PDA

View Full Version : peanuts


cory
July 18th 03, 02:12 AM
I know peanuts are a good source of protein and cal's. But is it better to
try to get protein from meat(poultry,beef,fish) etc? I found the grocery
bill has gone way up and if I can chew a few nuts ....lol....then I could
save some cash...or make some .....lol....
But seriously, if nuts are a good acceptable source, should they just be
salted or are roasted ok as well?

Thank you.

David Eynon
July 18th 03, 07:07 AM
Nuts aren't that great... Here's a scientific explanation why. All proteins
are comprised of amino acids... THe body, when eating foods, breaks down the
protein of say, the animal or plant, into amino acids (there are only i
think 15 amino acids available to all living things) and re-creates those
amino acids into proteins that our bodies can use... It's been
scientifically proven beyond a fact that plant proteins, while complete to
them, don't have all of the amino acids that OUR body needs to build
effecient complete proteins... Animal protein most closely resembles the
amino acid makeup in terms of proportion and quantity, of our protein...
Milk protein is top of that list, egg next.... Plus peanuts have a lot of
fat.... and are usually salted which excess amounts of aren't good...
Try canned tuna... it's cheap... and good source of protein... Chicken is
good... MY strategy is to buy a good freezer and buy on sale and freeze...
Eggs are always good too... Milk.. you can't go wrong with milk... It's
relatively cheap...

--
N0 Spam Ema|l address. Please, when replying directly, delete "NSPAMO" from
email address. Thanks
"cory" > wrote in message
...
> I know peanuts are a good source of protein and cal's. But is it better
to
> try to get protein from meat(poultry,beef,fish) etc? I found the grocery
> bill has gone way up and if I can chew a few nuts ....lol....then I could
> save some cash...or make some .....lol....
> But seriously, if nuts are a good acceptable source, should they just be
> salted or are roasted ok as well?
>
> Thank you.
>
>

David Eynon
July 18th 03, 07:07 AM
Nuts aren't that great... Here's a scientific explanation why. All proteins
are comprised of amino acids... THe body, when eating foods, breaks down the
protein of say, the animal or plant, into amino acids (there are only i
think 15 amino acids available to all living things) and re-creates those
amino acids into proteins that our bodies can use... It's been
scientifically proven beyond a fact that plant proteins, while complete to
them, don't have all of the amino acids that OUR body needs to build
effecient complete proteins... Animal protein most closely resembles the
amino acid makeup in terms of proportion and quantity, of our protein...
Milk protein is top of that list, egg next.... Plus peanuts have a lot of
fat.... and are usually salted which excess amounts of aren't good...
Try canned tuna... it's cheap... and good source of protein... Chicken is
good... MY strategy is to buy a good freezer and buy on sale and freeze...
Eggs are always good too... Milk.. you can't go wrong with milk... It's
relatively cheap...

--
N0 Spam Ema|l address. Please, when replying directly, delete "NSPAMO" from
email address. Thanks
"cory" > wrote in message
...
> I know peanuts are a good source of protein and cal's. But is it better
to
> try to get protein from meat(poultry,beef,fish) etc? I found the grocery
> bill has gone way up and if I can chew a few nuts ....lol....then I could
> save some cash...or make some .....lol....
> But seriously, if nuts are a good acceptable source, should they just be
> salted or are roasted ok as well?
>
> Thank you.
>
>

cory
July 18th 03, 05:17 PM
"David Eynon" > wrote in message
...
> Nuts aren't that great... Here's a scientific explanation why. All
proteins
> are comprised of amino acids... THe body, when eating foods, breaks down
the
> protein of say, the animal or plant, into amino acids (there are only i
> think 15 amino acids available to all living things) and re-creates those
> amino acids into proteins that our bodies can use... It's been
> scientifically proven beyond a fact that plant proteins, while complete to
> them, don't have all of the amino acids that OUR body needs to build
> effecient complete proteins... Animal protein most closely resembles the
> amino acid makeup in terms of proportion and quantity, of our protein...
> Milk protein is top of that list, egg next.... Plus peanuts have a lot of
> fat.... and are usually salted which excess amounts of aren't good...
> Try canned tuna... it's cheap... and good source of protein... Chicken is
> good... MY strategy is to buy a good freezer and buy on sale and freeze...
> Eggs are always good too... Milk.. you can't go wrong with milk... It's
> relatively cheap...
>

Thaks for the reply. I do eat tuna but not daily as it has been stated that
mercury in the tuna is a problem if too much is consumed. Truth? I dont
know I have never seen research based on this but prefer to err on the side
of caution. I eat alot of chicken as well but it is pricey, especially free
range chicken. In regards to eggs, I do eat them as well but limit
consumption due to the cholesterol levels. To be honest, I never really
thought of milk but I will probably look into that. Skim milk powder seems
like a good option.
I love to eat fish , but it is expensive where I live so I dont eat it much.
Thanks.

cory
July 18th 03, 05:17 PM
"David Eynon" > wrote in message
...
> Nuts aren't that great... Here's a scientific explanation why. All
proteins
> are comprised of amino acids... THe body, when eating foods, breaks down
the
> protein of say, the animal or plant, into amino acids (there are only i
> think 15 amino acids available to all living things) and re-creates those
> amino acids into proteins that our bodies can use... It's been
> scientifically proven beyond a fact that plant proteins, while complete to
> them, don't have all of the amino acids that OUR body needs to build
> effecient complete proteins... Animal protein most closely resembles the
> amino acid makeup in terms of proportion and quantity, of our protein...
> Milk protein is top of that list, egg next.... Plus peanuts have a lot of
> fat.... and are usually salted which excess amounts of aren't good...
> Try canned tuna... it's cheap... and good source of protein... Chicken is
> good... MY strategy is to buy a good freezer and buy on sale and freeze...
> Eggs are always good too... Milk.. you can't go wrong with milk... It's
> relatively cheap...
>

Thaks for the reply. I do eat tuna but not daily as it has been stated that
mercury in the tuna is a problem if too much is consumed. Truth? I dont
know I have never seen research based on this but prefer to err on the side
of caution. I eat alot of chicken as well but it is pricey, especially free
range chicken. In regards to eggs, I do eat them as well but limit
consumption due to the cholesterol levels. To be honest, I never really
thought of milk but I will probably look into that. Skim milk powder seems
like a good option.
I love to eat fish , but it is expensive where I live so I dont eat it much.
Thanks.

Bill
July 18th 03, 05:33 PM
For a more balanced review, see

http://www.drweil.com/app/cda/drw_cda.html-command=TodayQA-questionId=73918-pt=Question
>
> Thaks for the reply. I do eat tuna but not daily as it has been stated
that
> mercury in the tuna is a problem if too much is consumed. Truth? I dont
> know I have never seen research based on this but prefer to err on the
side
> of caution. I eat alot of chicken as well but it is pricey, especially
free
> range chicken. In regards to eggs, I do eat them as well but limit
> consumption due to the cholesterol levels.

Eggs are very inexpensive. A dozen jumbos for about $1.13/doz at SFW.
To get a low fat egg protein, use only the whites and feed the yolks to the
dog.
For omelets, leave in a yolk for color and taste.

To be honest, I never really
> thought of milk but I will probably look into that. Skim milk powder
seems
> like a good option.

Quite a few folks have bad reactions to milk. Most common: lactose
intolerance, causing stomach gas. Less common: casein allergy.

> I love to eat fish , but it is expensive where I live so I dont eat it
much.
> Thanks.

Costco sells prepackaged frozen fish pieces (salmon, flounder, etc.). Allow
to defrost in the fridge and poach in citrus for a minute or two, removing
while still tender. Delicious and difficult to tell from fresh, if cooked
properly. Prices are competitive with canned tuna but much more tasty.

>
Copied here from drweil.com:

I love nuts, and I'm happy to assure you that they do have a place in a
healthy diet. True, nuts are high in fat, but most of them contain
monounsaturated fat that is good for the heart. In fact, eaten in
moderation, nuts can lower your risk of heart disease and heart attack. A
few years ago, the ongoing Nurses Health Study at Brigham and Women's
Hospital in Boston and the Harvard School of Public Health, which is
monitoring the health of 86,000 nurses found that those who ate more than
five ounces of nuts per week (about the total you would get by eating a
single airline packet daily) had one third fewer heart attacks than those
who rarely or never ate nuts. Other studies have supported these findings.

In addition to their healthy fat profile, nuts provide you with vitamin E,
trace minerals, fiber, and in the case of walnuts, vital omega-3 fatty
acids. (Remember that peanuts are legumes, not nuts, and have a less
desirable fatty acid profile.)

I enjoy nuts, eat them frequently and also use them in cooking. I buy mostly
raw, unsalted nuts and store them in the refrigerator until I need them. You
can toast nuts yourself by stirring them about in a dry skillet over
medium-high heat or spreading them on a baking sheet placed in a 350 degree
oven; toss them occasionally until they are done to your liking. Use them up
quickly. Unsaturated nut oils oxidize quickly on exposure to heat, light and
air, creating rancidity that makes them smell and taste bad (like oil
paint). Rancid oils are carcinogenic. Roasted, chopped, and ground nuts go
rancid more quickly than whole raw ones. Always smell nuts before you eat
them or add them to recipes to be sure they are fresh.

Despite their beneficial nutritional profile, nuts are relatively high in
calories, so enjoy them in moderation. I usually eat a handful per day - my
favorites are cashews, almonds and walnuts.

Dr. Andrew Weil

Bill
July 18th 03, 05:33 PM
For a more balanced review, see

http://www.drweil.com/app/cda/drw_cda.html-command=TodayQA-questionId=73918-pt=Question
>
> Thaks for the reply. I do eat tuna but not daily as it has been stated
that
> mercury in the tuna is a problem if too much is consumed. Truth? I dont
> know I have never seen research based on this but prefer to err on the
side
> of caution. I eat alot of chicken as well but it is pricey, especially
free
> range chicken. In regards to eggs, I do eat them as well but limit
> consumption due to the cholesterol levels.

Eggs are very inexpensive. A dozen jumbos for about $1.13/doz at SFW.
To get a low fat egg protein, use only the whites and feed the yolks to the
dog.
For omelets, leave in a yolk for color and taste.

To be honest, I never really
> thought of milk but I will probably look into that. Skim milk powder
seems
> like a good option.

Quite a few folks have bad reactions to milk. Most common: lactose
intolerance, causing stomach gas. Less common: casein allergy.

> I love to eat fish , but it is expensive where I live so I dont eat it
much.
> Thanks.

Costco sells prepackaged frozen fish pieces (salmon, flounder, etc.). Allow
to defrost in the fridge and poach in citrus for a minute or two, removing
while still tender. Delicious and difficult to tell from fresh, if cooked
properly. Prices are competitive with canned tuna but much more tasty.

>
Copied here from drweil.com:

I love nuts, and I'm happy to assure you that they do have a place in a
healthy diet. True, nuts are high in fat, but most of them contain
monounsaturated fat that is good for the heart. In fact, eaten in
moderation, nuts can lower your risk of heart disease and heart attack. A
few years ago, the ongoing Nurses Health Study at Brigham and Women's
Hospital in Boston and the Harvard School of Public Health, which is
monitoring the health of 86,000 nurses found that those who ate more than
five ounces of nuts per week (about the total you would get by eating a
single airline packet daily) had one third fewer heart attacks than those
who rarely or never ate nuts. Other studies have supported these findings.

In addition to their healthy fat profile, nuts provide you with vitamin E,
trace minerals, fiber, and in the case of walnuts, vital omega-3 fatty
acids. (Remember that peanuts are legumes, not nuts, and have a less
desirable fatty acid profile.)

I enjoy nuts, eat them frequently and also use them in cooking. I buy mostly
raw, unsalted nuts and store them in the refrigerator until I need them. You
can toast nuts yourself by stirring them about in a dry skillet over
medium-high heat or spreading them on a baking sheet placed in a 350 degree
oven; toss them occasionally until they are done to your liking. Use them up
quickly. Unsaturated nut oils oxidize quickly on exposure to heat, light and
air, creating rancidity that makes them smell and taste bad (like oil
paint). Rancid oils are carcinogenic. Roasted, chopped, and ground nuts go
rancid more quickly than whole raw ones. Always smell nuts before you eat
them or add them to recipes to be sure they are fresh.

Despite their beneficial nutritional profile, nuts are relatively high in
calories, so enjoy them in moderation. I usually eat a handful per day - my
favorites are cashews, almonds and walnuts.

Dr. Andrew Weil

David Cohen
July 18th 03, 05:39 PM
"cory" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "David Eynon" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Nuts aren't that great... Here's a scientific explanation why. All
> proteins
> > are comprised of amino acids... THe body, when eating foods,
breaks down
> the
> > protein of say, the animal or plant, into amino acids (there are
only i
> > think 15 amino acids available to all living things) and
re-creates those
> > amino acids into proteins that our bodies can use... It's been
> > scientifically proven beyond a fact that plant proteins, while
complete to
> > them, don't have all of the amino acids that OUR body needs to
build
> > effecient complete proteins... Animal protein most closely
resembles the
> > amino acid makeup in terms of proportion and quantity, of our
protein...
> > Milk protein is top of that list, egg next.... Plus peanuts have a
lot of
> > fat.... and are usually salted which excess amounts of aren't
good...
> > Try canned tuna... it's cheap... and good source of protein...
Chicken is
> > good... MY strategy is to buy a good freezer and buy on sale and
freeze...
> > Eggs are always good too... Milk.. you can't go wrong with milk...
It's
> > relatively cheap...
> >
>
> Thaks for the reply. I do eat tuna but not daily as it has been
stated that
> mercury in the tuna is a problem if too much is consumed. Truth? I
dont
> know I have never seen research based on this but prefer to err on
the side
> of caution. I eat alot of chicken as well but it is pricey,
especially free
> range chicken. In regards to eggs, I do eat them as well but limit
> consumption due to the cholesterol levels. To be honest, I never
really
> thought of milk but I will probably look into that. Skim milk
powder seems
> like a good option.
> I love to eat fish , but it is expensive where I live so I dont eat
it much.
> Thanks.
>
You might want to save your thanks. Mr Eynon is a blithering idiot,
well on his way to an Idiot of the Month nomination.

David

David Cohen
July 18th 03, 05:39 PM
"cory" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "David Eynon" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Nuts aren't that great... Here's a scientific explanation why. All
> proteins
> > are comprised of amino acids... THe body, when eating foods,
breaks down
> the
> > protein of say, the animal or plant, into amino acids (there are
only i
> > think 15 amino acids available to all living things) and
re-creates those
> > amino acids into proteins that our bodies can use... It's been
> > scientifically proven beyond a fact that plant proteins, while
complete to
> > them, don't have all of the amino acids that OUR body needs to
build
> > effecient complete proteins... Animal protein most closely
resembles the
> > amino acid makeup in terms of proportion and quantity, of our
protein...
> > Milk protein is top of that list, egg next.... Plus peanuts have a
lot of
> > fat.... and are usually salted which excess amounts of aren't
good...
> > Try canned tuna... it's cheap... and good source of protein...
Chicken is
> > good... MY strategy is to buy a good freezer and buy on sale and
freeze...
> > Eggs are always good too... Milk.. you can't go wrong with milk...
It's
> > relatively cheap...
> >
>
> Thaks for the reply. I do eat tuna but not daily as it has been
stated that
> mercury in the tuna is a problem if too much is consumed. Truth? I
dont
> know I have never seen research based on this but prefer to err on
the side
> of caution. I eat alot of chicken as well but it is pricey,
especially free
> range chicken. In regards to eggs, I do eat them as well but limit
> consumption due to the cholesterol levels. To be honest, I never
really
> thought of milk but I will probably look into that. Skim milk
powder seems
> like a good option.
> I love to eat fish , but it is expensive where I live so I dont eat
it much.
> Thanks.
>
You might want to save your thanks. Mr Eynon is a blithering idiot,
well on his way to an Idiot of the Month nomination.

David

Keith Hobman
July 18th 03, 05:55 PM
In article nk.net>,
"David Cohen" > wrote:

[snip]

It's been
> > > scientifically proven beyond a fact that plant proteins, while
> complete to
> > > them, don't have all of the amino acids that OUR body needs to
> build
> > > effecient complete proteins.

[snip]

> >
> You might want to save your thanks. Mr Eynon is a blithering idiot,
> well on his way to an Idiot of the Month nomination.

Personally I get leery when I hear the words 'scientifically proven',
since science tends to make suggestions, but very few scientists I know
ever get caught saying 'scientifically proven'. Instead I hear 'research
suggests' and things like that.

My cousin, Tom, is a leading researcher into something having to do with
proteins (I'm not really sure what to be honest, but Elzi understands it!)
and I've run some of the more wild theories shown on MFW and other venues
by him to get his opinion. Suprisingly to me, since Tom has a wicked sense
of humour, he never ridicules even the most far-fetched theories. I asked
him about his and his comment was that sometimes the far-fetched theories
which run contrary to popular dogma turn into the popular dogma.

So of course, "scientifically proven beyond a fact" makes me run to the
hills. Escpecially since the mechanism of protein synthesis in the human
body is still largely theoretical. We appear to know the amino acids and
the DNA/tRNA/mRNA/codons theory is pervasive. But its still theory. I'm
not sure it is possible to scientifically prove anything beyond a fact.

--
Keith Hobman

--- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.

Keith Hobman
July 18th 03, 05:55 PM
In article nk.net>,
"David Cohen" > wrote:

[snip]

It's been
> > > scientifically proven beyond a fact that plant proteins, while
> complete to
> > > them, don't have all of the amino acids that OUR body needs to
> build
> > > effecient complete proteins.

[snip]

> >
> You might want to save your thanks. Mr Eynon is a blithering idiot,
> well on his way to an Idiot of the Month nomination.

Personally I get leery when I hear the words 'scientifically proven',
since science tends to make suggestions, but very few scientists I know
ever get caught saying 'scientifically proven'. Instead I hear 'research
suggests' and things like that.

