blood, but there is far more virus in
lymphatic tissue. The levels of virus also increase during the course
of infection as well. AS well, how much of ANY virus do you expect
during an infection. The HIV viremia is similar to hepatitis viremia
and Herpes simplex viremia. (of course, viruses do _replicate_ you
know)

> It is highly unlikely that such a small quantity can have
> a negative effect.

Only if you don't understand biology. Wolfgang, it's been explained to
you doezens of times how the virus kills immune cells, and that we
have experimental evidence from _in_vitor_ and _in_vivo_ studies of
the virus. You don't need much virus to kill off the CD4+ lyphocytes.
This has been explained many times before in this newsgroup, with lots
of supporting documentation. (Search DejaNews for AIDS: have we been
misled? for several posts with detailed responses to your claims, you
haven't changed you claims one iota even after this).

> Panic, fear and antiviral drugs however have
> very concrete negative effects on the immune system.

The same antiviral drugs that have extended the lifespan of AIDS
victims? Mortality is decreased by 50% or more in most studies, that
doesn't translate well to years, because of different progresion rates
of different cohorts (early intervention vs late intervention, high
viremia vs low viremia), but it has been shown that the introduction
of HAART has reduced deaths from AIDS from 27 per 100 person years in
1994 to 9 per 100 person years in 1997, and the incidence of
opportunistic infections from 22 per 100 person years to 4 per 100
person years.

> The probability that two (fatal) viruses as different as HIV-1 and HIV-2
> (a close relative of SIV) began to spread in mankind exactly at the time
> when the technology to detect such viruses was developed is extremely
> small.

HIV1 and HIV2 are closely related, both being derived from two
separate strains of SIV. Given the proximity of humans to SIV infected
apes and monkeys, cross infection is not unlikely.

> Past predictions based on the HIV-AIDS thesis have been refuted by
> reality the better, the better the data is.

Hmm, this "reality" of your appears not to co-incide with our world.

To summarise the evidence that HIV causes AIDS

1) In vitro, HIV can infect T cells and macrophages, both very
important cells of the immune system, and can lead to T cell death,

2) In vivo, the rise in HIV viral particles _preceedes_ any falls in
CD4+ cell count and immune disfunction.

3) From accidental needle stick injuries, surgical and dental
transmission and transfusion accidents, we know that HIV exposure
alone is sufficent to progress to develop HIV infection and subsequent
AIDS.

4) Closely related viruses also can infect cells of the immune system
and cause immunodeficiency eg. SIV (simian immunodeficiency virus) and
FIV (feline immunodeficiency virus). THe SIVmac strain even produces
AIDS in maques.

5) An enormous anount of excellent epidemiological evidence shows a
strong correlation between HIV and AIDS, and between preventative
measures for HIV transmission decreasing AIDS cases in a population.
For even stronger data, look at the data gathered from prisons where
needle cleaning facilities and condoms have been provided.

There is also lots of evidence that HIV transcriptase inhibitors
reduce mortality and morbidity in HIV patients, therapies with single
compounds work, but are limited by a) the virus hiding in dendritic
cells, the choroid plexus and other sites poorly accesible to these
drugs and b) the viruses rapid mutation rate. Aggressive therapy with
two strcuturally unrelated HIV transcrritase inhibitors combined with
a HIV protease inhibitor works vastly better, and greatly increses the
time to HIV mutant break through.

References:

Graham BS. Infection with HIV-1. BMJ. 1998 Nov 7;317(7168):1297-301.
(good overview)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Report of the NIH panel to
define principles of therapy of HIV infection and guidelines for the
use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-infected adults and adolescents.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1998; 47:182.
ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Publications/mmwr/rr/rr4705.pdf

Hellerstein M, et al. Directly measured kinetics of circulating T
lymphocytes in normal and HIV-1-infected humans. Nat Med. 1999
Jan;5(1):83-9. (HIV and CD4+ cell death)

Oxenius A, et al., Early highly active antiretroviral therapy for
acute HIV-1 infection preserves immune function of CD8+ and CD4+ T
lymphocytes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Mar 28;97(7):3382-7.

Murphy RL. Stavudine-based multiple agent combinations: initial
studies and ongoing comparative trials. Antivir Ther. 1998;3 Suppl
4:69-73

Egger M, et al. Impact of new antiretroviral combination therapies in
HIV infected patients in Switzerland: prospective multicentre study.
Swiss HIV Cohort Study. BMJ. 1997 Nov 8;315(7117):1194-9.

Lederman MM, et al. Immunologic responses associated with 12 weeks of
combination antiretroviral therapy consisting of zidovudine,
lamivudine, and ritonavir: results of AIDS Clinical Trials Group
Protocol 315. J Infect Dis. 1998 Jul;178(1):70-9.

Pakker NG, et al. Patterns of T-cell repopulation, virus load
reduction, and restoration of T-cell function in HIV-infected persons
during therapy with different antiretroviral agents. J Acquir Immune
Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1997 Dec 15;16(5):318-26. (where the virus
goes during latent infection)

For some online resources
Articles from the British Medical Journal
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/317/7168/1297
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/316/7131/600

More generalist information in plain language
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/howhiv.htm
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm
http://www.aidsmap.com/home.htm

Cheers! Ian
=====================================================
Ian Musgrave Peta O'Donohue,Jack Francis and Michael James Musgrave
reyn...@werple.mira.net.au http://werple.mira.net.au/~reynella/
a collection of Dawkins inspired weasle programs http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~ianm/whale.htm
Southern Sky Watch http://www.abc.net.au/science/space/default.htm


z@z

unread,
May 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/22/00
to
Hi Ian Musgrave!


> Hi! z@z, the 6 billionth birth has come and well and truly gone, have


> you dropped your claims re a fixed number of human souls, or have you
> modified your theories to accomodate this fact :-)

"The psychon theory has very concrete consequences, for instance there
must be a limit to the number of human souls, which according to the
latest demographic data could be even less than 7 billion."
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html

"As late as in 1992 UN projected a world population between 6.093 and
6.420 billion for the year 2000. In the meanwhile (only six years later!)
it's almost sure that it will be less than 6.093 billion."
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/evidence.html#demography

We have reached the year 2000!

The demographic saturation theory is an exceptionally concise theory
based on fundamental principles leading to very clear and precise
predictions which unlike the predictions of orthodox demography agree
with reality. http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/demography.html


>> The state of modern science (theology) is in several respects similar
>> to its state at the beginning of the 17th century.
>>
>> 1) In PHYSICS and ASTRONOMY, it is the Lorentz transformation which
>> plays today the role of the circle in the old astronomy. Even Galilei,
>> the so-called founder of "modern science", adhered to the principle of
>> epicycles and fought the essentially new astronomy of Kepler which was
>> based on modern physical laws.
>
> Actually, no. While Keplers eliptic orbits were correct, the physical
> laws which desribed them weren't worked out until much later, using

> Newtons laws of motion, which were ironically prefigured by Galileo's
> laws of motion.

It is simply wrong to assume that Kepler did not understand or did not
even know of the principles of inertia and relativity. These principles
are much older than Kepler. And it is simply absurd to assume that Kepler
believed in Aristotelian physics.

Here quotations from 'Thematic origins of scientific thought' by Gerald
Holton, Harvard U.Press, 1973, p.76:

"Kepler's first recognition is that forces between bodies are caused
not by their relative positions or their geometrical arrangements, as
was accepted by Aristotle, Ptolemy, and Copernicus, but by mechanical
interactions between material objects. Already in the Mysterium
Cosmographicum [1596] (Chap. 17) he announced "Nullum punctum, nullum
centrum grave est," and he gave the example of the attraction between
a magnet and a piece of iron. In William Gilbert's De Magnete (1600),
published four years later, Kepler finds a careful explanation that
the action of magnets seems to come from the pole points, but must be
attributed to the parts of the body, not the points."

"In the Introduction to the Astronomia Nova [1609], [...], Kepler is
quite explicit: [...]

'Gravitation consists in the mutual bodily striving among related
bodies toward union or connection; (of this order is also the
magnetic force).'

This premonition of universal gravitation is by no means an isolated
example of lucky intuition. Kepler's feeling for the physical situation
is admirably sound, as shown in additional axioms:

'If the earth were not round, a heavy body would be driven not
everywhere straight toward the middle of the earth, but toward
different points from different places.

If one were to transport two stones to any arbitrary place in the
world, closely together but outside the field of force (extra orbe
virtutis) of a third related body, then those stones would come
together at some intermediate place similar to two magnetic bodies,
the first approaching the second through a distance which is
proportional to the mass (moles) of the second.'

And after this precursor of the principle of conservation of momentum,
there follows the first attempt at a good explanation for the tides
in terms of a force of attraction exerted by the moon."