My cousin, Tom, is a leading researcher into something having to do with
proteins (I'm not really sure what to be honest, but Elzi understands it!)
and I've run some of the more wild theories shown on MFW and other venues
by him to get his opinion. Suprisingly to me, since Tom has a wicked sense
of humour, he never ridicules even the most far-fetched theories. I asked
him about his and his comment was that sometimes the far-fetched theories
which run contrary to popular dogma turn into the popular dogma.

So of course, "scientifically proven beyond a fact" makes me run to the
hills. Escpecially since the mechanism of protein synthesis in the human
body is still largely theoretical. We appear to know the amino acids and
the DNA/tRNA/mRNA/codons theory is pervasive. But its still theory. I'm
not sure it is possible to scientifically prove anything beyond a fact.

--
Keith Hobman

--- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.

JC Der Koenig
July 18th 03, 06:29 PM
"Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
...
> In article nk.net>,
> "David Cohen" > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> It's been
> > > > scientifically proven beyond a fact that plant proteins, while
> > complete to
> > > > them, don't have all of the amino acids that OUR body needs to
> > build
> > > > effecient complete proteins.
>
> [snip]
>
> > >
> > You might want to save your thanks. Mr Eynon is a blithering idiot,
> > well on his way to an Idiot of the Month nomination.
>
> Personally I get leery when I hear the words 'scientifically proven',
> since science tends to make suggestions, but very few scientists I know
> ever get caught saying 'scientifically proven'. Instead I hear 'research
> suggests' and things like that.
>
> My cousin, Tom, is a leading researcher into something having to do with
> proteins (I'm not really sure what to be honest, but Elzi understands it!)
> and I've run some of the more wild theories shown on MFW and other venues
> by him to get his opinion. Suprisingly to me, since Tom has a wicked sense
> of humour, he never ridicules even the most far-fetched theories. I asked
> him about his and his comment was that sometimes the far-fetched theories
> which run contrary to popular dogma turn into the popular dogma.
>
> So of course, "scientifically proven beyond a fact" makes me run to the
> hills. Escpecially since the mechanism of protein synthesis in the human
> body is still largely theoretical. We appear to know the amino acids and
> the DNA/tRNA/mRNA/codons theory is pervasive. But its still theory. I'm
> not sure it is possible to scientifically prove anything beyond a fact.
>

In mathematics, "proof" is used quite liberally. But then the question
arises: is the math we use "truth", or just the language of convenience to
describe our perceptions? If even math cannot be proven, is then truth an
illusion? How does this balance with Dr. Samuel Johnson's refutation of
Berkeley?

JC Der Koenig
July 18th 03, 06:29 PM
"Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
...
> In article nk.net>,
> "David Cohen" > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> It's been
> > > > scientifically proven beyond a fact that plant proteins, while
> > complete to
> > > > them, don't have all of the amino acids that OUR body needs to
> > build
> > > > effecient complete proteins.
>
> [snip]
>
> > >
> > You might want to save your thanks. Mr Eynon is a blithering idiot,
> > well on his way to an Idiot of the Month nomination.
>
> Personally I get leery when I hear the words 'scientifically proven',
> since science tends to make suggestions, but very few scientists I know
> ever get caught saying 'scientifically proven'. Instead I hear 'research
> suggests' and things like that.
>
> My cousin, Tom, is a leading researcher into something having to do with
> proteins (I'm not really sure what to be honest, but Elzi understands it!)
> and I've run some of the more wild theories shown on MFW and other venues
> by him to get his opinion. Suprisingly to me, since Tom has a wicked sense
> of humour, he never ridicules even the most far-fetched theories. I asked
> him about his and his comment was that sometimes the far-fetched theories
> which run contrary to popular dogma turn into the popular dogma.
>
> So of course, "scientifically proven beyond a fact" makes me run to the
> hills. Escpecially since the mechanism of protein synthesis in the human
> body is still largely theoretical. We appear to know the amino acids and
> the DNA/tRNA/mRNA/codons theory is pervasive. But its still theory. I'm
> not sure it is possible to scientifically prove anything beyond a fact.
>

In mathematics, "proof" is used quite liberally. But then the question
arises: is the math we use "truth", or just the language of convenience to
describe our perceptions? If even math cannot be proven, is then truth an
illusion? How does this balance with Dr. Samuel Johnson's refutation of
Berkeley?

Lee Michaels
July 18th 03, 07:24 PM
"Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
...
> In article nk.net>,
> "David Cohen" > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> It's been
> > > > scientifically proven beyond a fact that plant proteins, while
> > complete to
> > > > them, don't have all of the amino acids that OUR body needs to
> > build
> > > > effecient complete proteins.
>
> [snip]
>
> > >
> > You might want to save your thanks. Mr Eynon is a blithering idiot,
> > well on his way to an Idiot of the Month nomination.
>
> Personally I get leery when I hear the words 'scientifically proven',
> since science tends to make suggestions, but very few scientists I know
> ever get caught saying 'scientifically proven'. Instead I hear 'research
> suggests' and things like that.
>
> My cousin, Tom, is a leading researcher into something having to do with
> proteins (I'm not really sure what to be honest, but Elzi understands it!)
> and I've run some of the more wild theories shown on MFW and other venues
> by him to get his opinion. Suprisingly to me, since Tom has a wicked sense
> of humour, he never ridicules even the most far-fetched theories. I asked
> him about his and his comment was that sometimes the far-fetched theories
> which run contrary to popular dogma turn into the popular dogma.
>
> So of course, "scientifically proven beyond a fact" makes me run to the
> hills. Escpecially since the mechanism of protein synthesis in the human
> body is still largely theoretical. We appear to know the amino acids and
> the DNA/tRNA/mRNA/codons theory is pervasive. But its still theory. I'm
> not sure it is possible to scientifically prove anything beyond a fact.
>
> --
> Keith Hobman
>

Keith, I am shocked!! I thought you were a marketing man!!

Lee Michaels
July 18th 03, 07:24 PM
"Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
...
> In article nk.net>,
> "David Cohen" > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> It's been
> > > > scientifically proven beyond a fact that plant proteins, while
> > complete to
> > > > them, don't have all of the amino acids that OUR body needs to
> > build
> > > > effecient complete proteins.
>
> [snip]
>
> > >
> > You might want to save your thanks. Mr Eynon is a blithering idiot,
> > well on his way to an Idiot of the Month nomination.
>
> Personally I get leery when I hear the words 'scientifically proven',
> since science tends to make suggestions, but very few scientists I know
> ever get caught saying 'scientifically proven'. Instead I hear 'research
> suggests' and things like that.
>
> My cousin, Tom, is a leading researcher into something having to do with
> proteins (I'm not really sure what to be honest, but Elzi understands it!)
> and I've run some of the more wild theories shown on MFW and other venues
> by him to get his opinion. Suprisingly to me, since Tom has a wicked sense
> of humour, he never ridicules even the most far-fetched theories. I asked
> him about his and his comment was that sometimes the far-fetched theories
> which run contrary to popular dogma turn into the popular dogma.
>
> So of course, "scientifically proven beyond a fact" makes me run to the
> hills. Escpecially since the mechanism of protein synthesis in the human
> body is still largely theoretical. We appear to know the amino acids and
> the DNA/tRNA/mRNA/codons theory is pervasive. But its still theory. I'm
> not sure it is possible to scientifically prove anything beyond a fact.
>
> --
> Keith Hobman
>

Keith, I am shocked!! I thought you were a marketing man!!

Keith Hobman
July 18th 03, 07:31 PM
In article <[email protected]>, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote:

> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article nk.net>,
> > "David Cohen" > wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > It's been
> > > > > scientifically proven beyond a fact that plant proteins, while
> > > complete to
> > > > > them, don't have all of the amino acids that OUR body needs to
> > > build
> > > > > effecient complete proteins.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > >
> > > You might want to save your thanks. Mr Eynon is a blithering idiot,
> > > well on his way to an Idiot of the Month nomination.
> >
> > Personally I get leery when I hear the words 'scientifically proven',
> > since science tends to make suggestions, but very few scientists I know
> > ever get caught saying 'scientifically proven'. Instead I hear 'research
> > suggests' and things like that.
> >
> > My cousin, Tom, is a leading researcher into something having to do with
> > proteins (I'm not really sure what to be honest, but Elzi understands it!)
> > and I've run some of the more wild theories shown on MFW and other venues
> > by him to get his opinion. Suprisingly to me, since Tom has a wicked sense
> > of humour, he never ridicules even the most far-fetched theories. I asked
> > him about his and his comment was that sometimes the far-fetched theories
> > which run contrary to popular dogma turn into the popular dogma.
> >
> > So of course, "scientifically proven beyond a fact" makes me run to the
> > hills. Escpecially since the mechanism of protein synthesis in the human
> > body is still largely theoretical. We appear to know the amino acids and
> > the DNA/tRNA/mRNA/codons theory is pervasive. But its still theory. I'm
> > not sure it is possible to scientifically prove anything beyond a fact.
> >
> > --
> > Keith Hobman
> >
>
> Keith, I am shocked!! I thought you were a marketing man!!

I'm working on a second degree and intend to pursue it to a PhD level -
I'm less than 5 years away from being an ex-marketing man.

Kinesiology. Or I may head to a cellular level.

--
Keith Hobman

--- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.

Keith Hobman
July 18th 03, 07:31 PM
In article <[email protected]>, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote:

> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article nk.net>,
> > "David Cohen" > wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > It's been
> > > > > scientifically proven beyond a fact that plant proteins, while
> > > complete to
> > > > > them, don't have all of the amino acids that OUR body needs to
> > > build
> > > > > effecient complete proteins.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > >
> > > You might want to save your thanks. Mr Eynon is a blithering idiot,
> > > well on his way to an Idiot of the Month nomination.
> >
> > Personally I get leery when I hear the words 'scientifically proven',
> > since science tends to make suggestions, but very few scientists I know
> > ever get caught saying 'scientifically proven'. Instead I hear 'research
> > suggests' and things like that.
> >
> > My cousin, Tom, is a leading researcher into something having to do with
> > proteins (I'm not really sure what to be honest, but Elzi understands it!)
> > and I've run some of the more wild theories shown on MFW and other venues
> > by him to get his opinion. Suprisingly to me, since Tom has a wicked sense
> > of humour, he never ridicules even the most far-fetched theories. I asked
> > him about his and his comment was that sometimes the far-fetched theories
> > which run contrary to popular dogma turn into the popular dogma.
> >
> > So of course, "scientifically proven beyond a fact" makes me run to the
> > hills. Escpecially since the mechanism of protein synthesis in the human
> > body is still largely theoretical. We appear to know the amino acids and
> > the DNA/tRNA/mRNA/codons theory is pervasive. But its still theory. I'm
> > not sure it is possible to scientifically prove anything beyond a fact.
> >
> > --
> > Keith Hobman
> >
>
> Keith, I am shocked!! I thought you were a marketing man!!

I'm working on a second degree and intend to pursue it to a PhD level -
I'm less than 5 years away from being an ex-marketing man.

Kinesiology. Or I may head to a cellular level.

--
Keith Hobman

--- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.

Lyle McDonald
July 18th 03, 09:04 PM
JC Der Koenig wrote:
>
> "Alex" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > In mathematics, "proof" is used quite liberally. But then the question
> > > arises: is the math we use "truth", or just the language of convenience
> to
> > > describe our perceptions? If even math cannot be proven, is then truth
> an
> > > illusion? How does this balance with Dr. Samuel Johnson's refutation of
> > > Berkeley?
> >
> > Of course math can be proven -- That is why it is math. All of the math
> that has ever been thought up and proven will always be true (unless there
> was a flaw in the proof).
> >
> > Math is the one study where new ideas and theorys don't replace old ones,
> they merely improve the old ideas. Math is the only perfect study -- unlike
> physics were we constantly replace old theories with new ones.
> >
> > The only way to refute all of mathematics is to refute the idea of unity
> (one, the identity) upon which all of math is based on.
> >
> > -Alex (a grad student in physics)
>
> So.. Because mathematics hasn't been refuted as the paragon of truth that
> means it never will?

math starts from a series of axioms (human made) and proceeds from
there. That's why you can have different 'types' of internally
consistent maths that don't agree with one another. It's all about
choosing the right starting assumptions.

it has about as much to do with reality as most of your posts.

> Did you comprehend the part about "language of convenience to describe our
> perceptions"?
>
> What if our perceptions are faulty?

How would we know?
That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias) objective
indication of true reality to check?

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
July 18th 03, 09:04 PM
JC Der Koenig wrote:
>
> "Alex" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > In mathematics, "proof" is used quite liberally. But then the question
> > > arises: is the math we use "truth", or just the language of convenience
> to
> > > describe our perceptions? If even math cannot be proven, is then truth
> an
> > > illusion? How does this balance with Dr. Samuel Johnson's refutation of
> > > Berkeley?
> >
> > Of course math can be proven -- That is why it is math. All of the math
> that has ever been thought up and proven will always be true (unless there
> was a flaw in the proof).
> >
> > Math is the one study where new ideas and theorys don't replace old ones,
> they merely improve the old ideas. Math is the only perfect study -- unlike
> physics were we constantly replace old theories with new ones.
> >
> > The only way to refute all of mathematics is to refute the idea of unity
> (one, the identity) upon which all of math is based on.
> >
> > -Alex (a grad student in physics)
>
> So.. Because mathematics hasn't been refuted as the paragon of truth that
> means it never will?

math starts from a series of axioms (human made) and proceeds from
there. That's why you can have different 'types' of internally
consistent maths that don't agree with one another. It's all about
choosing the right starting assumptions.

it has about as much to do with reality as most of your posts.

> Did you comprehend the part about "language of convenience to describe our
> perceptions"?
>
> What if our perceptions are faulty?

How would we know?
That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias) objective
indication of true reality to check?

Lyle

Alex
July 18th 03, 09:14 PM
> So.. Because mathematics hasn't been refuted as the paragon of truth that
> means it never will?

No, math cannot be refuted unless you refuse to belive in the concept of unity. All of math is constructed around that central idea.

> Did you comprehend the part about "language of convenience to describe our
> perceptions"?

Math has nothing to do with perceptions. The notation that we use may have to do with perceptions, but notation is merley a tool that we use to enable conversation and recording of ideas. Mathamatics may have been driving by a desire to understand our perceptions, but none of it depends upon them for support.

> What if our perceptions are faulty?

Alex
July 18th 03, 09:14 PM
> So.. Because mathematics hasn't been refuted as the paragon of truth that
> means it never will?

No, math cannot be refuted unless you refuse to belive in the concept of unity. All of math is constructed around that central idea.

> Did you comprehend the part about "language of convenience to describe our
> perceptions"?

Math has nothing to do with perceptions. The notation that we use may have to do with perceptions, but notation is merley a tool that we use to enable conversation and recording of ideas. Mathamatics may have been driving by a desire to understand our perceptions, but none of it depends upon them for support.

> What if our perceptions are faulty?

Tom Morley
July 18th 03, 09:20 PM
Alex wrote:
>>In mathematics, "proof" is used quite liberally. But then the question
>>arises: is the math we use "truth", or just the language of convenience to
>>describe our perceptions? If even math cannot be proven, is then truth an
>>illusion? How does this balance with Dr. Samuel Johnson's refutation of
>>Berkeley?
>
>
> Of course math can be proven -- That is why it is math. All of the math that has ever been thought up and proven will always be true (unless there was a flaw in the proof).
>
> Math is the one study where new ideas and theorys don't replace old ones, they merely improve the old ideas. Math is the only perfect study -- unlike physics were we constantly replace old theories with new ones.
>
> The only way to refute all of mathematics is to refute the idea of unity (one, the identity) upon which all of math is based on.
>
> -Alex (a grad student in physics)

I don't understand this Math stuff.


--
Tom Morley | Same roads
| Same rights
| Same rules
AIM: DocTDM

Tom Morley
July 18th 03, 09:20 PM
Alex wrote:
>>In mathematics, "proof" is used quite liberally. But then the question
>>arises: is the math we use "truth", or just the language of convenience to
>>describe our perceptions? If even math cannot be proven, is then truth an
>>illusion? How does this balance with Dr. Samuel Johnson's refutation of
>>Berkeley?
>
>
> Of course math can be proven -- That is why it is math. All of the math that has ever been thought up and proven will always be true (unless there was a flaw in the proof).
>
> Math is the one study where new ideas and theorys don't replace old ones, they merely improve the old ideas. Math is the only perfect study -- unlike physics were we constantly replace old theories with new ones.
>
> The only way to refute all of mathematics is to refute the idea of unity (one, the identity) upon which all of math is based on.
>
> -Alex (a grad student in physics)

I don't understand this Math stuff.


--
Tom Morley | Same roads
| Same rights
| Same rules
AIM: DocTDM

JC Der Koenig
July 18th 03, 09:21 PM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> > "Alex" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > In mathematics, "proof" is used quite liberally. But then the
question
> > > > arises: is the math we use "truth", or just the language of
convenience
> > to
> > > > describe our perceptions? If even math cannot be proven, is then
truth
> > an
> > > > illusion? How does this balance with Dr. Samuel Johnson's refutation
of
> > > > Berkeley?
> > >
> > > Of course math can be proven -- That is why it is math. All of the
math
> > that has ever been thought up and proven will always be true (unless
there
> > was a flaw in the proof).
> > >
> > > Math is the one study where new ideas and theorys don't replace old
ones,
> > they merely improve the old ideas. Math is the only perfect study --
unlike
> > physics were we constantly replace old theories with new ones.
> > >
> > > The only way to refute all of mathematics is to refute the idea of
unity
> > (one, the identity) upon which all of math is based on.
> > >
> > > -Alex (a grad student in physics)
> >
> > So.. Because mathematics hasn't been refuted as the paragon of truth
that
> > means it never will?
>
> math starts from a series of axioms (human made) and proceeds from
> there. That's why you can have different 'types' of internally
> consistent maths that don't agree with one another. It's all about
> choosing the right starting assumptions.
>

What if we choose the left starting assumptions?


> it has about as much to do with reality as most of your posts.
>
> > Did you comprehend the part about "language of convenience to describe
our
> > perceptions"?
> >
> > What if our perceptions are faulty?
>
> How would we know?
> That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias) objective
> indication of true reality to check?
>
> Lyle

Heisenberg said a little something on the subject.

JC Der Koenig
July 18th 03, 09:21 PM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> > "Alex" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > In mathematics, "proof" is used quite liberally. But then the
question
> > > > arises: is the math we use "truth", or just the language of
convenience
> > to
> > > > describe our perceptions? If even math cannot be proven, is then
truth
> > an
> > > > illusion? How does this balance with Dr. Samuel Johnson's refutation
of
> > > > Berkeley?
> > >
> > > Of course math can be proven -- That is why it is math. All of the
math
> > that has ever been thought up and proven will always be true (unless
there
> > was a flaw in the proof).
> > >
> > > Math is the one study where new ideas and theorys don't replace old
ones,
> > they merely improve the old ideas. Math is the only perfect study --
unlike
> > physics were we constantly replace old theories with new ones.
> > >
> > > The only way to refute all of mathematics is to refute the idea of
unity
> > (one, the identity) upon which all of math is based on.
> > >
> > > -Alex (a grad student in physics)
> >
> > So.. Because mathematics hasn't been refuted as the paragon of truth
that
> > means it never will?
>
> math starts from a series of axioms (human made) and proceeds from
> there. That's why you can have different 'types' of internally
> consistent maths that don't agree with one another. It's all about
> choosing the right starting assumptions.
>

What if we choose the left starting assumptions?


> it has about as much to do with reality as most of your posts.
>
> > Did you comprehend the part about "language of convenience to describe
our
> > perceptions"?
> >
> > What if our perceptions are faulty?
>
> How would we know?
> That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias) objective
> indication of true reality to check?
>
> Lyle

Heisenberg said a little something on the subject.

JC Der Koenig
July 18th 03, 09:29 PM
"Tom Morley" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Alex wrote:
> >>In mathematics, "proof" is used quite liberally. But then the question
> >>arises: is the math we use "truth", or just the language of convenience
to
> >>describe our perceptions? If even math cannot be proven, is then truth
an
> >>illusion? How does this balance with Dr. Samuel Johnson's refutation of
> >>Berkeley?
> >
> >
> > Of course math can be proven -- That is why it is math. All of the math
that has ever been thought up and proven will always be true (unless there
was a flaw in the proof).
> >
> > Math is the one study where new ideas and theorys don't replace old
ones, they merely improve the old ideas. Math is the only perfect study --
unlike physics were we constantly replace old theories with new ones.
> >
> > The only way to refute all of mathematics is to refute the idea of unity
(one, the identity) upon which all of math is based on.
> >
> > -Alex (a grad student in physics)
>
> I don't understand this Math stuff.
>
>
> --
> Tom Morley | Same roads
> | Same rights
> | Same rules
> AIM: DocTDM
>

LMAO

JC Der Koenig
July 18th 03, 09:29 PM
"Tom Morley" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Alex wrote:
> >>In mathematics, "proof" is used quite liberally. But then the question
> >>arises: is the math we use "truth", or just the language of convenience
to
> >>describe our perceptions? If even math cannot be proven, is then truth
an
> >>illusion? How does this balance with Dr. Samuel Johnson's refutation of
> >>Berkeley?
> >
> >
> > Of course math can be proven -- That is why it is math. All of the math
that has ever been thought up and proven will always be true (unless there
was a flaw in the proof).
> >
> > Math is the one study where new ideas and theorys don't replace old
ones, they merely improve the old ideas. Math is the only perfect study --
unlike physics were we constantly replace old theories with new ones.
> >
> > The only way to refute all of mathematics is to refute the idea of unity
(one, the identity) upon which all of math is based on.
> >
> > -Alex (a grad student in physics)
>
> I don't understand this Math stuff.
>
>
> --
> Tom Morley | Same roads
> | Same rights
> | Same rules
> AIM: DocTDM
>

LMAO

JC Der Koenig
July 18th 03, 09:33 PM
"Alex" > wrote in message
...
> > So.. Because mathematics hasn't been refuted as the paragon of truth
that
> > means it never will?
>
> No, math cannot be refuted unless you refuse to belive in the concept of
unity. All of math is constructed around that central idea.
>
> > Did you comprehend the part about "language of convenience to describe
our
> > perceptions"?
>
> Math has nothing to do with perceptions. The notation that we use may have
to do with perceptions, but notation is merley a tool that we use to enable
conversation and recording of ideas. Mathamatics may have been driving by a
desire to understand our perceptions, but none of it depends upon them for
support.
>

So you agree with Dr. Johnson then.

JC Der Koenig
July 18th 03, 09:33 PM
"Alex" > wrote in message
...
> > So.. Because mathematics hasn't been refuted as the paragon of truth
that
> > means it never will?
>
> No, math cannot be refuted unless you refuse to belive in the concept of
unity. All of math is constructed around that central idea.
>
> > Did you comprehend the part about "language of convenience to describe
our
> > perceptions"?
>
> Math has nothing to do with perceptions. The notation that we use may have
to do with perceptions, but notation is merley a tool that we use to enable
conversation and recording of ideas. Mathamatics may have been driving by a
desire to understand our perceptions, but none of it depends upon them for
support.
>

So you agree with Dr. Johnson then.

Lyle McDonald
July 18th 03, 09:43 PM
JC Der Koenig wrote:
>
> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
left handed folks are evil.

> > it has about as much to do with reality as most of your posts.
> >
> > > Did you comprehend the part about "language of convenience to describe
> our
> > > perceptions"?
> > >
> > > What if our perceptions are faulty?
> >
> > How would we know?
> > That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias) objective
> > indication of true reality to check?
> >
> > Lyle
>
> Heisenberg said a little something on the subject.

No, he didn't.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
July 18th 03, 09:43 PM
JC Der Koenig wrote:
>
> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
left handed folks are evil.

> > it has about as much to do with reality as most of your posts.
> >
> > > Did you comprehend the part about "language of convenience to describe
> our
> > > perceptions"?
> > >
> > > What if our perceptions are faulty?
> >
> > How would we know?
> > That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias) objective
> > indication of true reality to check?
> >
> > Lyle
>
> Heisenberg said a little something on the subject.

No, he didn't.

Lyle

Tom Morley
July 18th 03, 09:52 PM
Lyle McDonald wrote:
> JC Der Koenig wrote:
>
>>"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
>
> left handed folks are evil.
>
>
>>>it has about as much to do with reality as most of your posts.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Did you comprehend the part about "language of convenience to describe
>>
>>our
>>
>>>>perceptions"?
>>>>
>>>>What if our perceptions are faulty?
>>>
>>>How would we know?
>>>That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias) objective
>>>indication of true reality to check?
>>>
>>>Lyle
>>
>>Heisenberg said a little something on the subject.
>
>
> No, he didn't.
>
> Lyle


Are you certain? :-) Actually a friend of mine, who went to MIT in
the 50s, once encounted Heisenberg on an elevator, and George Cain
(to name my friend) asked Heisenberg what floor he wanted. When
WH replied, George Cain enquired, "Are you centain?? :-)


--
Tom Morley | Same roads
| Same rights
| Same rules
AIM: DocTDM

Tom Morley
July 18th 03, 09:52 PM
Lyle McDonald wrote:
> JC Der Koenig wrote:
>
>>"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
>
> left handed folks are evil.
>
>
>>>it has about as much to do with reality as most of your posts.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Did you comprehend the part about "language of convenience to describe
>>
>>our
>>
>>>>perceptions"?
>>>>
>>>>What if our perceptions are faulty?
>>>
>>>How would we know?
>>>That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias) objective
>>>indication of true reality to check?
>>>
>>>Lyle
>>
>>Heisenberg said a little something on the subject.
>
>
> No, he didn't.
>
> Lyle


Are you certain? :-) Actually a friend of mine, who went to MIT in
the 50s, once encounted Heisenberg on an elevator, and George Cain
(to name my friend) asked Heisenberg what floor he wanted. When
WH replied, George Cain enquired, "Are you centain?? :-)


--
Tom Morley | Same roads
| Same rights
| Same rules
AIM: DocTDM

JC Der Koenig
July 18th 03, 09:52 PM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> left handed folks are evil.
>
> > > it has about as much to do with reality as most of your posts.
> > >
> > > > Did you comprehend the part about "language of convenience to
describe
> > our
> > > > perceptions"?
> > > >
> > > > What if our perceptions are faulty?
> > >
> > > How would we know?
> > > That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias) objective
> > > indication of true reality to check?
> > >
> > > Lyle
> >
> > Heisenberg said a little something on the subject.
>
> No, he didn't.
>
> Lyle

So you don't know Heisenberg. About par for a PE teacher.

JC Der Koenig
July 18th 03, 09:52 PM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> left handed folks are evil.
>
> > > it has about as much to do with reality as most of your posts.
> > >
> > > > Did you comprehend the part about "language of convenience to
describe
> > our
> > > > perceptions"?
> > > >
> > > > What if our perceptions are faulty?
> > >
> > > How would we know?
> > > That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias) objective
> > > indication of true reality to check?
> > >
> > > Lyle
> >
> > Heisenberg said a little something on the subject.
>
> No, he didn't.
>
> Lyle

So you don't know Heisenberg. About par for a PE teacher.

JC Der Koenig
July 18th 03, 09:59 PM
"Tom Morley" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
> > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> >>"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> >
> > left handed folks are evil.
> >
> >
> >>>it has about as much to do with reality as most of your posts.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Did you comprehend the part about "language of convenience to describe
> >>
> >>our
> >>
> >>>>perceptions"?
> >>>>
> >>>>What if our perceptions are faulty?
> >>>
> >>>How would we know?
> >>>That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias) objective
> >>>indication of true reality to check?
> >>>
> >>>Lyle
> >>
> >>Heisenberg said a little something on the subject.
> >
> >
> > No, he didn't.
> >
> > Lyle
>
>
> Are you certain? :-) Actually a friend of mine, who went to MIT in
> the 50s, once encounted Heisenberg on an elevator, and George Cain
> (to name my friend) asked Heisenberg what floor he wanted. When
> WH replied, George Cain enquired, "Are you centain?? :-)
>
>
> --
> Tom Morley | Same roads
> | Same rights
> | Same rules
> AIM: DocTDM
>

LOL

JC Der Koenig
July 18th 03, 09:59 PM
"Tom Morley" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
> > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> >>"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> >
> > left handed folks are evil.
> >
> >
> >>>it has about as much to do with reality as most of your posts.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Did you comprehend the part about "language of convenience to describe
> >>
> >>our
> >>
> >>>>perceptions"?
> >>>>
> >>>>What if our perceptions are faulty?
> >>>
> >>>How would we know?
> >>>That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias) objective
> >>>indication of true reality to check?
> >>>
> >>>Lyle
> >>
> >>Heisenberg said a little something on the subject.
> >
> >
> > No, he didn't.
> >
> > Lyle
>
>
> Are you certain? :-) Actually a friend of mine, who went to MIT in
> the 50s, once encounted Heisenberg on an elevator, and George Cain
> (to name my friend) asked Heisenberg what floor he wanted. When
> WH replied, George Cain enquired, "Are you centain?? :-)
>
>
> --
> Tom Morley | Same roads
> | Same rights
> | Same rules
> AIM: DocTDM
>

LOL

cl
July 18th 03, 10:00 PM
JC Der Koenig wrote:
>
> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> ...
> > JC Der Koenig wrote:

> > > > > What if our perceptions are faulty?
> > > >
> > > > How would we know?
> > > > That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias) objective
> > > > indication of true reality to check?
> > > >
> > > > Lyle
> > >
> > > Heisenberg said a little something on the subject.
> >
> > No, he didn't.
> >
> > Lyle
>
> So you don't know Heisenberg. About par for a PE teacher.


Well, he both knows and doesn't know him. See Lyle is Schrodinger's
puss. Hence the uncertainty.

cl
July 18th 03, 10:00 PM
JC Der Koenig wrote:
>
> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> ...
> > JC Der Koenig wrote:

> > > > > What if our perceptions are faulty?
> > > >
> > > > How would we know?
> > > > That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias) objective
> > > > indication of true reality to check?
> > > >
> > > > Lyle
> > >
> > > Heisenberg said a little something on the subject.
> >
> > No, he didn't.
> >
> > Lyle
>
> So you don't know Heisenberg. About par for a PE teacher.


Well, he both knows and doesn't know him. See Lyle is Schrodinger's
puss. Hence the uncertainty.

JC Der Koenig
July 18th 03, 10:03 PM
"cl" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > JC Der Koenig wrote:
>
> > > > > > What if our perceptions are faulty?
> > > > >
> > > > > How would we know?
> > > > > That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias) objective
> > > > > indication of true reality to check?
> > > > >
> > > > > Lyle
> > > >
> > > > Heisenberg said a little something on the subject.
> > >
> > > No, he didn't.
> > >
> > > Lyle
> >
> > So you don't know Heisenberg. About par for a PE teacher.
>
>
> Well, he both knows and doesn't know him. See Lyle is Schrodinger's
> puss. Hence the uncertainty.

hahaha.

JC Der Koenig
July 18th 03, 10:03 PM
"cl" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > JC Der Koenig wrote:
>
> > > > > > What if our perceptions are faulty?
> > > > >
> > > > > How would we know?
> > > > > That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias) objective
> > > > > indication of true reality to check?
> > > > >
> > > > > Lyle
> > > >
> > > > Heisenberg said a little something on the subject.
> > >
> > > No, he didn't.
> > >
> > > Lyle
> >
> > So you don't know Heisenberg. About par for a PE teacher.
>
>
> Well, he both knows and doesn't know him. See Lyle is Schrodinger's
> puss. Hence the uncertainty.

hahaha.

Lyle McDonald
July 18th 03, 10:23 PM
Tom Morley wrote:
>
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
> > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> >>"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> >
> > left handed folks are evil.
> >
> >
> >>>it has about as much to do with reality as most of your posts.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Did you comprehend the part about "language of convenience to describe
> >>
> >>our
> >>
> >>>>perceptions"?
> >>>>
> >>>>What if our perceptions are faulty?
> >>>
> >>>How would we know?
> >>>That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias) objective
> >>>indication of true reality to check?
> >>>
> >>>Lyle
> >>
> >>Heisenberg said a little something on the subject.
> >
> >
> > No, he didn't.
> >
> > Lyle
>
> Are you certain? :-) Actually a friend of mine, who went to MIT in
> the 50s, once encounted Heisenberg on an elevator, and George Cain
> (to name my friend) asked Heisenberg what floor he wanted. When
> WH replied, George Cain enquired, "Are you centain?? :-)

Ok, now *that's* funny.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
July 18th 03, 10:23 PM
Tom Morley wrote:
>
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
> > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> >>"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> >
> > left handed folks are evil.
> >
> >
> >>>it has about as much to do with reality as most of your posts.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Did you comprehend the part about "language of convenience to describe
> >>
> >>our
> >>
> >>>>perceptions"?
> >>>>
> >>>>What if our perceptions are faulty?
> >>>
> >>>How would we know?
> >>>That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias) objective
> >>>indication of true reality to check?
> >>>
> >>>Lyle
> >>
> >>Heisenberg said a little something on the subject.
> >
> >
> > No, he didn't.
> >
> > Lyle
>
> Are you certain? :-) Actually a friend of mine, who went to MIT in
> the 50s, once encounted Heisenberg on an elevator, and George Cain
> (to name my friend) asked Heisenberg what floor he wanted. When
> WH replied, George Cain enquired, "Are you centain?? :-)

Ok, now *that's* funny.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
July 18th 03, 10:28 PM
JC Der Koenig wrote:
>
> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> ...
> > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> > >
> > > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > left handed folks are evil.
> >
> > > > it has about as much to do with reality as most of your posts.
> > > >
> > > > > Did you comprehend the part about "language of convenience to
> describe
> > > our
> > > > > perceptions"?
> > > > >
> > > > > What if our perceptions are faulty?
> > > >
> > > > How would we know?
> > > > That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias) objective
> > > > indication of true reality to check?
> > > >
> > > > Lyle
> > >
> > > Heisenberg said a little something on the subject.
> >
> > No, he didn't.
> >
> > Lyle
>
> So you don't know Heisenberg. About par for a PE teacher.

No, not personally. Considering he's dead, this doesn't bother me.

But I'm assuming you're referring to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, yes?

Which is a mathematical formula describing an inverse relationship
between one's capacity measure either the position or velocity of a
particle. Basically, you can either know the position with 100%
certainty and velocity at 0% or vice versa OR some partial value in
between. This says more about how we operationally measure position and
velocity than anything else.

Because, in measuring position with 100% certainty, you must stop the
particle. This means you know nothing about it's velocity prior to the
measurement. Quite in fact, you can't.

Similarly, the operational measurement of velocity requires measurement
of the time between the particle crossing points X and Y. To know
velocity precludes knowing position.

In all cases, human measurement is still involved which has nothing to
do with what I originally wrote (cf. explain how we can derive a 100%
objective, that is without human involvement, measurement of reality).

Don't feel bad, I didn't expect you to understand my point, you're
fairly stupid (even dumber than craig luna).

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
July 18th 03, 10:28 PM
JC Der Koenig wrote:
>
> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> ...
> > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> > >
> > > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > left handed folks are evil.
> >
> > > > it has about as much to do with reality as most of your posts.
> > > >
> > > > > Did you comprehend the part about "language of convenience to
> describe
> > > our
> > > > > perceptions"?
> > > > >
> > > > > What if our perceptions are faulty?
> > > >
> > > > How would we know?
> > > > That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias) objective
> > > > indication of true reality to check?
> > > >
> > > > Lyle
> > >
> > > Heisenberg said a little something on the subject.
> >
> > No, he didn't.
> >
> > Lyle
>
> So you don't know Heisenberg. About par for a PE teacher.

No, not personally. Considering he's dead, this doesn't bother me.

But I'm assuming you're referring to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, yes?

Which is a mathematical formula describing an inverse relationship
between one's capacity measure either the position or velocity of a
particle. Basically, you can either know the position with 100%
certainty and velocity at 0% or vice versa OR some partial value in
between. This says more about how we operationally measure position and
velocity than anything else.