See also http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=569040233


>> Many of the so-called 'elementary particles' such as virtual photons,
>> quarks, gluons, gravitons and others have no more reality than medieval
>> angels, devils and gods.
>
> Hmm, quarks and gluons have been demonstrated using a variety of
> experiments, and "virtual" photons have been demonstrated (indirectly
> of course). Gravitions are consequences of a quantum mechanical
> description of gravity, but no one has been able to get a test up yet.

In medieval times there were lots of highly respected persons who testified
for angels and devils. They had interpreted some experiences in their lives
as a proof of the existence of such entities.

In the same way, modern scientists interpret some statistical data as
evidence for imaginary particles.

It is quite normal that we repeat the same errors over and over again.
Nevertheless, the repetition of the same errors constitutes progress if
the errors only occur at more and more sophisticated levels.

Virtual photons cannot exist because electostatic and magnetic effects
(in vacuum) do not propagate but are instantaneous actions at a distance.

And neutrons do not decay into quarks but into electrons and protons.
In my opinion it does not make sense to claim that a neutron consists
of three quarks but that it is impossible to separate these quarks
from each other.


Wolfgang Gottfried G.

Ross Bradley

unread,
May 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/22/00
to

z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote in message news:8gbks4$n77$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net...

[snip]

> And neutrons do not decay into quarks but into electrons and protons.
> In my opinion it does not make sense to claim that a neutron consists
> of three quarks but that it is impossible to separate these quarks
> from each other.
>
>
> Wolfgang Gottfried G.
>

Wrong,

There's an extremely well written, easy to understand book:

"The God Particle" by Leon Lederman with Dick Teresi

that has a lot of background information to the development of the Standard
Model. The book outlines the development of atomic theory from ancient
Greece to today. It includes numerous examples of particle decay including
neuton decay. It also explains why a naked quark can't be seen and why a 3
quark particle decays into a set of other particles that don't include naked
quarks.

As for the comparison of modern science with medieval theology, good
comparison - not. The work of modern science is as much about tearing down
old structures as it is about building on those structures. If a blip is
found in a set of results then expirementalists will look for new physics
being involved. A test will be run repeatedly, it can be run on different
equipment (in another country) to try to eliminate artifacts introduced by
expiremental error. If expiremental data does not confirm theory then the
theory is re-examined, modified or rebuilt. It is the non-scientists who
take everything as a matter of faith, invoke mystical cause and who won't
change their opinion in the face of over whelming evidence (or simply say
that the evidence is wrong).

Ross

wf...@ptd.net

unread,
May 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/22/00
to
On 21 May 2000 13:09:57 -0400, "z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:

>The state of modern science (theology) is in several respects similar
>to its state at the beginning of the 17th century.
>
>1) In PHYSICS and ASTRONOMY, it is the Lorentz transformation which
> plays today the role of the circle in the old astronomy. Even Galilei,
> the so-called founder of "modern science", adhered to the principle of
> epicycles and fought the essentially new astronomy of Kepler which was
> based on modern physical laws.
>

> Many of the so-called 'elementary particles' such as virtual photons,
> quarks, gluons, gravitons and others have no more reality than medieval
> angels, devils and gods.

gee we just went thru this

gluons have been detected. they exist. the effects of virtual partices
can be measured

creationists now are trying to discredit science by saying it doesnt
exist...why they think creationism should be science when they say it
doesnt exist is just another in a series of creationist
contradictions.


sarah clark

unread,
May 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/22/00
to

wf...@ptd.net wrote:

> On 21 May 2000 13:09:57 -0400, "z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
>
> >The state of modern science (theology) is in several respects similar
> >to its state at the beginning of the 17th century.
> >
> >1) In PHYSICS and ASTRONOMY, it is the Lorentz transformation which
> > plays today the role of the circle in the old astronomy. Even Galilei,
> > the so-called founder of "modern science", adhered to the principle of
> > epicycles and fought the essentially new astronomy of Kepler which was
> > based on modern physical laws.
> >
> > Many of the so-called 'elementary particles' such as virtual photons,
> > quarks, gluons, gravitons and others have no more reality than medieval
> > angels, devils and gods.
>
> gee we just went thru this
>
> gluons have been detected. they exist. the effects of virtual partices
> can be measured

prove to me they have been *observed* :- )

Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
G'Day All
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert

On 22 May 2000 11:49:31 -0400, "z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:

>Hi Ian Musgrave!

>> Hi! z@z, the 6 billionth birth has come and well and truly gone, have
>> you dropped your claims re a fixed number of human souls, or have you
>> modified your theories to accomodate this fact :-)
>
> "The psychon theory has very concrete consequences, for instance there
> must be a limit to the number of human souls, which according to the
> latest demographic data could be even less than 7 billion."
> http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html

Yes, and a nice concrete quantitative number "could be even less than
7 billion" is.

> "As late as in 1992 UN projected a world population between 6.093 and
> 6.420 billion for the year 2000. In the meanwhile (only six years later!)
> it's almost sure that it will be less than 6.093 billion."
> http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/evidence.html#demography
>
>We have reached the year 2000!

And we are well over 6 billion people now, and will certainly fall
within the UN's estimates, which, by the way, are based on the ability
of WHO and regional goverments to teach and make available
contraception to many people, in a concerted effort to slow population
growth.

>The demographic saturation theory is an exceptionally concise theory
>based on fundamental principles leading to very clear and precise
>predictions which unlike the predictions of orthodox demography agree
>with reality. http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/demography.html

For a _very_ loose defintion of "precise" and "reality".

>>> The state of modern science (theology) is in several respects similar
>>> to its state at the beginning of the 17th century.
>>>
>>> 1) In PHYSICS and ASTRONOMY, it is the Lorentz transformation which
>>> plays today the role of the circle in the old astronomy. Even Galilei,
>>> the so-called founder of "modern science", adhered to the principle of
>>> epicycles and fought the essentially new astronomy of Kepler which was
>>> based on modern physical laws.
>>
>> Actually, no. While Keplers eliptic orbits were correct, the physical
>> laws which desribed them weren't worked out until much later, using
>> Newtons laws of motion, which were ironically prefigured by Galileo's
>> laws of motion.
>
>It is simply wrong to assume that Kepler did not understand or did not
>even know of the principles of inertia and relativity. These principles
>are much older than Kepler. And it is simply absurd to assume that Kepler
>believed in Aristotelian physics.

Which is irelevant to the point, Kepler was at least aware of
Galileo's work on motion (which demolished Aristotolean views) but
even Galileo's work on inertial reference frames, and Keplers own
work, did not proved a sufficent basis to explain his orbits, that
required Newton. While Galileo and Kepler pre-figured modern physical
laws, they were not based on modern physical laws.

[snip irrelvant stuff]


>
>>> Many of the so-called 'elementary particles' such as virtual photons,
>>> quarks, gluons, gravitons and others have no more reality than medieval
>>> angels, devils and gods.
>>
>> Hmm, quarks and gluons have been demonstrated using a variety of
>> experiments, and "virtual" photons have been demonstrated (indirectly
>> of course). Gravitions are consequences of a quantum mechanical
>> description of gravity, but no one has been able to get a test up yet.
>
>In medieval times there were lots of highly respected persons who testified
>for angels and devils. They had interpreted some experiences in their lives
>as a proof of the existence of such entities.

However, they never _tested_ their experiences, modern physics does,
even to destruction (they've just had _another_ go at relativity, and
it's passed with flying colours again).

>In the same way, modern scientists interpret some statistical data as
>evidence for imaginary particles.

Every test that has been applied to protons has been applied to
gluons. It's not just statistics, its the energies and lifetimes of
these particles that can be measured, and they agree with predictions
(over several different _kinds_ of test in different groups world
wide) to a staggering number of decimal places (unlike your "could be
even less than 7 billion" "predicition"). This is no fluke.

>It is quite normal that we repeat the same errors over and over again.

Except they have used _different_ kinds of test and came up with the
same answers.

>Nevertheless, the repetition of the same errors constitutes progress if
>the errors only occur at more and more sophisticated levels.

So, of course you can point to the _explicit_ errors in the gluon
experiments which invalidate them. For example, what aspect of the
three jet result is an error, and why do different people get the same
result? (done at DESY in 1979 and then confirmed at SLAC, and repeated
under many differnt condition since then). And what is the erro in
ypsilon decay experiments which also demonstrate gluons?

>Virtual photons cannot exist because electostatic and magnetic effects
>(in vacuum) do not propagate but are instantaneous actions at a distance.

Sadly for you, we know that this is not true.

>And neutrons do not decay into quarks but into electrons and protons.
>In my opinion it does not make sense to claim that a neutron consists
>of three quarks but that it is impossible to separate these quarks
>from each other.

Have you actually _tried_ to understand quark confinement theory, or
the experimental tests that underlie it.

I note that you have ignored the HIV material. Did you ever read any
of the references I posted the first time around? If you can't access
these materials, I can mail you photocopies of them.

Gary Stein

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to

"sarah clark" <s...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:3929F8BF...@hal-pc.org...

>
>
> wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>
> > On 21 May 2000 13:09:57 -0400, "z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
> >
> > >The state of modern science (theology) is in several respects
similar
> > >to its state at the beginning of the 17th century.
> > >
> > >1) In PHYSICS and ASTRONOMY, it is the Lorentz transformation
which
> > > plays today the role of the circle in the old astronomy. Even
Galilei,
> > > the so-called founder of "modern science", adhered to the
principle of
> > > epicycles and fought the essentially new astronomy of Kepler
which was
> > > based on modern physical laws.
> > >
> > > Many of the so-called 'elementary particles' such as virtual
photons,
> > > quarks, gluons, gravitons and others have no more reality than
medieval
> > > angels, devils and gods.
> >
> > gee we just went thru this
> >
> > gluons have been detected. they exist. the effects of virtual
partices
> > can be measured
>
> prove to me they have been *observed* :- )

Do you have the math background to understand the proof if it's
offered, I know I don't?
--
Gary Stein
ges...@starpower.net
http://www.mischealthaids.org

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea
massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and
a source of mind- boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect
it."
(Gene Spafford)


the tree by the river

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
In article <8g956v$agi$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
>The state of modern science (theology) is in several respects similar
>to its state at the beginning of the 17th century.
>
>1) In PHYSICS and ASTRONOMY, it is the Lorentz transformation which
> plays today the role of the circle in the old astronomy. Even Galilei,
> the so-called founder of "modern science", adhered to the principle of
> epicycles and fought the essentially new astronomy of Kepler which was
> based on modern physical laws.
>
> Many of the so-called 'elementary particles' such as virtual photons,
> quarks, gluons, gravitons and others have no more reality than medieval
> angels, devils and gods.

Question 1 (15 points): derive the formula for the magnitude of the
Casimir force based on the model that the electromagnetic force
is mediated through medieval angels, devils, and gods. You may
use a paper, pencil, and abacus, but no calculators or computing
machinery. Show all work; be sure to verify that your formula
produces results in the correct units (i.e., no stray "meters-per-
demigod" or "kilogram-angels-squared" terms) Extra credit will
be given to students who can perform this derivation entirely in
Latin, using only Roman numerals.

Question 2 (10 points): design a simple linear accelerator and
detector arrangement that will allow you to collide angels
and devils at known energy levels and observe the products
created in the interaction. Your detector should allow you
to measure goodness/energy ratios; it is not necessary that
your detector register massless entities (angelinos, neutral
demons) unless they transsubstantiate while passing through
the target wafer.

You may pick up your pencils and begin; no talking until the test
is completed. Points will be subtracted for excessive use of
capital letters.

--
[ Trygve Lode ] music videos and MP3 files on [ Nyx Net, free ISP ]
[ http://www.trygve.com ] http://www.mp3.com/TrygveLode [ http://www.nyx.net ]
soc.singles FAQ [ ] Misc.Fitness.Weights homepage
http://www.trygve.com/ssfaq.html [ ] http://www.trygve.com/mfw.html


Bob Myers

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to

the tree by the river wrote in message <95909304...@iris.nyx.net>...

>Question 1 (15 points): derive the formula for the magnitude of the
> Casimir force based on the model that the electromagnetic force
> is mediated through medieval angels, devils, and gods. You may
> use a paper, pencil, and abacus, but no calculators or computing
> machinery. Show all work; be sure to verify that your formula
> produces results in the correct units (i.e., no stray "meters-per-
> demigod" or "kilogram-angels-squared" terms) Extra credit will
> be given to students who can perform this derivation entirely in
> Latin, using only Roman numerals.

Ummmm....what IS the proper SI unit for the angelic field strength?
I KNOW I had that CRC (Code of Religious Conversions) Handbook
around here SOMEWHERE....


Bob M.

wf...@ptd.net

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
On 22 May 2000 23:33:25 -0400, sarah clark <s...@hal-pc.org> wrote:

>
>
>wf...@ptd.net wrote:


>
>> On 21 May 2000 13:09:57 -0400, "z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
>>
>> >The state of modern science (theology) is in several respects similar
>> >to its state at the beginning of the 17th century.
>> >
>> >1) In PHYSICS and ASTRONOMY, it is the Lorentz transformation which
>> > plays today the role of the circle in the old astronomy. Even Galilei,
>> > the so-called founder of "modern science", adhered to the principle of
>> > epicycles and fought the essentially new astronomy of Kepler which was
>> > based on modern physical laws.
>> >
>> > Many of the so-called 'elementary particles' such as virtual photons,
>> > quarks, gluons, gravitons and others have no more reality than medieval
>> > angels, devils and gods.
>>

>> gee we just went thru this
>>
>> gluons have been detected. they exist. the effects of virtual partices
>> can be measured
>
>prove to me they have been *observed* :- )
>
>>

hold on...i have one in my pocket...or is that just a ball of lint...i
keep getting them mixed up...


Ken Cox

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
Uncle Al wrote:
> Demons are confined within pentagrams. Icosahedral alloys: Al-Cu-Fe,
> Al-Cu-Ru, Al-Pd-Mn;

Interestingly, the above three phrases are the first words of an ancient
Sumerian demon-summoning spell.

--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com


the tree by the river

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to

Strictly speaking, angels are unitless and have no dimension, but
for practical purposes, they can be measured in radiance, with a
"standard halopower" being equal to two pi radiance.

Mark Folsom

unread,
May 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/24/00
to
Modern science is definitely comparable with medieval theology. When you
make the comparison fairly, it's obvious that science produces positive,
useful results and medieval theology produced little but misery and
ignorance. That's the comparison.

Marvin Margoshes

unread,
May 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/24/00
to

"Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue" <e21092...@minyos.its.rmit.edu.au> wrote
in message news:tu8pORsNJqzI8W...@4ax.com...

> G'Day All
> Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
>
> On 22 May 2000 11:49:31 -0400, "z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
>
> >Hi Ian Musgrave!
>
> >> Hi! z@z, the 6 billionth birth has come and well and truly gone, have
> >> you dropped your claims re a fixed number of human souls, or have you
> >> modified your theories to accomodate this fact :-)
> >
> > "The psychon theory has very concrete consequences, for instance there
> > must be a limit to the number of human souls, which according to the
> > latest demographic data could be even less than 7 billion."
> > http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
<snip>
Have we really finished calculating how many angels can dance on the head of
a pin?


Dan Drake

unread,
May 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/24/00
to
On Wed, 24 May 2000 13:25:56, "Marvin Margoshes" <phys...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>
> "Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue" <e21092...@minyos.its.rmit.edu.au> wrote
> in message news:tu8pORsNJqzI8W...@4ax.com...

> >...


> <snip>
> Have we really finished calculating how many angels can dance on the head of
> a pin?

No, the calculation can never be finished, because (whole point of the
argument) infinitely many angels can fit there.

--
Dan Drake
d...@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/index.html

Marvin Margoshes

unread,
May 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/24/00
to

"Dan Drake" <d...@dandrake.com> wrote in message
news:vhIsdqY67dTD-p...@dnai-216-15-121-8.cust.dnai.com...

Does that negate the proposed theory that there are a finite number of
souls? Or don't angels have souls? What does this have to do with science?


Mark Folsom

unread,
May 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/24/00
to
"Marvin Margoshes" <phys...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ugWW4.28688$T41.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

According to Thomas Kuhn (and who should know better?) that's just as
legitimate a scientific enterprise as modern physics.

Mark Folsom

the tree by the river

unread,
May 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/24/00
to
In article <vhIsdqY67dTD-p...@dnai-216-15-121-8.cust.dnai.com>,

Dan Drake <d...@dandrake.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 24 May 2000 13:25:56, "Marvin Margoshes" <phys...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>> Have we really finished calculating how many angels can dance on the head of
>> a pin?
>
>No, the calculation can never be finished, because (whole point of the
>argument) infinitely many angels can fit there.

So angels have integral spin? Any idea whether it's 0, 1, 2, or...?

John Wilkins - private account

unread,
May 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/24/00
to
In article
<vhIsdqY67dTD-p...@dnai-216-15-121-8.cust.dnai.com>,
d...@dandrake.com (Dan Drake) wrote:

|On Wed, 24 May 2000 13:25:56, "Marvin Margoshes" <phys...@earthlink.net>
|wrote:
|
|>

|> "Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue" <e21092...@minyos.its.rmit.edu.au>
|> wrote
|> in message news:tu8pORsNJqzI8W...@4ax.com...
|> >...
|> <snip>

|> Have we really finished calculating how many angels can dance on the
|> head of
|> a pin?
|
|No, the calculation can never be finished, because (whole point of the
|argument) infinitely many angels can fit there.