Because, in measuring position with 100% certainty, you must stop the
particle. This means you know nothing about it's velocity prior to the
measurement. Quite in fact, you can't.

Similarly, the operational measurement of velocity requires measurement
of the time between the particle crossing points X and Y. To know
velocity precludes knowing position.

In all cases, human measurement is still involved which has nothing to
do with what I originally wrote (cf. explain how we can derive a 100%
objective, that is without human involvement, measurement of reality).

Don't feel bad, I didn't expect you to understand my point, you're
fairly stupid (even dumber than craig luna).

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
July 18th 03, 10:28 PM
JC Der Koenig wrote:
>
> "cl" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> > >
> > > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > What if our perceptions are faulty?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How would we know?
> > > > > > That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias) objective
> > > > > > indication of true reality to check?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lyle
> > > > >
> > > > > Heisenberg said a little something on the subject.
> > > >
> > > > No, he didn't.
> > > >
> > > > Lyle
> > >
> > > So you don't know Heisenberg. About par for a PE teacher.
> >
> >
> > Well, he both knows and doesn't know him. See Lyle is Schrodinger's
> > puss. Hence the uncertainty.
>
> hahaha.

Are you and Craig competing for most pathetic troll or what?

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
July 18th 03, 10:28 PM
JC Der Koenig wrote:
>
> "cl" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> > >
> > > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > What if our perceptions are faulty?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How would we know?
> > > > > > That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias) objective
> > > > > > indication of true reality to check?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lyle
> > > > >
> > > > > Heisenberg said a little something on the subject.
> > > >
> > > > No, he didn't.
> > > >
> > > > Lyle
> > >
> > > So you don't know Heisenberg. About par for a PE teacher.
> >
> >
> > Well, he both knows and doesn't know him. See Lyle is Schrodinger's
> > puss. Hence the uncertainty.
>
> hahaha.

Are you and Craig competing for most pathetic troll or what?

Lyle

cl
July 18th 03, 10:56 PM
Lyle McDonald wrote:
> Don't feel bad, I didn't expect you to understand my point, you're
> fairly stupid (even dumber than craig luna).
>
> Lyle

Damn straight biatch. I applaude your fairly literal recitation of
uncertainty that appears to have the sound of being ripped from a Jr
High textbook.

Let Yosi worship your grandeur!

cl
July 18th 03, 10:56 PM
Lyle McDonald wrote:
> Don't feel bad, I didn't expect you to understand my point, you're
> fairly stupid (even dumber than craig luna).
>
> Lyle

Damn straight biatch. I applaude your fairly literal recitation of
uncertainty that appears to have the sound of being ripped from a Jr
High textbook.

Let Yosi worship your grandeur!

JC Der Koenig
July 18th 03, 11:31 PM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > > left handed folks are evil.
> > >
> > > > > it has about as much to do with reality as most of your posts.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Did you comprehend the part about "language of convenience to
> > describe
> > > > our
> > > > > > perceptions"?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What if our perceptions are faulty?
> > > > >
> > > > > How would we know?
> > > > > That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias) objective
> > > > > indication of true reality to check?
> > > > >
> > > > > Lyle
> > > >
> > > > Heisenberg said a little something on the subject.
> > >
> > > No, he didn't.
> > >
> > > Lyle
> >
> > So you don't know Heisenberg. About par for a PE teacher.
>
> No, not personally. Considering he's dead, this doesn't bother me.
>
> But I'm assuming you're referring to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle,
yes?
>
> Which is a mathematical formula describing an inverse relationship
> between one's capacity measure either the position or velocity of a
> particle. Basically, you can either know the position with 100%
> certainty and velocity at 0% or vice versa OR some partial value in
> between. This says more about how we operationally measure position and
> velocity than anything else.
>
> Because, in measuring position with 100% certainty, you must stop the
> particle. This means you know nothing about it's velocity prior to the
> measurement. Quite in fact, you can't.
>
> Similarly, the operational measurement of velocity requires measurement
> of the time between the particle crossing points X and Y. To know
> velocity precludes knowing position.
>
> In all cases, human measurement is still involved which has nothing to
> do with what I originally wrote (cf. explain how we can derive a 100%
> objective, that is without human involvement, measurement of reality).
>
> Don't feel bad, I didn't expect you to understand my point, you're
> fairly stupid (even dumber than craig luna).
>
> Lyle

If you can recognize and recall with such clarity, why does your ability to
synthesize information lack acuity?

JC Der Koenig
July 18th 03, 11:31 PM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > > left handed folks are evil.
> > >
> > > > > it has about as much to do with reality as most of your posts.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Did you comprehend the part about "language of convenience to
> > describe
> > > > our
> > > > > > perceptions"?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What if our perceptions are faulty?
> > > > >
> > > > > How would we know?
> > > > > That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias) objective
> > > > > indication of true reality to check?
> > > > >
> > > > > Lyle
> > > >
> > > > Heisenberg said a little something on the subject.
> > >
> > > No, he didn't.
> > >
> > > Lyle
> >
> > So you don't know Heisenberg. About par for a PE teacher.
>
> No, not personally. Considering he's dead, this doesn't bother me.
>
> But I'm assuming you're referring to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle,
yes?
>
> Which is a mathematical formula describing an inverse relationship
> between one's capacity measure either the position or velocity of a
> particle. Basically, you can either know the position with 100%
> certainty and velocity at 0% or vice versa OR some partial value in
> between. This says more about how we operationally measure position and
> velocity than anything else.
>
> Because, in measuring position with 100% certainty, you must stop the
> particle. This means you know nothing about it's velocity prior to the
> measurement. Quite in fact, you can't.
>
> Similarly, the operational measurement of velocity requires measurement
> of the time between the particle crossing points X and Y. To know
> velocity precludes knowing position.
>
> In all cases, human measurement is still involved which has nothing to
> do with what I originally wrote (cf. explain how we can derive a 100%
> objective, that is without human involvement, measurement of reality).
>
> Don't feel bad, I didn't expect you to understand my point, you're
> fairly stupid (even dumber than craig luna).
>
> Lyle

If you can recognize and recall with such clarity, why does your ability to
synthesize information lack acuity?

JC Der Koenig
July 18th 03, 11:33 PM
"cl" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
> > Don't feel bad, I didn't expect you to understand my point, you're
> > fairly stupid (even dumber than craig luna).
> >
> > Lyle
>
> Damn straight biatch. I applaude your fairly literal recitation of
> uncertainty that appears to have the sound of being ripped from a Jr
> High textbook.
>
> Let Yosi worship your grandeur!

Or perhaps this will finally be a 'Twilight of the Idol".

JC Der Koenig
July 18th 03, 11:33 PM
"cl" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
> > Don't feel bad, I didn't expect you to understand my point, you're
> > fairly stupid (even dumber than craig luna).
> >
> > Lyle
>
> Damn straight biatch. I applaude your fairly literal recitation of
> uncertainty that appears to have the sound of being ripped from a Jr
> High textbook.
>
> Let Yosi worship your grandeur!

Or perhaps this will finally be a 'Twilight of the Idol".

Lyle McDonald
July 19th 03, 12:56 AM
cl wrote:
>
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
> > Don't feel bad, I didn't expect you to understand my point, you're
> > fairly stupid (even dumber than craig luna).
> >
> > Lyle
>
> Damn straight biatch. I applaude your fairly literal recitation of
> uncertainty that appears to have the sound of being ripped from a Jr
> High textbook.

I don't own any Jr High school textbooks.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
July 19th 03, 12:56 AM
cl wrote:
>
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
> > Don't feel bad, I didn't expect you to understand my point, you're
> > fairly stupid (even dumber than craig luna).
> >
> > Lyle
>
> Damn straight biatch. I applaude your fairly literal recitation of
> uncertainty that appears to have the sound of being ripped from a Jr
> High textbook.

I don't own any Jr High school textbooks.

Lyle

Lee Michaels
July 19th 03, 01:27 AM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> cl wrote:
> >
> > Lyle McDonald wrote:
> > > Don't feel bad, I didn't expect you to understand my point, you're
> > > fairly stupid (even dumber than craig luna).
> > >
> > > Lyle
> >
> > Damn straight biatch. I applaude your fairly literal recitation of
> > uncertainty that appears to have the sound of being ripped from a Jr
> > High textbook.
>
> I don't own any Jr High school textbooks.
>
> Lyle

Which is a good thing too.

Becasue some demented Dean at a private school may attempt to hire you as a
Jr High science teacher.

Lee Michaels
July 19th 03, 01:27 AM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> cl wrote:
> >
> > Lyle McDonald wrote:
> > > Don't feel bad, I didn't expect you to understand my point, you're
> > > fairly stupid (even dumber than craig luna).
> > >
> > > Lyle
> >
> > Damn straight biatch. I applaude your fairly literal recitation of
> > uncertainty that appears to have the sound of being ripped from a Jr
> > High textbook.
>
> I don't own any Jr High school textbooks.
>
> Lyle

Which is a good thing too.

Becasue some demented Dean at a private school may attempt to hire you as a
Jr High science teacher.

David Cohen
July 19th 03, 01:43 AM
"David Eynon" > wrote
> I don't like the fact that guy called me a "blithering idot" or
whatever he
> said.

Aw, poor baby. Before I killfile your ass, I thought I'd share a
couple of emails from you. While I generally don't post private
emails, trolls and blithering idiots don't count.

From: "David Eynon" >
To: >
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: peanuts

> wtf you talking about? I took biology and some bio courses...
explain.

From: "David Eynon" >
To: >
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: Protein Questions

> What song do you sing when you roll a penny down the street??
>
> "A jew-run run run a jew run run run..."

I hope you're not a troll, as that would disqualify you from Idiot of
the Month.

Now, repeat five times fast:
I we Todd did.
I sofa king we Todd did.

David
--
"Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous"...Voltaire

David Cohen
July 19th 03, 01:43 AM
"David Eynon" > wrote
> I don't like the fact that guy called me a "blithering idot" or
whatever he
> said.

Aw, poor baby. Before I killfile your ass, I thought I'd share a
couple of emails from you. While I generally don't post private
emails, trolls and blithering idiots don't count.

From: "David Eynon" >
To: >
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: peanuts

> wtf you talking about? I took biology and some bio courses...
explain.

From: "David Eynon" >
To: >
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: Protein Questions

> What song do you sing when you roll a penny down the street??
>
> "A jew-run run run a jew run run run..."

I hope you're not a troll, as that would disqualify you from Idiot of
the Month.

Now, repeat five times fast:
I we Todd did.
I sofa king we Todd did.

David
--
"Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous"...Voltaire

JC Der Koenig
July 19th 03, 02:06 AM
"David Eynon" > wrote in message
...
> I don't like the fact that guy called me a "blithering idot" or whatever
he
> said.
>

It could be a lot worse.

JC Der Koenig
July 19th 03, 02:06 AM
"David Eynon" > wrote in message
...
> I don't like the fact that guy called me a "blithering idot" or whatever
he
> said.
>

It could be a lot worse.

JC Der Koenig
July 19th 03, 02:13 AM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> > If you can recognize and recall with such clarity, why does your ability
to
> > synthesize information lack acuity?
>
>
> You're not even a Grade-d troll. It's so disappointing, MFW used to have
> much better trolls.
>
> Lyle

Is this your pat answer to anyone that realizes you have the credentials of
a high school PE teacher?

I have to admit though, your cut and paste information gathering is
exemplary.

JC Der Koenig
July 19th 03, 02:13 AM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> > If you can recognize and recall with such clarity, why does your ability
to
> > synthesize information lack acuity?
>
>
> You're not even a Grade-d troll. It's so disappointing, MFW used to have
> much better trolls.
>
> Lyle

Is this your pat answer to anyone that realizes you have the credentials of
a high school PE teacher?

I have to admit though, your cut and paste information gathering is
exemplary.

Lyle McDonald
July 19th 03, 02:22 AM
JC Der Koenig wrote:
>
> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message

> I have to admit though, your cut and paste information gathering is
> exemplary.

The way that you ignore direct questions to focus on minutiae is equally impressive.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
July 19th 03, 02:22 AM
JC Der Koenig wrote:
>
> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message

> I have to admit though, your cut and paste information gathering is
> exemplary.

The way that you ignore direct questions to focus on minutiae is equally impressive.

Lyle

JC Der Koenig
July 19th 03, 02:32 AM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
>
> > I have to admit though, your cut and paste information gathering is
> > exemplary.
>
> The way that you ignore direct questions to focus on minutiae is equally
impressive.
>
> Lyle

LOL, good one.

JC Der Koenig
July 19th 03, 02:32 AM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
>
> > I have to admit though, your cut and paste information gathering is
> > exemplary.
>
> The way that you ignore direct questions to focus on minutiae is equally
impressive.
>
> Lyle

LOL, good one.

JC Der Koenig
July 19th 03, 03:07 AM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > > I have to admit though, your cut and paste information gathering is
> > > > exemplary.
> > >
> > > The way that you ignore direct questions to focus on minutiae is
equally
> > impressive.
> > >
> > > Lyle
> >
> > LOL, good one.
>
> my penis swells with blood at the thought of your praise
>
> incidentally, I'm not qualified to teach high school PE
>
> no teaching credential
>
> Lyle

You have the degree, and that's the most difficult part.

JC Der Koenig
July 19th 03, 03:07 AM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > > I have to admit though, your cut and paste information gathering is
> > > > exemplary.
> > >
> > > The way that you ignore direct questions to focus on minutiae is
equally
> > impressive.
> > >
> > > Lyle
> >
> > LOL, good one.
>
> my penis swells with blood at the thought of your praise
>
> incidentally, I'm not qualified to teach high school PE
>
> no teaching credential
>
> Lyle

You have the degree, and that's the most difficult part.

Richard Smith
July 19th 03, 03:44 AM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> > "cl" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > > What if our perceptions are faulty?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How would we know?
> > > > > > > That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias)
objective
> > > > > > > indication of true reality to check?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lyle
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Heisenberg said a little something on the subject.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, he didn't.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lyle
> > > >
> > > > So you don't know Heisenberg. About par for a PE teacher.
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, he both knows and doesn't know him. See Lyle is Schrodinger's
> > > puss. Hence the uncertainty.
> >
> > hahaha.
>
> Are you and Craig competing for most pathetic troll or what?
>
> Lyle

JC doesn't argue for a reason...he just likes to admire his tonsils in the
mirror.

R

Richard Smith
July 19th 03, 03:44 AM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> > "cl" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > > What if our perceptions are faulty?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How would we know?
> > > > > > > That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias)
objective
> > > > > > > indication of true reality to check?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lyle
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Heisenberg said a little something on the subject.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, he didn't.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lyle
> > > >
> > > > So you don't know Heisenberg. About par for a PE teacher.
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, he both knows and doesn't know him. See Lyle is Schrodinger's
> > > puss. Hence the uncertainty.
> >
> > hahaha.
>
> Are you and Craig competing for most pathetic troll or what?
>
> Lyle

JC doesn't argue for a reason...he just likes to admire his tonsils in the
mirror.

R

Richard Smith
July 19th 03, 04:01 AM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "David Eynon" > wrote
> > I don't like the fact that guy called me a "blithering idot" or
> whatever he
> > said.
>
> Aw, poor baby. Before I killfile your ass, I thought I'd share a
> couple of emails from you. While I generally don't post private
> emails, trolls and blithering idiots don't count.
>
> From: "David Eynon" >
> To: >
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:55 PM
> Subject: Re: peanuts
>
> > wtf you talking about? I took biology and some bio courses...
> explain.
>
> From: "David Eynon" >
> To: >
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Protein Questions
>
> > What song do you sing when you roll a penny down the street??
> >
> > "A jew-run run run a jew run run run..."
>
> I hope you're not a troll, as that would disqualify you from Idiot of
> the Month.
>
> Now, repeat five times fast:
> I we Todd did.
> I sofa king we Todd did.
>
> David
> --
> "Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous"...Voltaire
>
>

O-wa-tah-goo-si-am

Richard Smith
July 19th 03, 04:01 AM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "David Eynon" > wrote
> > I don't like the fact that guy called me a "blithering idot" or
> whatever he
> > said.
>
> Aw, poor baby. Before I killfile your ass, I thought I'd share a
> couple of emails from you. While I generally don't post private
> emails, trolls and blithering idiots don't count.
>
> From: "David Eynon" >
> To: >
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:55 PM
> Subject: Re: peanuts
>
> > wtf you talking about? I took biology and some bio courses...
> explain.
>
> From: "David Eynon" >
> To: >
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Protein Questions
>
> > What song do you sing when you roll a penny down the street??
> >
> > "A jew-run run run a jew run run run..."
>
> I hope you're not a troll, as that would disqualify you from Idiot of
> the Month.
>
> Now, repeat five times fast:
> I we Todd did.
> I sofa king we Todd did.
>
> David
> --
> "Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous"...Voltaire
>
>

O-wa-tah-goo-si-am

Richard Smith
July 19th 03, 04:02 AM
"Tom Morley" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Alex wrote:
> >>In mathematics, "proof" is used quite liberally. But then the question
> >>arises: is the math we use "truth", or just the language of convenience
to
> >>describe our perceptions? If even math cannot be proven, is then truth
an
> >>illusion? How does this balance with Dr. Samuel Johnson's refutation of
> >>Berkeley?
> >
> >
> > Of course math can be proven -- That is why it is math. All of the math
that has ever been thought up and proven will always be true (unless there
was a flaw in the proof).
> >
> > Math is the one study where new ideas and theorys don't replace old
ones, they merely improve the old ideas. Math is the only perfect study --
unlike physics were we constantly replace old theories with new ones.
> >
> > The only way to refute all of mathematics is to refute the idea of unity
(one, the identity) upon which all of math is based on.
> >
> > -Alex (a grad student in physics)
>
> I don't understand this Math stuff.
>
>
> --
> Tom Morley | Same roads
> | Same rights
> | Same rules
> AIM: DocTDM
>

Math is for people who can't handle reality.