We deal with denumerable transfinite numbers all the time, don't we?

--
John Wilkins on his home account
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>


John Wilkins - private account

unread,
May 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/24/00
to
In article <siogjg...@corp.supernews.com>, "Mark Folsom"
<fols...@redshift.com> wrote:

|"Marvin Margoshes" <phys...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
|news:ugWW4.28688$T41.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
|>
|> "Dan Drake" <d...@dandrake.com> wrote in message
|> news:vhIsdqY67dTD-p...@dnai-216-15-121-8.cust.dnai.com...

|> > On Wed, 24 May 2000 13:25:56, "Marvin Margoshes"
|<phys...@earthlink.net>
|> > wrote:
|> >
|> > >
|> > > "Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue"
|> > > <e21092...@minyos.its.rmit.edu.au>
|> wrote
|> > > in message news:tu8pORsNJqzI8W...@4ax.com...
|> > > >...
|> > > <snip>
|> > > Have we really finished calculating how many angels can dance on the
|> head of
|> > > a pin?
|> >
|> > No, the calculation can never be finished, because (whole point of the
|> > argument) infinitely many angels can fit there.
|> >

|> > --
|> > Dan Drake
|> > d...@dandrake.com
|> > http://www.dandrake.com/index.html
|>
|> Does that negate the proposed theory that there are a finite number of
|> souls? Or don't angels have souls? What does this have to do with
|science?
|>
|
|According to Thomas Kuhn (and who should know better?) that's just as
|legitimate a scientific enterprise as modern physics.
|
|Mark Folsom
|
|

Incorrect. In his

Kuhn, Thomas S. The essential tension: selected studies in scientific
tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.

Kuhn explicitly lays out the criteria for a science, including such
things as testability and empirical adequacy. Perhaps you are thinking
of Feyerabend?

Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue

unread,
May 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/24/00
to
G'Day All
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert

On 24 May 2000 16:59:02 -0400, "Mark Folsom" <fols...@redshift.com>
wrote:

>"Marvin Margoshes" <phys...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:ugWW4.28688$T41.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> "Dan Drake" <d...@dandrake.com> wrote in message
>> news:vhIsdqY67dTD-p...@dnai-216-15-121-8.cust.dnai.com...
>> > On Wed, 24 May 2000 13:25:56, "Marvin Margoshes" <phys...@earthlink.net>
>> > wrote:

[snip]


>> > > Have we really finished calculating how many angels can dance on the
>> > > head of a pin?
>> >
>> > No, the calculation can never be finished, because (whole point of the
>> > argument) infinitely many angels can fit there.
>> >

>> Does that negate the proposed theory that there are a finite number of
>> souls? Or don't angels have souls? What does this have to do with
>> science?
>
>According to Thomas Kuhn (and who should know better?) that's just as
>legitimate a scientific enterprise as modern physics.

No, that's according to Paul Feyrabend. Khun (and the majority of
philosophers of science) did not accept this.

David B. Greene

unread,
May 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/24/00
to
"Mark Folsom" <fols...@redshift.com> wrote:

True, I suppose, but tell it to the Thalidomide babies.

OTOH, I'm quite sure there was plenty of misery and ignorance
in Europe before the Church moved in. Of course they bought
their science off of the atheist Aristotle which is surprising
considering the ignorance and misery the atheist Stalin brought
to the continent on a far larger scale and in a much shorter time
frame.

What really gripes me, though, is those darn enlightened atheists of
the French Revolution who sent Antoine Lavosier to the guillotine.
At least the RCC apologized for putting Galileo under house arrest.

Dave "comparisons are wonderful things" Greene


Matt Silberstein

unread,
May 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/24/00
to
In alt.religion.christian I read
<392c9091...@news.u.washington.edu> from da...@u.washington.edu
(David B. Greene):

|"Mark Folsom" <fols...@redshift.com> wrote:
|
|>Modern science is definitely comparable with medieval theology. When you
|>make the comparison fairly, it's obvious that science produces positive,
|>useful results and medieval theology produced little but misery and
|>ignorance. That's the comparison.
|
|True, I suppose, but tell it to the Thalidomide babies.

Wow, you can find people hurt. Did you know some people die from
antibiotics? That heart drugs can kill? That some people die from
surgery? No need to look for life expectancies, no need to try to sum
of the results.

|OTOH, I'm quite sure there was plenty of misery and ignorance
|in Europe before the Church moved in. Of course they bought
|their science off of the atheist Aristotle which is surprising
|considering the ignorance and misery the atheist Stalin brought
|to the continent on a far larger scale and in a much shorter time
|frame.

Not bad for a set of non-seqitors. Tell me when you get back to
discussing theology vs. science.

|What really gripes me, though, is those darn enlightened atheists of
|the French Revolution who sent Antoine Lavosier to the guillotine.
|At least the RCC apologized for putting Galileo under house arrest.

Is there an atheist head quarters you can write to? BTW, have you read
Mark Twain's essay on the two reigns of terror? One long and bloody
before the revolution, the other much shorter after the revolution.


|Dave "comparisons are wonderful things" Greene

You should try to compare things fairly next time.


--
Matt Silberstein

Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order

Pierre Joseph Proudhon

David B. Greene

unread,
May 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/25/00
to
"Mark Folsom" <fols...@redshift.com> wrote:

>Modern science is definitely comparable with medieval theology. When you
>make the comparison fairly, it's obvious that science produces positive,
>useful results and medieval theology produced little but misery and
>ignorance. That's the comparison.

True, I suppose, but tell it to the Thalidomide babies.

OTOH, I'm quite sure there was plenty of misery and ignorance


in Europe before the Church moved in. Of course they bought
their science off of the atheist Aristotle which is surprising
considering the ignorance and misery the atheist Stalin brought
to the continent on a far larger scale and in a much shorter time
frame.

What really gripes me, though, is those darn enlightened atheists of


the French Revolution who sent Antoine Lavosier to the guillotine.
At least the RCC apologized for putting Galileo under house arrest.

Dave "comparisons are wonderful things" Greene

hrgr...@my-deja.com

unread,
May 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/25/00
to
In article <95920977...@iris.nyx.net>,
tl...@nyx10.nyx.net (the tree by the river) wrote:
> In article <vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-Eki4IC5EqZEg@dnai-216-15-121-

8.cust.dnai.com>,
> Dan Drake <d...@dandrake.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, 24 May 2000 13:25:56, "Marvin Margoshes"
<phys...@earthlink.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Have we really finished calculating how many angels can dance on
the head of
> >> a pin?
> >
> >No, the calculation can never be finished, because (whole point of
the
> >argument) infinitely many angels can fit there.
>
> So angels have integral spin? Any idea whether it's 0, 1, 2, or...?

Lucifer (the carrier of light) has obviously spin 1 like the photon,
although the generalization of this property to other categories of
angels is theologically dubious.

Anyone wonders what a Bose-Einstein condensate of angels would look
like ?

HRG.


> --
> [ Trygve Lode ] music videos and MP3 files on [ Nyx Net,
free ISP ]
> [ http://www.trygve.com ] http://www.mp3.com/TrygveLode [
http://www.nyx.net ]
> soc.singles FAQ [ ] Misc.Fitness.Weights
homepage
> http://www.trygve.com/ssfaq.html [ ]
http://www.trygve.com/mfw.html
>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


Mark Folsom

unread,
May 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/25/00
to

"John Wilkins - private account" <thewi...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:thewilkins-730CC...@news.bigpond.com...
> In article <siogjg...@corp.supernews.com>, "Mark Folsom"

> <fols...@redshift.com> wrote:
>
> |"Marvin Margoshes" <phys...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> |news:ugWW4.28688$T41.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
[snip]...

> |> Does that negate the proposed theory that there are a finite number of
> |> souls? Or don't angels have souls? What does this have to do with
> |science?
> |>
> |
> |According to Thomas Kuhn (and who should know better?) that's just as
> |legitimate a scientific enterprise as modern physics.
> |

> |Mark Folsom
> |
> |
>
> Incorrect. In his
>
> Kuhn, Thomas S. The essential tension: selected studies in scientific
> tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.
>
> Kuhn explicitly lays out the criteria for a science, including such
> things as testability and empirical adequacy. Perhaps you are thinking
> of Feyerabend?
>

In his Structure of Scientific Revolutions, he throws a whole nebulous bag
of stuff that was going on before Galileo into what he calls science.
Testability and empirical adequacy seem like strange criteria for someone
who didn't think that science could approach any closer to the truth over
time and did not accumulate greater knowledge over time.

However, I might take a look at the book you cite.

Mark Folsom

Benjamin P. Carter

unread,
May 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/25/00
to
Like most contributors to this thread, hrgr...@my-deja.com quotes
excessively before writing:

>Lucifer (the carrier of light) has obviously spin 1 like the photon,
>although the generalization of this property to other categories of
>angels is theologically dubious.

>Anyone wonders what a Bose-Einstein condensate of angels would look
>like ?

Angels, God, and good dead people are fermions. Only so many of them can
fit in heaven. The Pauli exclusion principle guarantees this.

Bad dead people and Satan are bosons. Hell is where you will find a BE
condensate, with room for unlimited numbers of souls.

According to supersymmetric theology, only on rare occasions is a fermion
transformed into a boson. Satan is the only example to date.
--
Ben Carter


John Wilkins - private account

unread,
May 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/25/00
to
In article <sipfsf...@corp.supernews.com>, "Mark Folsom"
<fols...@redshift.com> wrote:

Kuhn danced about a bit. In the early 60s he was talking to a group of
professionals who acceted that science was progressive and cumulative.
By the early 70s he was talking to the children of the "New Left" and
students of Feyerabend. By then cultural and epistemic relativism was
rampant. He may have thought a corrective was necessary.

Unfortunately he used a really bad evolutionary metaphor, owing so
little to Darwin and so much to Spencer (as did Popper) that it is no
help at all.

<kuhn>
|Imagine an evolutionary tree representing the development of the modern
|scientific specialities from their common origins in, say, primitive
|natural philosophy and the crafts. A line drawn up that tree, never
|doubling back, from the trunk to the tip of some branch would trace a
|succession of theories related by descent. Considering any two such
|theories, chosen from points not too near their origin, it should be easy
|to design a list of criteria that would enable an uncommitted observer to
|distinguish the earlier from the more recent theory time after time. Among
|the most useful would be: accuracy of prediction, particularly of
|quantitative prediction; the balance between esoteric and everyday subject
|matter; and the number of different problems solved. - Those lists are not
|yet the ones required, but I have no doubt they can be completed. If they
|can, then scientific development is, like biological, a unidirectional and
|irreversible process. Later scientific theories are better than earlier
|ones for solving puzzles in the often quite different environments to
|which they are applied. That is not a relativist's position, and it
|displays the sense in which I am a convinced believer in scientific
|progress. (Kuhn 1970: 205f)
</kuhn>

A correction to my earlier post: this is from
Kuhn T S, 1970. _The structure of scientific revolutions_. second
edition enlarged, U Chicago P


|
|However, I might take a look at the book you cite.
|
|Mark Folsom
|
|

--

z@z

unread,
May 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/25/00
to
: = John Wilkins
:: = Mark Folsom
::: = Marvin Margoshes
:::: = Dan Drake
::::: = Marvin Margoshes

::::: Have we really finished calculating how many angels can dance on the
::::: head of a pin?

:::: No, the calculation can never be finished, because (whole point of the
:::: argument) infinitely many angels can fit there.

Study the properties attributed by the modern theologians to virtual
photons, and you will find far more stangenesses than just infinitely
many of them.
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=520266094
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=569315416
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=547437435

::: Does that negate the proposed theory that there are a finite number of


::: souls? Or don't angels have souls? What does this have to do with science?

:: According to Thomas Kuhn (and who should know better?) that's just as
:: legitimate a scientific enterprise as modern physics.

: Incorrect. In his


:
: Kuhn, Thomas S. The essential tension: selected studies in scientific
: tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.
:
: Kuhn explicitly lays out the criteria for a science, including such
: things as testability and empirical adequacy. Perhaps you are thinking
: of Feyerabend?

John, I see that you have missed the chance to learn something from me.
You probably are a typical case of a soul having lived several lives as
an orthodox theologian in the past. You read 'soul' and associate (in
agreement with modern theology/science) right away "lack of testability
and of empirical adequacy" with it, instead of simply using your brain
in a logical and unprejudiced way.

How can an intelligent person claim that a limited number of human
souls cannot be tested?

Demographic saturation refutes Malthusianism:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=570485213


"Nobody can decide by metaphysicals claims (e.g. about the soul) whether
something is scientific or not. The only method which has always been
scientific is an unbiased analysis of facts and theories. This analysis
can lead to verifiable hypotheses which can be in contradiction with
well-established theories.

We must judge hypotheses and theories only by verifiable consequences
and predictions and never by metaphysical claims such as for example
'actions at a distance are impossible'."

"A general law is nothing more than a common expression for many
(infinite) concrete cases or relations (Occam). The only way to prove
such a thing as reincarnation consists in giving (by induction) many
examples or concrete facts which suggest reincarnation. Therefore the
existence of reincarnation depends on concrete cases such as
reincarnated horses."
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/evidence.html#epistemology


Wolfgang Gottfried G.

rich hammett

unread,
May 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/25/00
to
In talk.origins z@z <z...@z.lol.li> allegedly wrote:
> John, I see that you have missed the chance to learn something from me.
> You probably are a typical case of a soul having lived several lives as
> an orthodox theologian in the past. You read 'soul' and associate (in
> agreement with modern theology/science) right away "lack of testability
> and of empirical adequacy" with it, instead of simply using your brain
> in a logical and unprejudiced way.

> How can an intelligent person claim that a limited number of human
> souls cannot be tested?

I get the feeling this guy has been around before. Do his claims get
any more rational than this?

rich

> Demographic saturation refutes Malthusianism:
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=570485213


> "Nobody can decide by metaphysicals claims (e.g. about the soul) whether
> something is scientific or not. The only method which has always been
> scientific is an unbiased analysis of facts and theories. This analysis
> can lead to verifiable hypotheses which can be in contradiction with
> well-established theories.

> We must judge hypotheses and theories only by verifiable consequences
> and predictions and never by metaphysical claims such as for example
> 'actions at a distance are impossible'."

> "A general law is nothing more than a common expression for many
> (infinite) concrete cases or relations (Occam). The only way to prove
> such a thing as reincarnation consists in giving (by induction) many
> examples or concrete facts which suggest reincarnation. Therefore the
> existence of reincarnation depends on concrete cases such as
> reincarnated horses."
> http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/evidence.html#epistemology


> Wolfgang Gottfried G.

--
-remove no from mail name and spam from domain to reply
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan


Colin R. Day

unread,
May 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/25/00
to
"David B. Greene" wrote:

> "Mark Folsom" <fols...@redshift.com> wrote:
>
> >Modern science is definitely comparable with medieval theology. When you
> >make the comparison fairly, it's obvious that science produces positive,
> >useful results and medieval theology produced little but misery and
> >ignorance. That's the comparison.
>
> True, I suppose, but tell it to the Thalidomide babies.

>
>
> OTOH, I'm quite sure there was plenty of misery and ignorance
> in Europe before the Church moved in. Of course they bought
> their science off of the atheist Aristotle

Aristotle was an atheist? Hmm.
"For people who are puzzled to know whether one ought to honour
the gods and love one's parents or not need punishment. . ."

Topics 105a5

Also, their attitude towards Aristotle was that of sheep
seeking a philosopher.


> which is surprising
> considering the ignorance and misery the atheist Stalin brought
> to the continent on a far larger scale and in a much shorter time
> frame.
>
> What really gripes me, though, is those darn enlightened atheists of
> the French Revolution who sent Antoine Lavosier to the guillotine.
> At least the RCC apologized for putting Galileo under house arrest.
>

Hey, Lavoisier was guillotined for having been a tax collector, not
for his scientific work.


Colin Day #1500


Ken Cox

unread,
May 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/25/00
to
"David B. Greene" wrote:
> OTOH, I'm quite sure there was plenty of misery and ignorance
> in Europe before the Church moved in.

There was plenty afterward, too; plus the nobles had the
sanction of the Church.

--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com


wf...@ptd.net

unread,
May 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/25/00
to
On 24 May 2000 22:59:54 -0400, da...@u.washington.edu (David B.
Greene) wrote:

>"Mark Folsom" <fols...@redshift.com> wrote:
>
>>Modern science is definitely comparable with medieval theology. When you
>>make the comparison fairly, it's obvious that science produces positive,
>>useful results and medieval theology produced little but misery and
>>ignorance. That's the comparison.
>
>True, I suppose, but tell it to the Thalidomide babies.

so you're saying science, alone of all human endeavors, is supposed to
be perfect?