R

Richard Smith
July 19th 03, 04:02 AM
"Tom Morley" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Alex wrote:
> >>In mathematics, "proof" is used quite liberally. But then the question
> >>arises: is the math we use "truth", or just the language of convenience
to
> >>describe our perceptions? If even math cannot be proven, is then truth
an
> >>illusion? How does this balance with Dr. Samuel Johnson's refutation of
> >>Berkeley?
> >
> >
> > Of course math can be proven -- That is why it is math. All of the math
that has ever been thought up and proven will always be true (unless there
was a flaw in the proof).
> >
> > Math is the one study where new ideas and theorys don't replace old
ones, they merely improve the old ideas. Math is the only perfect study --
unlike physics were we constantly replace old theories with new ones.
> >
> > The only way to refute all of mathematics is to refute the idea of unity
(one, the identity) upon which all of math is based on.
> >
> > -Alex (a grad student in physics)
>
> I don't understand this Math stuff.
>
>
> --
> Tom Morley | Same roads
> | Same rights
> | Same rules
> AIM: DocTDM
>

Math is for people who can't handle reality.

R

Richard Smith
July 19th 03, 04:03 AM
"JC Der Koenig" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> ...
> > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> > >
> > > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > > I have to admit though, your cut and paste information gathering
is
> > > > > exemplary.
> > > >
> > > > The way that you ignore direct questions to focus on minutiae is
> equally
> > > impressive.
> > > >
> > > > Lyle
> > >
> > > LOL, good one.
> >
> > my penis swells with blood at the thought of your praise
> >
> > incidentally, I'm not qualified to teach high school PE
> >
> > no teaching credential
> >
> > Lyle
>
> You have the degree, and that's the most difficult part.
>
>

Aye, 'tis.

This is one of the more fun threads.

I thank the both of you.

R

>
>

Richard Smith
July 19th 03, 04:03 AM
"JC Der Koenig" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> ...
> > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> > >
> > > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > > I have to admit though, your cut and paste information gathering
is
> > > > > exemplary.
> > > >
> > > > The way that you ignore direct questions to focus on minutiae is
> equally
> > > impressive.
> > > >
> > > > Lyle
> > >
> > > LOL, good one.
> >
> > my penis swells with blood at the thought of your praise
> >
> > incidentally, I'm not qualified to teach high school PE
> >
> > no teaching credential
> >
> > Lyle
>
> You have the degree, and that's the most difficult part.
>
>

Aye, 'tis.

This is one of the more fun threads.

I thank the both of you.

R

>
>

Keith Hobman
July 19th 03, 04:36 PM
In article ers.com>,
"Mistress Krista" *rem0vethis*> wrote:

> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I'm working on a second degree and intend to pursue it to a PhD level -
> >
>
>
>
> Noooo! Go back! It's a trap! They don't tell you about the personality
> amputation which occurs somewhere between reading book 6720 of the comps and
> having white wine spritzers at departmental functions.

White wine spritzers?

Not likely. Either they serve dark beer or they don't get me at
departmental functions.

:^)

--
Keith Hobman

--- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.

Keith Hobman
July 19th 03, 04:36 PM
In article ers.com>,
"Mistress Krista" *rem0vethis*> wrote:

> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I'm working on a second degree and intend to pursue it to a PhD level -
> >
>
>
>
> Noooo! Go back! It's a trap! They don't tell you about the personality
> amputation which occurs somewhere between reading book 6720 of the comps and
> having white wine spritzers at departmental functions.

White wine spritzers?

Not likely. Either they serve dark beer or they don't get me at
departmental functions.

:^)

--
Keith Hobman

--- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.

Mistress Krista
July 19th 03, 05:02 PM
"Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
...
> In article ers.com>,
> "Mistress Krista" *rem0vethis*> wrote:
>
> > "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > I'm working on a second degree and intend to pursue it to a PhD
level -
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Noooo! Go back! It's a trap! They don't tell you about the personality
> > amputation which occurs somewhere between reading book 6720 of the comps
and
> > having white wine spritzers at departmental functions.
>
> White wine spritzers?
>
> Not likely. Either they serve dark beer or they don't get me at
> departmental functions.
>

You say that now. Fast forward five years, to Keith noshing on vegetarian
canapes and chortling heartily in an obsequious fashion at Professor
So-and-So's witty jibes. Ha ha ha! I say! What a delightful jape, Dr.
Whatsyerface! Ha! How droll!

:)

Krista

--
--------------------
www.stumptuous.com/weights.html
www.trans-health.com

Mistress Krista
July 19th 03, 05:02 PM
"Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
...
> In article ers.com>,
> "Mistress Krista" *rem0vethis*> wrote:
>
> > "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > I'm working on a second degree and intend to pursue it to a PhD
level -
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Noooo! Go back! It's a trap! They don't tell you about the personality
> > amputation which occurs somewhere between reading book 6720 of the comps
and
> > having white wine spritzers at departmental functions.
>
> White wine spritzers?
>
> Not likely. Either they serve dark beer or they don't get me at
> departmental functions.
>

You say that now. Fast forward five years, to Keith noshing on vegetarian
canapes and chortling heartily in an obsequious fashion at Professor
So-and-So's witty jibes. Ha ha ha! I say! What a delightful jape, Dr.
Whatsyerface! Ha! How droll!

:)

Krista

--
--------------------
www.stumptuous.com/weights.html
www.trans-health.com

Mistress Krista
July 19th 03, 07:12 PM
"Tom Morley" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Mistress Krista wrote:
> > "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>I'm working on a second degree and intend to pursue it to a PhD level -
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Noooo! Go back! It's a trap! They don't tell you about the personality
> > amputation which occurs somewhere between reading book 6720 of the comps
and
> > having white wine spritzers at departmental functions.
> >
> >
> > Krista
> >
>
>
> We will assimilate.
>


Ha ha ha Dr. Morley! You are ever so clever! May I fetch you another drink?
Please say yes!

:)

Krista

--
--------------------
www.stumptuous.com/weights.html
www.trans-health.com

Mistress Krista
July 19th 03, 07:12 PM
"Tom Morley" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Mistress Krista wrote:
> > "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>I'm working on a second degree and intend to pursue it to a PhD level -
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Noooo! Go back! It's a trap! They don't tell you about the personality
> > amputation which occurs somewhere between reading book 6720 of the comps
and
> > having white wine spritzers at departmental functions.
> >
> >
> > Krista
> >
>
>
> We will assimilate.
>


Ha ha ha Dr. Morley! You are ever so clever! May I fetch you another drink?
Please say yes!

:)

Krista

--
--------------------
www.stumptuous.com/weights.html
www.trans-health.com

John M. Williams
July 19th 03, 07:51 PM
"Mistress Krista" *rem0vethis*> wrote:
>
>"Keith Hobman" > wrote:
>>
>> "Mistress Krista" *rem0vethis*> wrote:
>>
>> > "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
>> > >
>> > > I'm working on a second degree and intend to pursue it to a PhD
>> > > level -
>> >
>> > Noooo! Go back! It's a trap! They don't tell you about the personality
>> > amputation which occurs somewhere between reading book 6720 of the comps
>> > and having white wine spritzers at departmental functions.
>>
>> White wine spritzers?
>>
>> Not likely. Either they serve dark beer or they don't get me at
>> departmental functions.
>>
>
>You say that now. Fast forward five years, to Keith noshing on vegetarian
>canapes and chortling heartily in an obsequious fashion at Professor
>So-and-So's witty jibes. Ha ha ha! I say! What a delightful jape, Dr.
>Whatsyerface! Ha! How droll!

And as distasteful as that may seem, it is often Professor So-and-So
and his/her sycophants who are on the tenure committee.

John M. Williams
July 19th 03, 07:51 PM
"Mistress Krista" *rem0vethis*> wrote:
>
>"Keith Hobman" > wrote:
>>
>> "Mistress Krista" *rem0vethis*> wrote:
>>
>> > "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
>> > >
>> > > I'm working on a second degree and intend to pursue it to a PhD
>> > > level -
>> >
>> > Noooo! Go back! It's a trap! They don't tell you about the personality
>> > amputation which occurs somewhere between reading book 6720 of the comps
>> > and having white wine spritzers at departmental functions.
>>
>> White wine spritzers?
>>
>> Not likely. Either they serve dark beer or they don't get me at
>> departmental functions.
>>
>
>You say that now. Fast forward five years, to Keith noshing on vegetarian
>canapes and chortling heartily in an obsequious fashion at Professor
>So-and-So's witty jibes. Ha ha ha! I say! What a delightful jape, Dr.
>Whatsyerface! Ha! How droll!

And as distasteful as that may seem, it is often Professor So-and-So
and his/her sycophants who are on the tenure committee.

Tom Morley
July 19th 03, 07:57 PM
Mistress Krista wrote:
> "Tom Morley" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Mistress Krista wrote:
>>
>>>"Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm working on a second degree and intend to pursue it to a PhD level -
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Noooo! Go back! It's a trap! They don't tell you about the personality
>>>amputation which occurs somewhere between reading book 6720 of the comps
>
> and
>
>>>having white wine spritzers at departmental functions.
>>>
>>>
>>>Krista
>>>
>>
>>
>>We will assimilate.
>>
>
>
>
> Ha ha ha Dr. Morley! You are ever so clever! May I fetch you another drink?
> Please say yes!
>
> :)
>
> Krista
>


I'll have a Earl Grey, with lemmon. Thank you.

--
Tom Morley | Same roads
| Same rights
| Same rules
AIM: DocTDM

Tom Morley
July 19th 03, 07:57 PM
Mistress Krista wrote:
> "Tom Morley" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Mistress Krista wrote:
>>
>>>"Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm working on a second degree and intend to pursue it to a PhD level -
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Noooo! Go back! It's a trap! They don't tell you about the personality
>>>amputation which occurs somewhere between reading book 6720 of the comps
>
> and
>
>>>having white wine spritzers at departmental functions.
>>>
>>>
>>>Krista
>>>
>>
>>
>>We will assimilate.
>>
>
>
>
> Ha ha ha Dr. Morley! You are ever so clever! May I fetch you another drink?
> Please say yes!
>
> :)
>
> Krista
>


I'll have a Earl Grey, with lemmon. Thank you.

--
Tom Morley | Same roads
| Same rights
| Same rules
AIM: DocTDM

John HUDSON
July 19th 03, 08:01 PM
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:51:49 -0400, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>"Mistress Krista" *rem0vethis*> wrote:
>>
>>"Keith Hobman" > wrote:
>>>
>>> "Mistress Krista" *rem0vethis*> wrote:
>>>
>>> > "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
>>> > >
>>> > > I'm working on a second degree and intend to pursue it to a PhD
>>> > > level -
>>> >
>>> > Noooo! Go back! It's a trap! They don't tell you about the personality
>>> > amputation which occurs somewhere between reading book 6720 of the comps
>>> > and having white wine spritzers at departmental functions.
>>>
>>> White wine spritzers?
>>>
>>> Not likely. Either they serve dark beer or they don't get me at
>>> departmental functions.
>>>
>>
>>You say that now. Fast forward five years, to Keith noshing on vegetarian
>>canapes and chortling heartily in an obsequious fashion at Professor
>>So-and-So's witty jibes. Ha ha ha! I say! What a delightful jape, Dr.
>>Whatsyerface! Ha! How droll!
>
>And as distasteful as that may seem, it is often Professor So-and-So
>and his/her sycophants who are on the tenure committee.

Why would that be distasteful John? In the realms of academia the
academics rule, and like the dynamics of any other closed institution,
they find their own level, and make their own rules.

Those of us want to join them, no matter how superficially, must play
the game by their time-honoured rules.

As it happens I have a number of friends in the upper reaches of the
education system, and many of them are 'role playing'! Beneath those
stuffy exteriors beats the hearts of once irresponsible youth, and a
continuing sense of humour which is irrepressible! ;o)

You must know many in the higher reaches of your own profession, that
conduct themselves in much the same manner!

John HUDSON
July 19th 03, 08:01 PM
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:51:49 -0400, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>"Mistress Krista" *rem0vethis*> wrote:
>>
>>"Keith Hobman" > wrote:
>>>
>>> "Mistress Krista" *rem0vethis*> wrote:
>>>
>>> > "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
>>> > >
>>> > > I'm working on a second degree and intend to pursue it to a PhD
>>> > > level -
>>> >
>>> > Noooo! Go back! It's a trap! They don't tell you about the personality
>>> > amputation which occurs somewhere between reading book 6720 of the comps
>>> > and having white wine spritzers at departmental functions.
>>>
>>> White wine spritzers?
>>>
>>> Not likely. Either they serve dark beer or they don't get me at
>>> departmental functions.
>>>
>>
>>You say that now. Fast forward five years, to Keith noshing on vegetarian
>>canapes and chortling heartily in an obsequious fashion at Professor
>>So-and-So's witty jibes. Ha ha ha! I say! What a delightful jape, Dr.
>>Whatsyerface! Ha! How droll!
>
>And as distasteful as that may seem, it is often Professor So-and-So
>and his/her sycophants who are on the tenure committee.

Why would that be distasteful John? In the realms of academia the
academics rule, and like the dynamics of any other closed institution,
they find their own level, and make their own rules.

Those of us want to join them, no matter how superficially, must play
the game by their time-honoured rules.

As it happens I have a number of friends in the upper reaches of the
education system, and many of them are 'role playing'! Beneath those
stuffy exteriors beats the hearts of once irresponsible youth, and a
continuing sense of humour which is irrepressible! ;o)

You must know many in the higher reaches of your own profession, that
conduct themselves in much the same manner!

J. Thiessen
July 19th 03, 08:06 PM
Mistress Krista wrote:
>
> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I'm working on a second degree and intend to pursue it to a PhD level -
>>
>
>
>
> Noooo! Go back! It's a trap! They don't tell you about the personality
> amputation which occurs somewhere between reading book 6720 of the comps and
> having white wine spritzers at departmental functions.

Do they let you keep it pickled in a jar?

J.

J. Thiessen
July 19th 03, 08:06 PM
Mistress Krista wrote:
>
> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I'm working on a second degree and intend to pursue it to a PhD level -
>>
>
>
>
> Noooo! Go back! It's a trap! They don't tell you about the personality
> amputation which occurs somewhere between reading book 6720 of the comps and
> having white wine spritzers at departmental functions.

Do they let you keep it pickled in a jar?

J.

John M. Williams
July 19th 03, 08:23 PM
John HUDSON > wrote:
>
>Those of us want to join them, no matter how superficially, must play
>the game by their time-honoured rules.

I have no doubt of your expertise in such matters.

John M. Williams
July 19th 03, 08:23 PM
John HUDSON > wrote:
>
>Those of us want to join them, no matter how superficially, must play
>the game by their time-honoured rules.

I have no doubt of your expertise in such matters.

August Pamplona
July 19th 03, 08:29 PM
"JC Der Koenig" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> ...
> > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> > >
> > > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > left handed folks are evil.
> >
> > > > it has about as much to do with reality as most of your posts.
> > > >
> > > > > Did you comprehend the part about "language of convenience to
> describe
> > > our
> > > > > perceptions"?
> > > > >
> > > > > What if our perceptions are faulty?
> > > >
> > > > How would we know?
> > > > That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias) objective
> > > > indication of true reality to check?
> > > >
> > > > Lyle
> > >
> > > Heisenberg said a little something on the subject.
> >
> > No, he didn't.
> >
> > Lyle
>
> So you don't know Heisenberg. About par for a PE teacher.

Do you always end up making a complete ass of yourself when trying
to make someone else look look like the ass?

Just wondering,
August Pamplona
--
"No, jew. Your jew opinion doesn't matter no matter what, jew. Your
writings deserve no comprehension, merely scorn, jew. You are jew."
-Lysis on m.f.w.

a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20
To email replace 'necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale' with
'cosmicaug'

August Pamplona
July 19th 03, 08:29 PM
"JC Der Koenig" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> ...
> > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> > >
> > > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > left handed folks are evil.
> >
> > > > it has about as much to do with reality as most of your posts.
> > > >
> > > > > Did you comprehend the part about "language of convenience to
> describe
> > > our
> > > > > perceptions"?
> > > > >
> > > > > What if our perceptions are faulty?
> > > >
> > > > How would we know?
> > > > That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias) objective
> > > > indication of true reality to check?
> > > >
> > > > Lyle
> > >
> > > Heisenberg said a little something on the subject.
> >
> > No, he didn't.
> >
> > Lyle
>
> So you don't know Heisenberg. About par for a PE teacher.

Do you always end up making a complete ass of yourself when trying
to make someone else look look like the ass?

Just wondering,
August Pamplona
--
"No, jew. Your jew opinion doesn't matter no matter what, jew. Your
writings deserve no comprehension, merely scorn, jew. You are jew."
-Lysis on m.f.w.

a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20
To email replace 'necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale' with
'cosmicaug'

JC Der Koenig
July 19th 03, 08:38 PM
> "August Pamplona" > wrote
in
> message hlink.net...
> > Do you always end up making a complete ass of yourself when trying
> > to make someone else look look like the ass?
^^^^^^^
> >
> > Just wondering,
> > August Pamplona
>

Do you always stutter when speaking of asses? Why are you looking at my ass
anyway? Is that the way you swing?

JC Der Koenig
July 19th 03, 08:38 PM
> "August Pamplona" > wrote
in
> message hlink.net...
> > Do you always end up making a complete ass of yourself when trying
> > to make someone else look look like the ass?
^^^^^^^
> >
> > Just wondering,
> > August Pamplona
>

Do you always stutter when speaking of asses? Why are you looking at my ass
anyway? Is that the way you swing?

August Pamplona
July 19th 03, 08:43 PM
"JC Der Koenig" > wrote in message
...
>
> > "August Pamplona" >
wrote
> in
> > message
hlink.net...
> > > Do you always end up making a complete ass of yourself when
trying
> > > to make someone else look look like the ass?
> ^^^^^^^
> > >
> > > Just wondering,
> > > August Pamplona
> >
>
> Do you always stutter when speaking of asses? Why are you looking at
my ass
> anyway? Is that the way you swing?
>

Yup, I made an editing mistake. I admit I do them often.