>
>OTOH, I'm quite sure there was plenty of misery and ignorance

>in Europe before the Church moved in. Of course they bought

>their science off of the atheist Aristotle which is surprising

>considering the ignorance and misery the atheist Stalin brought
>to the continent on a far larger scale and in a much shorter time
>frame.

stalin was a communist atheist. ayn rand was a capitalist atheist. if
you're saying atheism is a doctrine you're saying capitalism is
communism.


>
>What really gripes me, though, is those darn enlightened atheists of
>the French Revolution who sent Antoine Lavosier to the guillotine.
>At least the RCC apologized for putting Galileo under house arrest.

only took 'em 500 yrs...and, of course, the s. baptists just
apologized for supporting slavery last year...better late than never.


Bryan J. Maloney

unread,
May 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/25/00
to
In article
<vhIsdqY67dTD-p...@dnai-216-15-121-8.cust.dnai.com>,
d...@dandrake.com (Dan Drake) wrote:

> On Wed, 24 May 2000 13:25:56, "Marvin Margoshes" <phys...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >

> > "Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue" <e21092...@minyos.its.rmit.edu.au> wrote
> > in message news:tu8pORsNJqzI8W...@4ax.com...
> > >...
> > <snip>

> > Have we really finished calculating how many angels can dance on the head of
> > a pin?
>
> No, the calculation can never be finished, because (whole point of the
> argument) infinitely many angels can fit there.

Actually, it's even easier than that (and it only took Europeans a couple
of centuries to figure it out). As many as God wants there to be.

--
"Before we judge the lobotomist of old too severely, we
should go to the nearest street grate and see how we are
dealing with our mental health crisis today."


Bryan J. Maloney

unread,
May 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/25/00
to
In article <8gihml$rd$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>, b...@netcom.com (Benjamin
P. Carter) wrote:

> Bad dead people and Satan are bosons. Hell is where you will find a BE
> condensate, with room for unlimited numbers of souls.


Bosons? All of them? None of them are Carpenters, Mates, Surgeons, or Cooks?

Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue

unread,
May 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/25/00
to
G'Day All
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert

On 25 May 2000 10:01:07 -0400, rich hammett
<hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu> wrote:

>In talk.origins z@z <z...@z.lol.li> allegedly wrote:
>> John, I see that you have missed the chance to learn something from me.
>> You probably are a typical case of a soul having lived several lives as
>> an orthodox theologian in the past. You read 'soul' and associate (in
>> agreement with modern theology/science) right away "lack of testability
>> and of empirical adequacy" with it, instead of simply using your brain
>> in a logical and unprejudiced way.
>
>> How can an intelligent person claim that a limited number of human
>> souls cannot be tested?
>
>I get the feeling this guy has been around before. Do his claims get
>any more rational than this?

He has. No they don't. Amongst other things he believs that molecules
need to exchance a currently unobserved particle the "psycon" in order
to interact and undergo chemical reactions.

Search DejaNews for Phillip E. Johnson now on the WWCW! and AIDS: have
we been misled? for some classic z@z arguments

[snip]

Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue

unread,
May 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/25/00
to
G'Day All
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert

On 25 May 2000 09:03:09 -0400, "z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:

>: = John Wilkins
>:: = Mark Folsom
>::: = Marvin Margoshes
>:::: = Dan Drake
>::::: = Marvin Margoshes
>

>::::: Have we really finished calculating how many angels can dance on the


>::::: head of a pin?
>
>:::: No, the calculation can never be finished, because (whole point of the
>:::: argument) infinitely many angels can fit there.
>

> Study the properties attributed by the modern theologians to virtual
> photons, and you will find far more stangenesses than just infinitely
> many of them.
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=520266094
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=569315416
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=547437435

Which actually have nothing to do with virtual particles (except for a
throwaway line or two). The second article is a parody which doesn't
even invoke virtual particles.

See also
http://x58.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=548334920

where some of z@z's misunderstandings are corrected.

Of course Wolfgang (z@z) can explain the Casmir effect without virual
particles, and show why the fit between the predictions using virtual
particles and the actual experiments is an illusion, and show how his
explanation fits the data better, can't he?

He can also explain whats wrong with the gluon experiments,
particularly the three jet experiments, can't he?

>::: Does that negate the proposed theory that there are a finite number of
>::: souls? Or don't angels have souls? What does this have to do with science?
>
>:: According to Thomas Kuhn (and who should know better?) that's just as
>:: legitimate a scientific enterprise as modern physics.
>
>: Incorrect. In his
>:
>: Kuhn, Thomas S. The essential tension: selected studies in scientific
>: tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.
>:
>: Kuhn explicitly lays out the criteria for a science, including such
>: things as testability and empirical adequacy. Perhaps you are thinking
>: of Feyerabend?
>

>John, I see that you have missed the chance to learn something from me.
>You probably are a typical case of a soul having lived several lives as
>an orthodox theologian in the past. You read 'soul' and associate (in
>agreement with modern theology/science) right away "lack of testability
>and of empirical adequacy" with it, instead of simply using your brain
>in a logical and unprejudiced way.

Uh, Joh is correcting someone elses claims about Kuhn's work, rather
than making any claim about testability of "souls" _per_ _se_

[snip]

Cheers! Ian

John Wilkins - private account

unread,
May 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/25/00
to
In article <074tOSS8DCVBJt...@4ax.com>,
reyn...@RemoveInsert.werple.mira.net.au wrote:

|G'Day All
|Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
|
|On 25 May 2000 09:03:09 -0400, "z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
|
|>: = John Wilkins
|>:: = Mark Folsom

....


|>:: According to Thomas Kuhn (and who should know better?) that's just as
|>:: legitimate a scientific enterprise as modern physics.
|>
|>: Incorrect. In his
|>:
|>: Kuhn, Thomas S. The essential tension: selected studies in scientific
|>: tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.
|>:
|>: Kuhn explicitly lays out the criteria for a science, including such
|>: things as testability and empirical adequacy. Perhaps you are thinking
|>: of Feyerabend?
|>
|>John, I see that you have missed the chance to learn something from me.
|>You probably are a typical case of a soul having lived several lives as
|>an orthodox theologian in the past. You read 'soul' and associate (in
|>agreement with modern theology/science) right away "lack of testability
|>and of empirical adequacy" with it, instead of simply using your brain
|>in a logical and unprejudiced way.
|
|Uh, Joh is correcting someone elses claims about Kuhn's work, rather
|than making any claim about testability of "souls" _per_ _se_
|
|[snip]

Anyhoo, the *correct* understanding of "soul" (psyche) is Aristotle's,
in _De Anima_, not Aquinas's. And Aristotle's soul concept has been
tested and found wanting.

David B. Greene

unread,
May 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/26/00
to
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>(David B. Greene):

>|"Mark Folsom" <fols...@redshift.com> wrote:
>|
>|>Modern science is definitely comparable with medieval theology. When you
>|>make the comparison fairly, it's obvious that science produces positive,
>|>useful results and medieval theology produced little but misery and
>|>ignorance. That's the comparison.
>|
>|True, I suppose, but tell it to the Thalidomide babies.
>
>Wow, you can find people hurt. Did you know some people die from
>antibiotics? That heart drugs can kill? That some people die from
>surgery? No need to look for life expectancies, no need to try to sum
>of the results.

Agreed, some even die from atomic weapons of mass destruction - no
need to try to sum the results ... and I suspect more people were
sent to the Gulags than ever appeared before the tribunals of the
Spanish Inquisition.

>|OTOH, I'm quite sure there was plenty of misery and ignorance
>|in Europe before the Church moved in. Of course they bought
>|their science off of the atheist Aristotle which is surprising
>|considering the ignorance and misery the atheist Stalin brought
>|to the continent on a far larger scale and in a much shorter time
>|frame.
>

>Not bad for a set of non-seqitors. Tell me when you get back to
>discussing theology vs. science.

I'll let you know as soon as Mark Folsom brings it up. In the
mean time my responses will remain on-topic to his.

>|What really gripes me, though, is those darn enlightened atheists of
>|the French Revolution who sent Antoine Lavosier to the guillotine.
>|At least the RCC apologized for putting Galileo under house arrest.
>

>Is there an atheist head quarters you can write to?

As a matter fact there are! May I suggest you direct complaints
regarding human rights abuse against the religious community to
the Communist Party HQ in Beijing.

> BTW, have you read
>Mark Twain's essay on the two reigns of terror? One long and bloody
>before the revolution, the other much shorter after the revolution.

He should have told that to Napoleon the atheist <snicker>

>|Dave "comparisons are wonderful things" Greene
>

>You should try to compare things fairly next time.

Well that's kinda the point, ain't it, Matt? I mean
where are the fair comparisons in Mark Folsom's post?

To blame all the perceived ills of the so called dark
ages on medieval theology is an ignorant simpleton's
version of history.