August Pamplona
--
"No, jew. Your jew opinion doesn't matter no matter what, jew. Your
writings deserve no comprehension, merely scorn, jew. You are jew."
-Lysis on m.f.w.

a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20
To email replace 'necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale' with
'cosmicaug'

August Pamplona
July 19th 03, 08:43 PM
"JC Der Koenig" > wrote in message
...
>
> > "August Pamplona" >
wrote
> in
> > message
hlink.net...
> > > Do you always end up making a complete ass of yourself when
trying
> > > to make someone else look look like the ass?
> ^^^^^^^
> > >
> > > Just wondering,
> > > August Pamplona
> >
>
> Do you always stutter when speaking of asses? Why are you looking at
my ass
> anyway? Is that the way you swing?
>

Yup, I made an editing mistake. I admit I do them often.

August Pamplona
--
"No, jew. Your jew opinion doesn't matter no matter what, jew. Your
writings deserve no comprehension, merely scorn, jew. You are jew."
-Lysis on m.f.w.

a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20
To email replace 'necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale' with
'cosmicaug'

John HUDSON
July 19th 03, 10:41 PM
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:23:24 -0400, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>John HUDSON > wrote:
>>
>>Those of us want to join them, no matter how superficially, must play
>>the game by their time-honoured rules.
>
>I have no doubt of your expertise in such matters.

A somewhat curmudgeonly observation, in a what was essentially a non
confrontational topic. <sigh>

John HUDSON
July 19th 03, 10:41 PM
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:23:24 -0400, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>John HUDSON > wrote:
>>
>>Those of us want to join them, no matter how superficially, must play
>>the game by their time-honoured rules.
>
>I have no doubt of your expertise in such matters.

A somewhat curmudgeonly observation, in a what was essentially a non
confrontational topic. <sigh>

Lance Manyon
July 20th 03, 11:16 AM
"JC Der Koenig" > wrote in message
...
>
> "cl" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Lyle McDonald wrote:
> > > Don't feel bad, I didn't expect you to understand my point, you're
> > > fairly stupid (even dumber than craig luna).
> > >
> > > Lyle
> >
> > Damn straight biatch. I applaude your fairly literal recitation of
> > uncertainty that appears to have the sound of being ripped from a Jr
> > High textbook.
> >
> > Let Yosi worship your grandeur!
>
> Or perhaps this will finally be a 'Twilight of the Idol".
>
> u geeks just love to spew bull**** and hot air dont you..how many times
did you retype that response to get the wittiest read?

Lance Manyon
July 20th 03, 11:16 AM
"JC Der Koenig" > wrote in message
...
>
> "cl" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Lyle McDonald wrote:
> > > Don't feel bad, I didn't expect you to understand my point, you're
> > > fairly stupid (even dumber than craig luna).
> > >
> > > Lyle
> >
> > Damn straight biatch. I applaude your fairly literal recitation of
> > uncertainty that appears to have the sound of being ripped from a Jr
> > High textbook.
> >
> > Let Yosi worship your grandeur!
>
> Or perhaps this will finally be a 'Twilight of the Idol".
>
> u geeks just love to spew bull**** and hot air dont you..how many times
did you retype that response to get the wittiest read?

Lance Manyon
July 20th 03, 11:19 AM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > > I have to admit though, your cut and paste information gathering is
> > > > exemplary.
> > >
> > > The way that you ignore direct questions to focus on minutiae is
equally
> > impressive.
> > >
> > > Lyle
> >
> > LOL, good one.
>
> my penis swells with blood at the thought of your praise
>
> incidentally, I'm not qualified to teach high school PE
>
> no teaching credential
>
> Lyle
bla bla ****in bla gettin hot in here

Lance Manyon
July 20th 03, 11:19 AM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > > I have to admit though, your cut and paste information gathering is
> > > > exemplary.
> > >
> > > The way that you ignore direct questions to focus on minutiae is
equally
> > impressive.
> > >
> > > Lyle
> >
> > LOL, good one.
>
> my penis swells with blood at the thought of your praise
>
> incidentally, I'm not qualified to teach high school PE
>
> no teaching credential
>
> Lyle
bla bla ****in bla gettin hot in here

Lance Manyon
July 20th 03, 11:20 AM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > > left handed folks are evil.
> > >
> > > > > it has about as much to do with reality as most of your posts.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Did you comprehend the part about "language of convenience to
> > describe
> > > > our
> > > > > > perceptions"?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What if our perceptions are faulty?
> > > > >
> > > > > How would we know?
> > > > > That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias) objective
> > > > > indication of true reality to check?
> > > > >
> > > > > Lyle
> > > >
> > > > Heisenberg said a little something on the subject.
> > >
> > > No, he didn't.
> > >
> > > Lyle
> >
> > So you don't know Heisenberg. About par for a PE teacher.
>
> No, not personally. Considering he's dead, this doesn't bother me.
>
> But I'm assuming you're referring to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle,
yes?
>
> Which is a mathematical formula describing an inverse relationship
> between one's capacity measure either the position or velocity of a
> particle. Basically, you can either know the position with 100%
> certainty and velocity at 0% or vice versa OR some partial value in
> between. This says more about how we operationally measure position and
> velocity than anything else.
>
> Because, in measuring position with 100% certainty, you must stop the
> particle. This means you know nothing about it's velocity prior to the
> measurement. Quite in fact, you can't.
>
> Similarly, the operational measurement of velocity requires measurement
> of the time between the particle crossing points X and Y. To know
> velocity precludes knowing position.
>
> In all cases, human measurement is still involved which has nothing to
> do with what I originally wrote (cf. explain how we can derive a 100%
> objective, that is without human involvement, measurement of reality).
>
> Don't feel bad, I didn't expect you to understand my point, you're
> fairly stupid (even dumber than craig luna).
>
> Lyle
why so much to prove to a stranger? shut up.

Lance Manyon
July 20th 03, 11:20 AM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> > > left handed folks are evil.
> > >
> > > > > it has about as much to do with reality as most of your posts.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Did you comprehend the part about "language of convenience to
> > describe
> > > > our
> > > > > > perceptions"?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What if our perceptions are faulty?
> > > > >
> > > > > How would we know?
> > > > > That is, how can we get a purely (i.e. no human bias) objective
> > > > > indication of true reality to check?
> > > > >
> > > > > Lyle
> > > >
> > > > Heisenberg said a little something on the subject.
> > >
> > > No, he didn't.
> > >
> > > Lyle
> >
> > So you don't know Heisenberg. About par for a PE teacher.
>
> No, not personally. Considering he's dead, this doesn't bother me.
>
> But I'm assuming you're referring to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle,
yes?
>
> Which is a mathematical formula describing an inverse relationship
> between one's capacity measure either the position or velocity of a
> particle. Basically, you can either know the position with 100%
> certainty and velocity at 0% or vice versa OR some partial value in
> between. This says more about how we operationally measure position and
> velocity than anything else.
>
> Because, in measuring position with 100% certainty, you must stop the
> particle. This means you know nothing about it's velocity prior to the
> measurement. Quite in fact, you can't.
>
> Similarly, the operational measurement of velocity requires measurement
> of the time between the particle crossing points X and Y. To know
> velocity precludes knowing position.
>
> In all cases, human measurement is still involved which has nothing to
> do with what I originally wrote (cf. explain how we can derive a 100%
> objective, that is without human involvement, measurement of reality).
>
> Don't feel bad, I didn't expect you to understand my point, you're
> fairly stupid (even dumber than craig luna).
>
> Lyle
why so much to prove to a stranger? shut up.

Keith Hobman
July 20th 03, 02:43 PM
In article >,
"Richard Smith" > wrote:

> <snipage>
>
> > > You say that now. Fast forward five years, to Keith noshing on
> vegetarian
> > > canapes and chortling heartily in an obsequious fashion at Professor
> > > So-and-So's witty jibes. Ha ha ha! I say! What a delightful jape, Dr.
> > > Whatsyerface! Ha! How droll!
> >
> > So thats how it works...
> >
> > I didn't know. Fortunately I can use my functional deafness to pass off on
> > these things.
> >
> > "EH!!! ARE YOU TRYING TO TELL A HALF-ASSED JOKE PROFESSOR??? DAYUM, I
> > DON'T GIT IT!"
> >
> > --
> > Keith Hobman
> >
> > --- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.
>
> **** Keith. Come to Texas...with that accent you'll make Texan in only 5 or
> 6 years. Check with Cohen on your CCW.

Austin would be cool. Well, not in the summer. But cool.

Keith Hobman
July 20th 03, 02:43 PM
In article >,
"Richard Smith" > wrote:

> <snipage>
>
> > > You say that now. Fast forward five years, to Keith noshing on
> vegetarian
> > > canapes and chortling heartily in an obsequious fashion at Professor
> > > So-and-So's witty jibes. Ha ha ha! I say! What a delightful jape, Dr.
> > > Whatsyerface! Ha! How droll!
> >
> > So thats how it works...
> >
> > I didn't know. Fortunately I can use my functional deafness to pass off on
> > these things.
> >
> > "EH!!! ARE YOU TRYING TO TELL A HALF-ASSED JOKE PROFESSOR??? DAYUM, I
> > DON'T GIT IT!"
> >
> > --
> > Keith Hobman
> >
> > --- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.
>
> **** Keith. Come to Texas...with that accent you'll make Texan in only 5 or
> 6 years. Check with Cohen on your CCW.

Austin would be cool. Well, not in the summer. But cool.

Lee Michaels
July 20th 03, 06:48 PM
"Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Richard Smith" > wrote:
>
> > <snipage>
> >
> > > > You say that now. Fast forward five years, to Keith noshing on
> > vegetarian
> > > > canapes and chortling heartily in an obsequious fashion at Professor
> > > > So-and-So's witty jibes. Ha ha ha! I say! What a delightful jape,
Dr.
> > > > Whatsyerface! Ha! How droll!
> > >
> > > So thats how it works...
> > >
> > > I didn't know. Fortunately I can use my functional deafness to pass
off on
> > > these things.
> > >
> > > "EH!!! ARE YOU TRYING TO TELL A HALF-ASSED JOKE PROFESSOR??? DAYUM, I
> > > DON'T GIT IT!"
> > >
> > > --
> > > Keith Hobman
> > >
> > > --- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.
> >
> > **** Keith. Come to Texas...with that accent you'll make Texan in only
5 or
> > 6 years. Check with Cohen on your CCW.
>
> Austin would be cool. Well, not in the summer. But cool.

Might eveen have a blues band or two in the area.

Not to mention tittie bars and Lyle.

Lee Michaels
July 20th 03, 06:48 PM
"Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Richard Smith" > wrote:
>
> > <snipage>
> >
> > > > You say that now. Fast forward five years, to Keith noshing on
> > vegetarian
> > > > canapes and chortling heartily in an obsequious fashion at Professor
> > > > So-and-So's witty jibes. Ha ha ha! I say! What a delightful jape,
Dr.
> > > > Whatsyerface! Ha! How droll!
> > >
> > > So thats how it works...
> > >
> > > I didn't know. Fortunately I can use my functional deafness to pass
off on
> > > these things.
> > >
> > > "EH!!! ARE YOU TRYING TO TELL A HALF-ASSED JOKE PROFESSOR??? DAYUM, I
> > > DON'T GIT IT!"
> > >
> > > --
> > > Keith Hobman
> > >
> > > --- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.
> >
> > **** Keith. Come to Texas...with that accent you'll make Texan in only
5 or
> > 6 years. Check with Cohen on your CCW.
>
> Austin would be cool. Well, not in the summer. But cool.

Might eveen have a blues band or two in the area.

Not to mention tittie bars and Lyle.

William Brink
July 21st 03, 12:16 AM
In article >,
"David Eynon" > wrote:

> Nuts aren't that great... Here's a scientific explanation why. All proteins
> are comprised of amino acids... THe body, when eating foods, breaks down the
> protein of say, the animal or plant, into amino acids

Is that right? No di and tri peptides?

> (there are only i
> think 15 amino acids available to all living things)

You sure about that number sparky?

> and re-creates those
> amino acids into proteins that our bodies can use... It's been
> scientifically proven beyond a fact that plant proteins, while complete to
> them, don't have all of the amino acids that OUR body needs to build
> effecient complete proteins...

Hey stupid, if they are "complete" then why cant we use them? No goofus,
plant proteins are not complete which is why people mix plant based
proteins to get the needed missing aminos, thus the rice and bean
routine for vegi types.

> Animal protein most closely resembles the
> amino acid makeup in terms of proportion and quantity, of our protein...
> Milk protein is top of that list,

Really? And that scientific fact you pretend to understand comes from
where again?

> egg next.... Plus peanuts have a lot of
> fat.... and are usually salted which excess amounts of aren't good...
> Try canned tuna... it's cheap... and good source of protein... Chicken is
> good... MY strategy is to buy a good freezer and buy on sale and freeze...
> Eggs are always good too... Milk.. you can't go wrong with milk... It's
> relatively cheap...

You strategy should be to go back to reading up on topics you know
nothing about and should not give advice on.

--
Will Brink

http://www.brinkzone.com/
http://musclebuildingnutrition.com/
http://www.aboutsupplements.com/

William Brink
July 21st 03, 12:16 AM
In article >,
"David Eynon" > wrote:

> Nuts aren't that great... Here's a scientific explanation why. All proteins
> are comprised of amino acids... THe body, when eating foods, breaks down the
> protein of say, the animal or plant, into amino acids

Is that right? No di and tri peptides?

> (there are only i
> think 15 amino acids available to all living things)

You sure about that number sparky?

> and re-creates those
> amino acids into proteins that our bodies can use... It's been
> scientifically proven beyond a fact that plant proteins, while complete to
> them, don't have all of the amino acids that OUR body needs to build
> effecient complete proteins...

Hey stupid, if they are "complete" then why cant we use them? No goofus,
plant proteins are not complete which is why people mix plant based
proteins to get the needed missing aminos, thus the rice and bean
routine for vegi types.

> Animal protein most closely resembles the
> amino acid makeup in terms of proportion and quantity, of our protein...
> Milk protein is top of that list,

Really? And that scientific fact you pretend to understand comes from
where again?

> egg next.... Plus peanuts have a lot of
> fat.... and are usually salted which excess amounts of aren't good...
> Try canned tuna... it's cheap... and good source of protein... Chicken is
> good... MY strategy is to buy a good freezer and buy on sale and freeze...
> Eggs are always good too... Milk.. you can't go wrong with milk... It's
> relatively cheap...

You strategy should be to go back to reading up on topics you know
nothing about and should not give advice on.

--
Will Brink

http://www.brinkzone.com/
http://musclebuildingnutrition.com/
http://www.aboutsupplements.com/

William Brink
July 21st 03, 12:16 AM
In article >,
"cory" > wrote:

> "David Eynon" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Nuts aren't that great... Here's a scientific explanation why. All
> proteins
> > are comprised of amino acids... THe body, when eating foods, breaks down
> the
> > protein of say, the animal or plant, into amino acids (there are only i
> > think 15 amino acids available to all living things) and re-creates those
> > amino acids into proteins that our bodies can use... It's been
> > scientifically proven beyond a fact that plant proteins, while complete to
> > them, don't have all of the amino acids that OUR body needs to build
> > effecient complete proteins... Animal protein most closely resembles the
> > amino acid makeup in terms of proportion and quantity, of our protein...
> > Milk protein is top of that list, egg next.... Plus peanuts have a lot of
> > fat.... and are usually salted which excess amounts of aren't good...
> > Try canned tuna... it's cheap... and good source of protein... Chicken is
> > good... MY strategy is to buy a good freezer and buy on sale and freeze...
> > Eggs are always good too... Milk.. you can't go wrong with milk... It's
> > relatively cheap...
> >
>
> Thaks for the reply.

You really want to thank him for that????

> I do eat tuna but not daily as it has been stated that
> mercury in the tuna is a problem if too much is consumed. Truth? I dont
> know I have never seen research based on this but prefer to err on the side
> of caution. I eat alot of chicken as well but it is pricey, especially free
> range chicken. In regards to eggs, I do eat them as well but limit
> consumption due to the cholesterol levels. To be honest, I never really
> thought of milk but I will probably look into that. Skim milk powder seems
> like a good option.
> I love to eat fish , but it is expensive where I live so I dont eat it much.
> Thanks.
>
>

--
Will Brink

http://www.brinkzone.com/
http://musclebuildingnutrition.com/
http://www.aboutsupplements.com/

William Brink
July 21st 03, 12:16 AM
In article >,
"cory" > wrote:

> "David Eynon" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Nuts aren't that great... Here's a scientific explanation why. All
> proteins
> > are comprised of amino acids... THe body, when eating foods, breaks down
> the
> > protein of say, the animal or plant, into amino acids (there are only i
> > think 15 amino acids available to all living things) and re-creates those
> > amino acids into proteins that our bodies can use... It's been
> > scientifically proven beyond a fact that plant proteins, while complete to
> > them, don't have all of the amino acids that OUR body needs to build
> > effecient complete proteins... Animal protein most closely resembles the
> > amino acid makeup in terms of proportion and quantity, of our protein...
> > Milk protein is top of that list, egg next.... Plus peanuts have a lot of
> > fat.... and are usually salted which excess amounts of aren't good...
> > Try canned tuna... it's cheap... and good source of protein... Chicken is
> > good... MY strategy is to buy a good freezer and buy on sale and freeze...
> > Eggs are always good too... Milk.. you can't go wrong with milk... It's
> > relatively cheap...
> >
>
> Thaks for the reply.

You really want to thank him for that????

> I do eat tuna but not daily as it has been stated that
> mercury in the tuna is a problem if too much is consumed. Truth? I dont
> know I have never seen research based on this but prefer to err on the side
> of caution. I eat alot of chicken as well but it is pricey, especially free
> range chicken. In regards to eggs, I do eat them as well but limit
> consumption due to the cholesterol levels. To be honest, I never really
> thought of milk but I will probably look into that. Skim milk powder seems
> like a good option.
> I love to eat fish , but it is expensive where I live so I dont eat it much.
> Thanks.
>
>

--
Will Brink

http://www.brinkzone.com/
http://musclebuildingnutrition.com/
http://www.aboutsupplements.com/

cory
July 21st 03, 03:31 AM
"William Brink" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "cory" > wrote:
> >
> > Thaks for the reply.
>
> You really want to thank him for that????

WTF kind of stupid answer is that? I thanked him for at least attempting
to make a genuine reply rather than the bull**** you spewed. I asked a
legit question looking for answers that I obviously dont know, he replied, I
thanked him for his time and effort, something tremendously lacking here.
It's obvious you think you're smarter than everyone else, so post reasons
that you feel his statements are flawed and with references to such, if
you'd be so kind oh holy one.

cory
July 21st 03, 03:31 AM
"William Brink" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "cory" > wrote:
> >
> > Thaks for the reply.
>
> You really want to thank him for that????

WTF kind of stupid answer is that? I thanked him for at least attempting
to make a genuine reply rather than the bull**** you spewed. I asked a
legit question looking for answers that I obviously dont know, he replied, I
thanked him for his time and effort, something tremendously lacking here.
It's obvious you think you're smarter than everyone else, so post reasons
that you feel his statements are flawed and with references to such, if
you'd be so kind oh holy one.

justin case
July 21st 03, 03:37 AM
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 01:31:58 GMT, "cory" > wrote:

>
>"William Brink" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> "cory" > wrote:
>> >
>> > Thaks for the reply.
>>
>> You really want to thank him for that????
>
>WTF kind of stupid answer is that? I thanked him for at least attempting
>to make a genuine reply rather than the bull**** you spewed. I asked a
>legit question looking for answers that I obviously dont know, he replied, I
>thanked him for his time and effort, something tremendously lacking here.
>It's obvious you think you're smarter than everyone else, so post reasons
>that you feel his statements are flawed and with references to such, if
>you'd be so kind oh holy one.
>
>
>
Here, read up, pick through his site & find your own.

http://www.brinkzone.com/home.html

justin case
July 21st 03, 03:37 AM
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 01:31:58 GMT, "cory" > wrote:

>
>"William Brink" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> "cory" > wrote:
>> >
>> > Thaks for the reply.
>>
>> You really want to thank him for that????
>
>WTF kind of stupid answer is that? I thanked him for at least attempting
>to make a genuine reply rather than the bull**** you spewed. I asked a
>legit question looking for answers that I obviously dont know, he replied, I
>thanked him for his time and effort, something tremendously lacking here.
>It's obvious you think you're smarter than everyone else, so post reasons
>that you feel his statements are flawed and with references to such, if
>you'd be so kind oh holy one.
>
>
>
Here, read up, pick through his site & find your own.

http://www.brinkzone.com/home.html

Lee Michaels
July 21st 03, 05:03 AM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "justin case" > <aka Ninja of Nice II> wrote
> > "cory" > wrote:
> > >"William Brink" > wrote
> > >> "cory" > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Thaks for the reply.
> > >>
> > >> You really want to thank him for that????
> > >
> > >WTF kind of stupid answer is that? I thanked him for at least
> attempting
> > >to make a genuine reply rather than the bull**** you spewed. I
> asked a
> > >legit question looking for answers that I obviously dont know, he
> replied, I
> > >thanked him for his time and effort, something tremendously lacking
> here.
> > >It's obvious you think you're smarter than everyone else, so post
> reasons
> > >that you feel his statements are flawed and with references to
> such, if
> > >you'd be so kind oh holy one.
> > >
> > Here, read up, pick through his site & find your own.
> >
> > http://www.brinkzone.com/home.html
>
> Hey! That was a nice answer, Justin. You can be the new Ninja of Nice,
> since Watson has deserted us.
>
> You could have said: Cory, you ignorant prick. You thanked someone for
> a total bull**** answer. Are you always so happy to receive incorrect
> nonsense as the response to questions? Are you the stupid ****ing wet
> dream of telemarketers?
>
> You could have said that, but you were nice.
>
> You disgust me!
>
> David
>

Easy there David!!

Go kill something and eat it.

You will feel much better.

Lee Michaels
July 21st 03, 05:03 AM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "justin case" > <aka Ninja of Nice II> wrote
> > "cory" > wrote:
> > >"William Brink" > wrote
> > >> "cory" > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Thaks for the reply.
> > >>
> > >> You really want to thank him for that????
> > >
> > >WTF kind of stupid answer is that? I thanked him for at least
> attempting
> > >to make a genuine reply rather than the bull**** you spewed. I
> asked a
> > >legit question looking for answers that I obviously dont know, he
> replied, I
> > >thanked him for his time and effort, something tremendously lacking
> here.
> > >It's obvious you think you're smarter than everyone else, so post
> reasons
> > >that you feel his statements are flawed and with references to
> such, if
> > >you'd be so kind oh holy one.
> > >
> > Here, read up, pick through his site & find your own.
> >
> > http://www.brinkzone.com/home.html
>
> Hey! That was a nice answer, Justin. You can be the new Ninja of Nice,
> since Watson has deserted us.
>
> You could have said: Cory, you ignorant prick. You thanked someone for
> a total bull**** answer. Are you always so happy to receive incorrect
> nonsense as the response to questions? Are you the stupid ****ing wet
> dream of telemarketers?
>
> You could have said that, but you were nice.
>
> You disgust me!
>
> David
>

Easy there David!!

Go kill something and eat it.

You will feel much better.

Lee Michaels
July 21st 03, 05:04 AM
"justin case" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 02:09:37 GMT, "David Cohen"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"justin case" > <aka Ninja of Nice II> wrote
> >> "cory" > wrote:
> >> >"William Brink" > wrote
> >> >> "cory" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thaks for the reply.
> >> >>
> >> >> You really want to thank him for that????
> >> >
> >> >WTF kind of stupid answer is that? I thanked him for at least
> >attempting
> >> >to make a genuine reply rather than the bull**** you spewed. I
> >asked a
> >> >legit question looking for answers that I obviously dont know, he
> >replied, I
> >> >thanked him for his time and effort, something tremendously lacking
> >here.
> >> >It's obvious you think you're smarter than everyone else, so post
> >reasons
> >> >that you feel his statements are flawed and with references to
> >such, if
> >> >you'd be so kind oh holy one.
> >> >
> >> Here, read up, pick through his site & find your own.
> >>
> >> http://www.brinkzone.com/home.html
> >
> >Hey! That was a nice answer, Justin. You can be the new Ninja of Nice,
> >since Watson has deserted us.
> >
> >You could have said: Cory, you ignorant prick. You thanked someone for
> >a total bull**** answer. Are you always so happy to receive incorrect
> >nonsense as the response to questions? Are you the stupid ****ing wet
> >dream of telemarketers?
> >
> >You could have said that, but you were nice.
>
> Naw, will already did that.
>
> >You disgust me!
> >
> http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/
>
> There. Is that better?
>
You will never become the Ninja of Nice if you keep doing things like this!!

Lee Michaels
July 21st 03, 05:04 AM
"justin case" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 02:09:37 GMT, "David Cohen"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"justin case" > <aka Ninja of Nice II> wrote
> >> "cory" > wrote:
> >> >"William Brink" > wrote
> >> >> "cory" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thaks for the reply.
> >> >>
> >> >> You really want to thank him for that????
> >> >
> >> >WTF kind of stupid answer is that? I thanked him for at least
> >attempting
> >> >to make a genuine reply rather than the bull**** you spewed. I
> >asked a
> >> >legit question looking for answers that I obviously dont know, he
> >replied, I
> >> >thanked him for his time and effort, something tremendously lacking
> >here.
> >> >It's obvious you think you're smarter than everyone else, so post
> >reasons
> >> >that you feel his statements are flawed and with references to
> >such, if
> >> >you'd be so kind oh holy one.
> >> >
> >> Here, read up, pick through his site & find your own.
> >>
> >> http://www.brinkzone.com/home.html
> >
> >Hey! That was a nice answer, Justin. You can be the new Ninja of Nice,
> >since Watson has deserted us.
> >
> >You could have said: Cory, you ignorant prick. You thanked someone for
> >a total bull**** answer. Are you always so happy to receive incorrect
> >nonsense as the response to questions? Are you the stupid ****ing wet
> >dream of telemarketers?
> >
> >You could have said that, but you were nice.
>
> Naw, will already did that.
>
> >You disgust me!
> >
> http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/
>
> There. Is that better?
>
You will never become the Ninja of Nice if you keep doing things like this!!

Lee Michaels
July 21st 03, 05:06 AM
"cory" > wrote in message
...
>
> "William Brink" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "cory" > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thaks for the reply.
> >
> > You really want to thank him for that????
>
> WTF kind of stupid answer is that? I thanked him for at least attempting
> to make a genuine reply rather than the bull**** you spewed. I asked a
> legit question looking for answers that I obviously dont know, he replied,
I
> thanked him for his time and effort, something tremendously lacking here.
> It's obvious you think you're smarter than everyone else, so post reasons
> that you feel his statements are flawed and with references to such, if
> you'd be so kind oh holy one.
>

Not only do you have low standards, but you are nice when people lie to you.

Maybe we should get together sometime.

Bring the deed to your house and the title to your car.

I just wanna help out.

Lee Michaels
July 21st 03, 05:06 AM
"cory" > wrote in message
...
>
> "William Brink" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "cory" > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thaks for the reply.
> >
> > You really want to thank him for that????
>
> WTF kind of stupid answer is that? I thanked him for at least attempting
> to make a genuine reply rather than the bull**** you spewed. I asked a
> legit question looking for answers that I obviously dont know, he replied,
I
> thanked him for his time and effort, something tremendously lacking here.
> It's obvious you think you're smarter than everyone else, so post reasons
> that you feel his statements are flawed and with references to such, if
> you'd be so kind oh holy one.
>

Not only do you have low standards, but you are nice when people lie to you.

Maybe we should get together sometime.

Bring the deed to your house and the title to your car.

I just wanna help out.

David Cohen
July 21st 03, 05:09 AM
"justin case" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 02:09:37 GMT, "David Cohen"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"justin case" > <aka Ninja of Nice II> wrote
> >> "cory" > wrote:
> >> >"William Brink" > wrote
> >> >> "cory" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thaks for the reply.
> >> >>
> >> >> You really want to thank him for that????
> >> >
> >> >WTF kind of stupid answer is that? I thanked him for at least
> >attempting
> >> >to make a genuine reply rather than the bull**** you spewed. I
> >asked a
> >> >legit question looking for answers that I obviously dont know,
he
> >replied, I
> >> >thanked him for his time and effort, something tremendously
lacking
> >here.
> >> >It's obvious you think you're smarter than everyone else, so
post
> >reasons
> >> >that you feel his statements are flawed and with references to
> >such, if
> >> >you'd be so kind oh holy one.
> >> >
> >> Here, read up, pick through his site & find your own.
> >>
> >> http://www.brinkzone.com/home.html
> >
> >Hey! That was a nice answer, Justin. You can be the new Ninja of
Nice,
> >since Watson has deserted us.
> >
> >You could have said: Cory, you ignorant prick. You thanked someone
for
> >a total bull**** answer. Are you always so happy to receive
incorrect
> >nonsense as the response to questions? Are you the stupid ****ing
wet
> >dream of telemarketers?
> >
> >You could have said that, but you were nice.
>
> Naw, will already did that.
>
> >You disgust me!
> >
> http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/
>
> There. Is that better?

Yes, but then you can't be Ninja of Nice II.

David
>

David Cohen
July 21st 03, 05:09 AM
"justin case" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 02:09:37 GMT, "David Cohen"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"justin case" > <aka Ninja of Nice II> wrote
> >> "cory" > wrote:
> >> >"William Brink" > wrote
> >> >> "cory" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thaks for the reply.
> >> >>
> >> >> You really want to thank him for that????
> >> >
> >> >WTF kind of stupid answer is that? I thanked him for at least
> >attempting
> >> >to make a genuine reply rather than the bull**** you spewed. I
> >asked a
> >> >legit question looking for answers that I obviously dont know,
he
> >replied, I
> >> >thanked him for his time and effort, something tremendously
lacking
> >here.
> >> >It's obvious you think you're smarter than everyone else, so
post
> >reasons
> >> >that you feel his statements are flawed and with references to
> >such, if
> >> >you'd be so kind oh holy one.
> >> >
> >> Here, read up, pick through his site & find your own.
> >>
> >> http://www.brinkzone.com/home.html
> >
> >Hey! That was a nice answer, Justin. You can be the new Ninja of
Nice,
> >since Watson has deserted us.
> >
> >You could have said: Cory, you ignorant prick. You thanked someone
for
> >a total bull**** answer. Are you always so happy to receive
incorrect
> >nonsense as the response to questions? Are you the stupid ****ing
wet
> >dream of telemarketers?
> >
> >You could have said that, but you were nice.
>
> Naw, will already did that.
>
> >You disgust me!
> >
> http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/
>
> There. Is that better?

Yes, but then you can't be Ninja of Nice II.

David
>

cory
July 21st 03, 05:32 AM
"Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]

>
> Not only do you have low standards, but you are nice when people lie to
you.
>
> Maybe we should get together sometime.
>
> Bring the deed to your house and the title to your car.
>
> I just wanna help out.
>
>

You guys just dont get it. I dont know the answer to my
question.......hence the reason I asked the question......I have never seen
so many arrogant idiots in one group before. When I was boxing, we used to
get alot of guys like this. We always used to tell them who cares how much
you can lift, I can knock you out. The attitude usually disappears.

cory
July 21st 03, 05:32 AM
"Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]

>
> Not only do you have low standards, but you are nice when people lie to
you.
>
> Maybe we should get together sometime.
>
> Bring the deed to your house and the title to your car.
>
> I just wanna help out.
>
>

You guys just dont get it. I dont know the answer to my
question.......hence the reason I asked the question......I have never seen
so many arrogant idiots in one group before. When I was boxing, we used to
get alot of guys like this. We always used to tell them who cares how much
you can lift, I can knock you out. The attitude usually disappears.

JC Der Koenig
July 21st 03, 05:56 AM
"cory" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
> >
> > Not only do you have low standards, but you are nice when people lie to
> you.
> >
> > Maybe we should get together sometime.
> >
> > Bring the deed to your house and the title to your car.
> >
> > I just wanna help out.
> >
> >
>
> You guys just dont get it. I dont know the answer to my
> question.......hence the reason I asked the question......I have never
seen
> so many arrogant idiots in one group before. When I was boxing, we used
to
> get alot of guys like this. We always used to tell them who cares how
much
> you can lift, I can knock you out. The attitude usually disappears.
>
>
>
>

Calm down killer. Have you even read the faq for this newsgroup yet?

JC Der Koenig
July 21st 03, 05:56 AM
"cory" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
> >
> > Not only do you have low standards, but you are nice when people lie to
> you.
> >
> > Maybe we should get together sometime.
> >
> > Bring the deed to your house and the title to your car.
> >
> > I just wanna help out.
> >
> >
>
> You guys just dont get it. I dont know the answer to my
> question.......hence the reason I asked the question......I have never
seen
> so many arrogant idiots in one group before. When I was boxing, we used
to
> get alot of guys like this. We always used to tell them who cares how
much
> you can lift, I can knock you out. The attitude usually disappears.
>
>
>
>

Calm down killer. Have you even read the faq for this newsgroup yet?

August Pamplona
July 21st 03, 06:30 AM
"cory" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
> >
> > Not only do you have low standards, but you are nice when people lie
to
> you.
> >
> > Maybe we should get together sometime.
> >
> > Bring the deed to your house and the title to your car.
> >
> > I just wanna help out.
> >
> >
>
> You guys just dont get it. I dont know the answer to my
> question.......hence the reason I asked the question......I have never
seen
> so many arrogant idiots in one group before. When I was boxing, we
used to
> get alot of guys like this. We always used to tell them who cares how
much
> you can lift, I can knock you out. The attitude usually disappears.
>

A boxer! Did you ever meet John Carlo?

August Pamplona
--
"No, jew. Your jew opinion doesn't matter no matter what, jew. Your
writings deserve no comprehension, merely scorn, jew. You are jew."
-Lysis on m.f.w.

a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20
To email replace 'necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale' with
'cosmicaug'

August Pamplona
July 21st 03, 06:30 AM
"cory" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
> >
> > Not only do you have low standards, but you are nice when people lie
to
> you.
> >
> > Maybe we should get together sometime.
> >
> > Bring the deed to your house and the title to your car.
> >
> > I just wanna help out.
> >
> >
>
> You guys just dont get it. I dont know the answer to my
> question.......hence the reason I asked the question......I have never
seen
> so many arrogant idiots in one group before. When I was boxing, we
used to
> get alot of guys like this. We always used to tell them who cares how
much
> you can lift, I can knock you out. The attitude usually disappears.
>

A boxer! Did you ever meet John Carlo?

August Pamplona
--
"No, jew. Your jew opinion doesn't matter no matter what, jew. Your
writings deserve no comprehension, merely scorn, jew. You are jew."
-Lysis on m.f.w.

a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20
To email replace 'necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale' with
'cosmicaug'

Dr_Dickie
July 21st 03, 02:11 PM
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 03:14:47 GMT, Angela > wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 05:31:16 -0400, Dr. Dickie
> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>You guys need to visit some of the other departments. We, at
>>chemistry and physics, are the gadflies that show up and ask, "Where's
>>the beer?" at every university function. They finally quit inviting
>>us.
>>That's okay, we know the way to the bars and hit them every Friday
>>evening after work--sort of a departmental tradition.
>>Of course, we brew our own beer, and we are the ones that have access
>>to absolute grain alcohol (100%), so who needs spritzers!
>
>Oh, like the programmers don't know how to make a nice
>Amber, or IPA. Ha!

I thought programmers existed on Mountain Dew and donuts. You guys
dabble in the dark arts? And an IPA to boot, nice.
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick
====================================
"Let be be finale of seem.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream"
Wallace Stevens-1923
=====================================

Dr_Dickie
July 21st 03, 02:11 PM
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 03:14:47 GMT, Angela > wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 05:31:16 -0400, Dr. Dickie
> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>You guys need to visit some of the other departments. We, at
>>chemistry and physics, are the gadflies that show up and ask, "Where's
>>the beer?" at every university function. They finally quit inviting
>>us.
>>That's okay, we know the way to the bars and hit them every Friday
>>evening after work--sort of a departmental tradition.
>>Of course, we brew our own beer, and we are the ones that have access
>>to absolute grain alcohol (100%), so who needs spritzers!
>
>Oh, like the programmers don't know how to make a nice
>Amber, or IPA. Ha!