Dave Greene

Matt Silberstein

unread,
May 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/26/00
to
In alt.religion.christian I read
<392dcc18...@news.u.washington.edu> from da...@u.washington.edu
(David B. Greene):

|Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:


|>(David B. Greene):
|>|"Mark Folsom" <fols...@redshift.com> wrote:
|>|
|>|>Modern science is definitely comparable with medieval theology. When you
|>|>make the comparison fairly, it's obvious that science produces positive,
|>|>useful results and medieval theology produced little but misery and
|>|>ignorance. That's the comparison.
|>|
|>|True, I suppose, but tell it to the Thalidomide babies.
|>
|>Wow, you can find people hurt. Did you know some people die from
|>antibiotics? That heart drugs can kill? That some people die from
|>surgery? No need to look for life expectancies, no need to try to sum
|>of the results.
|
|Agreed, some even die from atomic weapons of mass destruction - no
|need to try to sum the results

Hey, I think we should have stayed in the trees. I doubt that the
writer meant that science produces *only* positive results. Whether it
is net positive is an interesting question.

|... and I suspect more people were
|sent to the Gulags than ever appeared before the tribunals of the
|Spanish Inquisition.

I bet more people saw Titanic or Star Wars than either. Did you have a
point?

|>|OTOH, I'm quite sure there was plenty of misery and ignorance
|>|in Europe before the Church moved in. Of course they bought
|>|their science off of the atheist Aristotle which is surprising
|>|considering the ignorance and misery the atheist Stalin brought
|>|to the continent on a far larger scale and in a much shorter time
|>|frame.
|>
|>Not bad for a set of non-seqitors. Tell me when you get back to
|>discussing theology vs. science.
|
|I'll let you know as soon as Mark Folsom brings it up. In the
|mean time my responses will remain on-topic to his.
|
|>|What really gripes me, though, is those darn enlightened atheists of
|>|the French Revolution who sent Antoine Lavosier to the guillotine.
|>|At least the RCC apologized for putting Galileo under house arrest.
|>
|>Is there an atheist head quarters you can write to?
|
|As a matter fact there are! May I suggest you direct complaints
|regarding human rights abuse against the religious community to
|the Communist Party HQ in Beijing.

What does that have to do with atheism?

|> BTW, have you read
|>Mark Twain's essay on the two reigns of terror? One long and bloody
|>before the revolution, the other much shorter after the revolution.
|
|He should have told that to Napoleon the atheist <snicker>

I take this to mean you have not read it.

|>|Dave "comparisons are wonderful things" Greene
|>
|>You should try to compare things fairly next time.
|
|Well that's kinda the point, ain't it, Matt? I mean
|where are the fair comparisons in Mark Folsom's post?

Then make that point, don't commit the same error. I see you posting
and you commit that error. Point out what is wrong with his logic (and
it was silly), don't make the same error.

|To blame all the perceived ills of the so called dark
|ages on medieval theology is an ignorant simpleton's
|version of history.

I might say the same about calling it the "dark ages", but I won't.
But his was a foolish comparison.

Benjamin P. Carter

unread,
May 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/26/00
to
bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) writes:

>Bosons? All of them? None of them are Carpenters, Mates, Surgeons, or Cooks?

Heh heh.

>"Before we judge the lobotomist of old too severely, we
>should go to the nearest street grate and see how we are
>dealing with our mental health crisis today."

What we have here is a generation-skipping phenomenon.

Earlier in this century, allegedly-normal people would visit insane
asylums for entertainment. For a while, this was frowned upon. Now the
entertainment is out on the street, which is more convenient.
--
Ben Carter


Ken Cox

unread,
May 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/26/00
to
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue wrote:
> He has. No they don't. Amongst other things he believs that molecules
> need to exchance a currently unobserved particle the "psycon" in order
> to interact and undergo chemical reactions.

Is that anything like phlogiston?

--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com


Marvin Margoshes

unread,
May 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/26/00
to

"Mark Folsom" <fols...@redshift.com> wrote in message
news:siogjg...@corp.supernews.com...

> "Marvin Margoshes" <phys...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:ugWW4.28688$T41.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
<snip>
> > Does that negate the proposed theory that there are a finite number of
> > souls? Or don't angels have souls? What does this have to do with
> science?
> >
>
> According to Thomas Kuhn (and who should know better?) that's just as
> legitimate a scientific enterprise as modern physics.
>
> Mark Folsom

Does Kuhn propose any experiments to validate theories?


Mark Folsom

unread,
May 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/26/00
to
"Marvin Margoshes" <phys...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dkBX4.18027$Sx.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

I don't recall any of that in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, but
he might have done so elsewhere.

Mark Folsom

Dan Drake

unread,
May 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/26/00
to
On Wed, 24 May 2000 23:10:16, John Wilkins - private account
<thewi...@bigpond.com> wrote:

>...


> |No, the calculation can never be finished, because (whole point of the
> |argument) infinitely many angels can fit there.
>
>

> We deal with denumerable transfinite numbers all the time, don't we?

We sure do. Let me know if you ever _finish_ counting one out.

--
Dan "I'll see you in H- first" Drake
d...@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/index.html

Ken Cox

unread,
May 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/26/00
to
Dan Drake wrote:
> John Wilkins - private account <thewi...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > We deal with denumerable transfinite numbers all the time, don't we?

> We sure do. Let me know if you ever _finish_ counting one out.

Do you not consider exhibition of a bijective function mapping between
a set of the appropriate cardinality and the target set to suffice?

--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com


John Wilkins - private account

unread,
May 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/26/00
to
In article
<vhIsdqY67dTD-p...@dnai-216-15-121-196.cust.dnai.com>,
d...@dandrake.com (Dan Drake) wrote:

|On Wed, 24 May 2000 23:10:16, John Wilkins - private account

|<thewi...@bigpond.com> wrote:
|
|> In article
|> <vhIsdqY67dTD-p...@dnai-216-15-121-8.cust.dnai.com>,
|> d...@dandrake.com (Dan Drake) wrote:
|>
|>...
|> |No, the calculation can never be finished, because (whole point of the
|> |argument) infinitely many angels can fit there.
|>
|>

|> We deal with denumerable transfinite numbers all the time, don't we?
|
|We sure do. Let me know if you ever _finish_ counting one out.

Talk about timing. just completed one yesterday :-)

David B. Greene

unread,
May 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/27/00
to
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>(David B. Greene):
>|Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>|>(David B. Greene):
>|>|"Mark Folsom" <fols...@redshift.com> wrote:
>|>|
>|>|>Modern science is definitely comparable with medieval theology. When you
>|>|>make the comparison fairly, it's obvious that science produces positive,
>|>|>useful results and medieval theology produced little but misery and
>|>|>ignorance. That's the comparison.
>|>|
>|>|True, I suppose, but tell it to the Thalidomide babies.
>|>
>|>Wow, you can find people hurt. Did you know some people die from
>|>antibiotics? That heart drugs can kill? That some people die from
>|>surgery? No need to look for life expectancies, no need to try to sum
>|>of the results.
>|
>|Agreed, some even die from atomic weapons of mass destruction - no
>|need to try to sum the results
>
>Hey, I think we should have stayed in the trees. I doubt that the
>writer meant that science produces *only* positive results. Whether it
>is net positive is an interesting question.
>
>|... and I suspect more people were
>|sent to the Gulags than ever appeared before the tribunals of the
>|Spanish Inquisition.
>
>I bet more people saw Titanic or Star Wars than either. Did you have a
>point?

yup - misery does not necessarily correlate with medieval theolology,
duh ... Soviet Russia was a modern nation awash with science, steeped
in atheism and virtually devoid of any remnant of medieval theology
yet they perpetrated a hell of a lot of misery. It is even possible
that our good ol' USofA has spread more misery than the middle age
theologists if one considers the deaths of over 3,000,000 Vietnamese
and several other notable venues as well.

So, how is your comment regarding the Titanic and Star Wars relevant
to anything in this discussion? Maybe that the average fat American
is divorced from world reality?

[snip-ola]

>|>|What really gripes me, though, is those darn enlightened atheists of
>|>|the French Revolution who sent Antoine Lavosier to the guillotine.
>|>|At least the RCC apologized for putting Galileo under house arrest.
>|>
>|>Is there an atheist head quarters you can write to?
>|
>|As a matter fact there are! May I suggest you direct complaints
>|regarding human rights abuse against the religious community to
>|the Communist Party HQ in Beijing.
>
>What does that have to do with atheism?

Lots - read the Commie Manifesto.

>|> BTW, have you read
>|>Mark Twain's essay on the two reigns of terror? One long and bloody
>|>before the revolution, the other much shorter after the revolution.
>|
>|He should have told that to Napoleon the atheist <snicker>
>
>I take this to mean you have not read it.

I take it to mean you have little idea how bloody the Napoleonic
Wars were. Other than that I'm waiting for your explaination on
how Twain is relevant to the topic at hand.

>|>|Dave "comparisons are wonderful things" Greene
>|>
>|>You should try to compare things fairly next time.
>|
>|Well that's kinda the point, ain't it, Matt? I mean
>|where are the fair comparisons in Mark Folsom's post?
>
>Then make that point, don't commit the same error. I see you posting
>and you commit that error. Point out what is wrong with his logic (and
>it was silly), don't make the same error.

Its called satire, Matt. You elsewhere claimed to understand
satire. I thought I had laid it on plenty thick but obviously
not thick enough.

>|To blame all the perceived ills of the so called dark
>|ages on medieval theology is an ignorant simpleton's
>|version of history.
>
>I might say the same about calling it the "dark ages", but I won't.
>But his was a foolish comparison.

Excuse me, I should have capitalized the "Dark Ages" since it is
a proper noun - sorry.

Dave Greene

David B. Greene

unread,
May 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/27/00
to
Puck Greenman <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
>in alt.atheism da...@u.washington.edu (David B. Greene)


>>OTOH, I'm quite sure there was plenty of misery and ignorance
>>in Europe before the Church moved in. Of course they bought
>>their science off of the atheist Aristotle which is surprising
>>considering the ignorance and misery the atheist Stalin brought
>>to the continent on a far larger scale and in a much shorter time
>>frame.
>
> Stalin was educated at the Tiflis Theological Seminary, and
> while it is true that he was expelled in 1899 because of his
> membership of the GDS, there is no actual evidence, AFAIK,
> to indicate that he was actually an atheist.

Aye Puck, "No true Scotsman" was he ... :)

Dave Greene

Matt Silberstein

unread,
May 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/27/00
to
In alt.religion.christian I read
<392f3a49...@news.u.washington.edu> from da...@u.washington.edu
(David B. Greene):

|Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
|>(David B. Greene):

[snip]

|>Then make that point, don't commit the same error. I see you posting
|>and you commit that error. Point out what is wrong with his logic (and
|>it was silly), don't make the same error.
|
|Its called satire, Matt. You elsewhere claimed to understand
|satire. I thought I had laid it on plenty thick but obviously
|not thick enough.

I see, it is my fault that I misunderstood your clever satire. Sure.

|>|To blame all the perceived ills of the so called dark
|>|ages on medieval theology is an ignorant simpleton's
|>|version of history.
|>
|>I might say the same about calling it the "dark ages", but I won't.
|>But his was a foolish comparison.
|
|Excuse me, I should have capitalized the "Dark Ages" since it is
|a proper noun - sorry.

No, I missed the "so called", other than that, I was agreeing with
you.

hrgr...@my-deja.com

unread,
May 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/27/00
to
In article <vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-ns2jFN8bzDwX@dnai-216-15-121-

196.cust.dnai.com>,
d...@dandrake.com (Dan Drake) wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2000 23:10:16, John Wilkins - private account
> <thewi...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <vhIsdqY67dTD-p...@dnai-216-15-121-8.cust.dnai.com>,
> > d...@dandrake.com (Dan Drake) wrote:
> >
> >...
> > |No, the calculation can never be finished, because (whole point of
the
> > |argument) infinitely many angels can fit there.
> >
> >
> > We deal with denumerable transfinite numbers all the time, don't we?
>
> We sure do. Let me know if you ever _finish_ counting one out.

No problem. Counting "1" takes 1 second, "2" 1/2 seconds, "3" 1/4
seconds etc. Finished in 2 seconds!

HRG.

> --
> Dan "I'll see you in H- first" Drake
> d...@dandrake.com
> http://www.dandrake.com/index.html
>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


Brian M. Scott

unread,
May 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/27/00
to
In article <392F06E5...@research.bell-labs.com>,
Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:

> Dan Drake wrote:

> > John Wilkins - private account <thewi...@bigpond.com> wrote:

> > > We deal with denumerable transfinite numbers all the time, don't
> > > we?

> > We sure do. Let me know if you ever _finish_ counting one out.

> Do you not consider exhibition of a bijective function mapping between


> a set of the appropriate cardinality and the target set to suffice?

Shoot, even a pair of injections will do.

Brian M. Scott

Colin R. Day

unread,
May 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/27/00
to
Puck Greenman wrote:

> On Thu, 25 May 2000 11:33:12 -0400, in alt.atheism "Colin R. Day" <cd...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:: this little lot, and Puck xposted again...


> .
> >
> >Hey, Lavoisier was guillotined for having been a tax collector, not
> >for his scientific work.
> >
>

> Now there is a sentiment that I can identify with.

Especially given the nature of tax farming in the Ancien Regime.
Basically, a tax collector paid a fixed amount for the privilege of
collecting as much in taxes as possible (and getting to keep it).

Colin Day


hrgr...@my-deja.com

unread,
May 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/27/00
to
In article <8gnne2$djq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

"Brian M. Scott" <BMS...@stratos.net> wrote:
> In article <392F06E5...@research.bell-labs.com>,
> Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
>
> > Dan Drake wrote:
>
> > > John Wilkins - private account <thewi...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > > > We deal with denumerable transfinite numbers all the time, don't
> > > > we?
>
> > > We sure do. Let me know if you ever _finish_ counting one out.
>
> > Do you not consider exhibition of a bijective function mapping
between
> > a set of the appropriate cardinality and the target set to suffice?
>
> Shoot, even a pair of injections will do.

Do you want to draw t.o. to the attention of the War on Drugs ? :-)

Say instead "a pair of surjections". It's safer ....

HRG.

Brian M. Scott

unread,
May 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/27/00
to
In article <8go1el$kjg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote:

> In article <8gnne2$djq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> "Brian M. Scott" <BMS...@stratos.net> wrote:

> > In article <392F06E5...@research.bell-labs.com>,
> > Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:

> > > Dan Drake wrote:

> > > > John Wilkins - private account <thewi...@bigpond.com> wrote:

> > > > > We deal with denumerable transfinite numbers all the time,
> > > > > don't we?

> > > > We sure do. Let me know if you ever _finish_ counting one out.

> > > Do you not consider exhibition of a bijective function mapping
> > > between a set of the appropriate cardinality and the target set
> > > to suffice?

> > Shoot, even a pair of injections will do.

> Do you want to draw t.o. to the attention of the War on Drugs ? :-)

> Say instead "a pair of surjections". It's safer ....

Only if you're given the Choice. ;-)

(The Cantor-Schroeder-Bernstein theorem is true in ZF;
the version with surjections isn't and entails at least
some part of the axiom of choice.)

ksta...@my-deja.com

unread,
May 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/27/00
to
In article <8gnne2$djq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
"Brian M. Scott" <BMS...@stratos.net> wrote:
> In article <392F06E5...@research.bell-labs.com>,
> Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
>
> > Dan Drake wrote:
>
> > > John Wilkins - private account <thewi...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > > > We deal with denumerable transfinite numbers all the time, don't
> > > > we?
>
> > > We sure do. Let me know if you ever _finish_ counting one out.
>
> > Do you not consider exhibition of a bijective function mapping
between
> > a set of the appropriate cardinality and the target set to suffice?
>
> Shoot, even a pair of injections will do.
>

Don't talk to me about injections!

It's not every day that you see a thread cross posted between
sci.physics and misc.health.aids.

hrgr...@my-deja.com

unread,
May 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/27/00
to
In article <8go5vb$ndt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

"Brian M. Scott" <BMS...@stratos.net> wrote:
> In article <8go1el$kjg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

> hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <8gnne2$djq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > "Brian M. Scott" <BMS...@stratos.net> wrote:
>
> > > In article <392F06E5...@research.bell-labs.com>,
> > > Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Dan Drake wrote:
>
> > > > > John Wilkins - private account <thewi...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > We deal with denumerable transfinite numbers all the time,
> > > > > > don't we?
>
> > > > > We sure do. Let me know if you ever _finish_ counting one
out.
>
> > > > Do you not consider exhibition of a bijective function mapping
> > > > between a set of the appropriate cardinality and the target set
> > > > to suffice?
>
> > > Shoot, even a pair of injections will do.
>
> > Do you want to draw t.o. to the attention of the War on Drugs ? :-)
>
> > Say instead "a pair of surjections". It's safer ....
>
> Only if you're given the Choice. ;-)
>
> (The Cantor-Schroeder-Bernstein theorem is true in ZF;
> the version with surjections isn't and entails at least
> some part of the axiom of choice.)

Something like the prime ideal theorem (getting far off-topic ...) ?

HRG.

> Brian M. Scott