I thought programmers existed on Mountain Dew and donuts. You guys
dabble in the dark arts? And an IPA to boot, nice.
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick
====================================
"Let be be finale of seem.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream"
Wallace Stevens-1923
=====================================

Will
July 21st 03, 02:29 PM
"cory" > wrote in message >...
> "William Brink" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "cory" > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thaks for the reply.
> >
> > You really want to thank him for that????
>
> WTF kind of stupid answer is that? I thanked him for at least attempting
> to make a genuine reply rather than the bull**** you spewed. I asked a
> legit question looking for answers that I obviously dont know, he replied, I
> thanked him for his time and effort, something tremendously lacking here.
> It's obvious you think you're smarter than everyone else, so post reasons
> that you feel his statements are flawed and with references to such, if
> you'd be so kind oh holy one.

Well oh retareded one, I did respond to his post and corrected him.
Use your limited reading skills to read that over.

Will
July 21st 03, 02:29 PM
"cory" > wrote in message >...
> "William Brink" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "cory" > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thaks for the reply.
> >
> > You really want to thank him for that????
>
> WTF kind of stupid answer is that? I thanked him for at least attempting
> to make a genuine reply rather than the bull**** you spewed. I asked a
> legit question looking for answers that I obviously dont know, he replied, I
> thanked him for his time and effort, something tremendously lacking here.
> It's obvious you think you're smarter than everyone else, so post reasons
> that you feel his statements are flawed and with references to such, if
> you'd be so kind oh holy one.

Well oh retareded one, I did respond to his post and corrected him.
Use your limited reading skills to read that over.

Will
July 21st 03, 02:30 PM
justin case > wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 01:31:58 GMT, "cory" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"William Brink" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article >,
> >> "cory" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Thaks for the reply.
> >>
> >> You really want to thank him for that????
> >
> >WTF kind of stupid answer is that? I thanked him for at least attempting
> >to make a genuine reply rather than the bull**** you spewed. I asked a
> >legit question looking for answers that I obviously dont know, he replied, I
> >thanked him for his time and effort, something tremendously lacking here.
> >It's obvious you think you're smarter than everyone else, so post reasons
> >that you feel his statements are flawed and with references to such, if
> >you'd be so kind oh holy one.
> >
> >
> >
> Here, read up, pick through his site & find your own.
>
> http://www.brinkzone.com/home.html

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think....

Will
July 21st 03, 02:30 PM
justin case > wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 01:31:58 GMT, "cory" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"William Brink" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article >,
> >> "cory" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Thaks for the reply.
> >>
> >> You really want to thank him for that????
> >
> >WTF kind of stupid answer is that? I thanked him for at least attempting
> >to make a genuine reply rather than the bull**** you spewed. I asked a
> >legit question looking for answers that I obviously dont know, he replied, I
> >thanked him for his time and effort, something tremendously lacking here.
> >It's obvious you think you're smarter than everyone else, so post reasons
> >that you feel his statements are flawed and with references to such, if
> >you'd be so kind oh holy one.
> >
> >
> >
> Here, read up, pick through his site & find your own.
>
> http://www.brinkzone.com/home.html

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think....

MJL
July 26th 03, 09:57 PM
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:39:49 GMT, Alex > wrote:

>> In mathematics, "proof" is used quite liberally. But then the question
>> arises: is the math we use "truth", or just the language of convenience to
>> describe our perceptions? If even math cannot be proven, is then truth an
>> illusion? How does this balance with Dr. Samuel Johnson's refutation of
>> Berkeley?
>
>Of course math can be proven -- That is why it is math. All of the math that has ever been thought up and proven will always be true (unless there was a flaw in the proof).
>
>Math is the one study where new ideas and theorys don't replace old ones, they merely improve the old ideas. Math is the only perfect study -- unlike physics were we constantly replace old theories with new ones.
>
>The only way to refute all of mathematics is to refute the idea of unity (one, the identity) upon which all of math is based on.
>
>-Alex (a grad student in physics)

I've described consciousness as the uncollapsed wave function that
inhabits this body. I think math comes from a perfect place and is
the same place where consciousness comes from. Neither can be
"proven" in the way you can prove an apple will fall if you let it go.
Find me even one mathematical line in nature. Just one. I don't
think you can, it is a concept that comes from a place other than what
we experience in this collapsed wavefunction we call reality.

MJL
July 26th 03, 09:57 PM
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:39:49 GMT, Alex > wrote:

>> In mathematics, "proof" is used quite liberally. But then the question
>> arises: is the math we use "truth", or just the language of convenience to
>> describe our perceptions? If even math cannot be proven, is then truth an
>> illusion? How does this balance with Dr. Samuel Johnson's refutation of
>> Berkeley?
>
>Of course math can be proven -- That is why it is math. All of the math that has ever been thought up and proven will always be true (unless there was a flaw in the proof).
>
>Math is the one study where new ideas and theorys don't replace old ones, they merely improve the old ideas. Math is the only perfect study -- unlike physics were we constantly replace old theories with new ones.
>
>The only way to refute all of mathematics is to refute the idea of unity (one, the identity) upon which all of math is based on.
>
>-Alex (a grad student in physics)

I've described consciousness as the uncollapsed wave function that
inhabits this body. I think math comes from a perfect place and is
the same place where consciousness comes from. Neither can be
"proven" in the way you can prove an apple will fall if you let it go.
Find me even one mathematical line in nature. Just one. I don't
think you can, it is a concept that comes from a place other than what
we experience in this collapsed wavefunction we call reality.

MJL
July 26th 03, 10:04 PM
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 05:07:32 GMT, "David Eynon"
> wrote:

>Nuts aren't that great... Here's a scientific explanation why. All proteins
>are comprised of amino acids... THe body, when eating foods, breaks down the
>protein of say, the animal or plant, into amino acids (there are only i
>think 15 amino acids available to all living things) and re-creates those

20 amino acids and 9 are essential, meaning the body cannot synthesize
them.

>amino acids into proteins that our bodies can use... It's been
>scientifically proven beyond a fact that plant proteins, while complete to
>them, don't have all of the amino acids that OUR body needs to build
>effecient complete proteins... Animal protein most closely resembles the

Actually I think it had been shown that even vegans, if careful, can
get all their EEA needs met. I think they look weak and sickly due to
how hard it is to eat enough calories as a vegan in a modern world
where 75% of your time isn't spent picking fruits berries and leafy
****.

MJL
July 26th 03, 10:04 PM
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 05:07:32 GMT, "David Eynon"
> wrote:

>Nuts aren't that great... Here's a scientific explanation why. All proteins
>are comprised of amino acids... THe body, when eating foods, breaks down the
>protein of say, the animal or plant, into amino acids (there are only i
>think 15 amino acids available to all living things) and re-creates those

20 amino acids and 9 are essential, meaning the body cannot synthesize
them.

>amino acids into proteins that our bodies can use... It's been
>scientifically proven beyond a fact that plant proteins, while complete to
>them, don't have all of the amino acids that OUR body needs to build
>effecient complete proteins... Animal protein most closely resembles the

Actually I think it had been shown that even vegans, if careful, can
get all their EEA needs met. I think they look weak and sickly due to
how hard it is to eat enough calories as a vegan in a modern world
where 75% of your time isn't spent picking fruits berries and leafy
****.

MJL
July 26th 03, 10:12 PM
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 15:20:16 -0400, Tom Morley
> wrote:

>
>
>Alex wrote:
>>>In mathematics, "proof" is used quite liberally. But then the question
>>>arises: is the math we use "truth", or just the language of convenience to
>>>describe our perceptions? If even math cannot be proven, is then truth an
>>>illusion? How does this balance with Dr. Samuel Johnson's refutation of
>>>Berkeley?
>>
>>
>> Of course math can be proven -- That is why it is math. All of the math that has ever been thought up and proven will always be true (unless there was a flaw in the proof).
>>
>> Math is the one study where new ideas and theorys don't replace old ones, they merely improve the old ideas. Math is the only perfect study -- unlike physics were we constantly replace old theories with new ones.
>>
>> The only way to refute all of mathematics is to refute the idea of unity (one, the identity) upon which all of math is based on.
>>
>> -Alex (a grad student in physics)
>
>I don't understand this Math stuff.

I say this with the utmost respect Thomas, you know I love you dearly,
but it always amazes me how mathemeticians are always so oblivious to
the clearly metaphysical implications of so much of math.

MJL
July 26th 03, 10:12 PM
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 15:20:16 -0400, Tom Morley
> wrote:

>
>
>Alex wrote:
>>>In mathematics, "proof" is used quite liberally. But then the question
>>>arises: is the math we use "truth", or just the language of convenience to
>>>describe our perceptions? If even math cannot be proven, is then truth an
>>>illusion? How does this balance with Dr. Samuel Johnson's refutation of
>>>Berkeley?
>>
>>
>> Of course math can be proven -- That is why it is math. All of the math that has ever been thought up and proven will always be true (unless there was a flaw in the proof).
>>
>> Math is the one study where new ideas and theorys don't replace old ones, they merely improve the old ideas. Math is the only perfect study -- unlike physics were we constantly replace old theories with new ones.
>>
>> The only way to refute all of mathematics is to refute the idea of unity (one, the identity) upon which all of math is based on.
>>
>> -Alex (a grad student in physics)
>
>I don't understand this Math stuff.

I say this with the utmost respect Thomas, you know I love you dearly,
but it always amazes me how mathemeticians are always so oblivious to
the clearly metaphysical implications of so much of math.

ATP
July 27th 03, 04:34 AM
MJL wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:39:49 GMT, Alex > wrote:
>
>>> In mathematics, "proof" is used quite liberally. But then the
>>> question arises: is the math we use "truth", or just the language
>>> of convenience to describe our perceptions? If even math cannot be
>>> proven, is then truth an illusion? How does this balance with Dr.
>>> Samuel Johnson's refutation of Berkeley?
>>
>> Of course math can be proven -- That is why it is math. All of the
>> math that has ever been thought up and proven will always be true
>> (unless there was a flaw in the proof).
>>
>> Math is the one study where new ideas and theorys don't replace old
>> ones, they merely improve the old ideas. Math is the only perfect
>> study -- unlike physics were we constantly replace old theories with
>> new ones.
>>
>> The only way to refute all of mathematics is to refute the idea of
>> unity (one, the identity) upon which all of math is based on.
>>
>> -Alex (a grad student in physics)
>
> I've described consciousness as the uncollapsed wave function that
> inhabits this body. I think math comes from a perfect place and is
> the same place where consciousness comes from. Neither can be
> "proven" in the way you can prove an apple will fall if you let it go.
> Find me even one mathematical line in nature. Just one. I don't
> think you can, it is a concept that comes from a place other than what
> we experience in this collapsed wavefunction we call reality.

Have you been listening to New Age music or something? The mathematics that
we commonly use is internally consistent and consistent with physical
phenomena which can be observed and measured in classical Newtonian physics.
The development of mathematics was not divorced from the development of the
natural sciences. Although some geniuses made astonishing progress and
apparently had great intuitive powers, mathematics did not come from some
"perfect place". It is an artificially constructed system that was
constructed primarily to model the physical universe, not the metaphysical.
There may be no "mathematical lines" in nature, but when you drop an apple,
it sure as hell falls the way Newton said it would.

ATP
July 27th 03, 04:34 AM
MJL wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:39:49 GMT, Alex > wrote:
>
>>> In mathematics, "proof" is used quite liberally. But then the
>>> question arises: is the math we use "truth", or just the language
>>> of convenience to describe our perceptions? If even math cannot be
>>> proven, is then truth an illusion? How does this balance with Dr.
>>> Samuel Johnson's refutation of Berkeley?
>>
>> Of course math can be proven -- That is why it is math. All of the
>> math that has ever been thought up and proven will always be true
>> (unless there was a flaw in the proof).
>>
>> Math is the one study where new ideas and theorys don't replace old
>> ones, they merely improve the old ideas. Math is the only perfect
>> study -- unlike physics were we constantly replace old theories with
>> new ones.
>>
>> The only way to refute all of mathematics is to refute the idea of
>> unity (one, the identity) upon which all of math is based on.
>>
>> -Alex (a grad student in physics)
>
> I've described consciousness as the uncollapsed wave function that
> inhabits this body. I think math comes from a perfect place and is
> the same place where consciousness comes from. Neither can be
> "proven" in the way you can prove an apple will fall if you let it go.
> Find me even one mathematical line in nature. Just one. I don't
> think you can, it is a concept that comes from a place other than what
> we experience in this collapsed wavefunction we call reality.

Have you been listening to New Age music or something? The mathematics that
we commonly use is internally consistent and consistent with physical
phenomena which can be observed and measured in classical Newtonian physics.
The development of mathematics was not divorced from the development of the
natural sciences. Although some geniuses made astonishing progress and
apparently had great intuitive powers, mathematics did not come from some
"perfect place". It is an artificially constructed system that was
constructed primarily to model the physical universe, not the metaphysical.
There may be no "mathematical lines" in nature, but when you drop an apple,
it sure as hell falls the way Newton said it would.

Lee Michaels
July 27th 03, 07:11 AM
"ATP" > wrote in message
.net...
> MJL wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:39:49 GMT, Alex > wrote:
> >
> >>> In mathematics, "proof" is used quite liberally. But then the
> >>> question arises: is the math we use "truth", or just the language
> >>> of convenience to describe our perceptions? If even math cannot be
> >>> proven, is then truth an illusion? How does this balance with Dr.
> >>> Samuel Johnson's refutation of Berkeley?
> >>
> >> Of course math can be proven -- That is why it is math. All of the
> >> math that has ever been thought up and proven will always be true
> >> (unless there was a flaw in the proof).
> >>
> >> Math is the one study where new ideas and theorys don't replace old
> >> ones, they merely improve the old ideas. Math is the only perfect
> >> study -- unlike physics were we constantly replace old theories with
> >> new ones.
> >>
> >> The only way to refute all of mathematics is to refute the idea of
> >> unity (one, the identity) upon which all of math is based on.
> >>
> >> -Alex (a grad student in physics)
> >
> > I've described consciousness as the uncollapsed wave function that
> > inhabits this body. I think math comes from a perfect place and is
> > the same place where consciousness comes from. Neither can be
> > "proven" in the way you can prove an apple will fall if you let it go.
> > Find me even one mathematical line in nature. Just one. I don't
> > think you can, it is a concept that comes from a place other than what
> > we experience in this collapsed wavefunction we call reality.
>
> Have you been listening to New Age music or something? The mathematics
that
> we commonly use is internally consistent and consistent with physical
> phenomena which can be observed and measured in classical Newtonian
physics.
> The development of mathematics was not divorced from the development of
the
> natural sciences. Although some geniuses made astonishing progress and
> apparently had great intuitive powers, mathematics did not come from some
> "perfect place". It is an artificially constructed system that was
> constructed primarily to model the physical universe, not the
metaphysical.
> There may be no "mathematical lines" in nature, but when you drop an
apple,
> it sure as hell falls the way Newton said it would.
>
>

With the possible exception of those new non-newtonion Quantum Apples
available in most alternate universes.

Lee Michaels
July 27th 03, 07:11 AM
"ATP" > wrote in message
.net...
> MJL wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:39:49 GMT, Alex > wrote:
> >
> >>> In mathematics, "proof" is used quite liberally. But then the
> >>> question arises: is the math we use "truth", or just the language
> >>> of convenience to describe our perceptions? If even math cannot be
> >>> proven, is then truth an illusion? How does this balance with Dr.
> >>> Samuel Johnson's refutation of Berkeley?
> >>
> >> Of course math can be proven -- That is why it is math. All of the
> >> math that has ever been thought up and proven will always be true
> >> (unless there was a flaw in the proof).
> >>
> >> Math is the one study where new ideas and theorys don't replace old
> >> ones, they merely improve the old ideas. Math is the only perfect
> >> study -- unlike physics were we constantly replace old theories with
> >> new ones.
> >>
> >> The only way to refute all of mathematics is to refute the idea of
> >> unity (one, the identity) upon which all of math is based on.
> >>
> >> -Alex (a grad student in physics)
> >
> > I've described consciousness as the uncollapsed wave function that
> > inhabits this body. I think math comes from a perfect place and is
> > the same place where consciousness comes from. Neither can be
> > "proven" in the way you can prove an apple will fall if you let it go.
> > Find me even one mathematical line in nature. Just one. I don't
> > think you can, it is a concept that comes from a place other than what
> > we experience in this collapsed wavefunction we call reality.
>
> Have you been listening to New Age music or something? The mathematics
that
> we commonly use is internally consistent and consistent with physical
> phenomena which can be observed and measured in classical Newtonian
physics.
> The development of mathematics was not divorced from the development of
the
> natural sciences. Although some geniuses made astonishing progress and
> apparently had great intuitive powers, mathematics did not come from some
> "perfect place". It is an artificially constructed system that was
> constructed primarily to model the physical universe, not the
metaphysical.
> There may be no "mathematical lines" in nature, but when you drop an
apple,
> it sure as hell falls the way Newton said it would.
>
>

With the possible exception of those new non-newtonion Quantum Apples
available in most alternate universes.

Lyle McDonald
July 27th 03, 04:56 PM
ATP wrote:
>
> MJL wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:39:49 GMT, Alex > wrote:
> >
> >>> In mathematics, "proof" is used quite liberally. But then the
> >>> question arises: is the math we use "truth", or just the language
> >>> of convenience to describe our perceptions? If even math cannot be
> >>> proven, is then truth an illusion? How does this balance with Dr.
> >>> Samuel Johnson's refutation of Berkeley?
> >>
> >> Of course math can be proven -- That is why it is math. All of the
> >> math that has ever been thought up and proven will always be true
> >> (unless there was a flaw in the proof).
> >>
> >> Math is the one study where new ideas and theorys don't replace old
> >> ones, they merely improve the old ideas. Math is the only perfect
> >> study -- unlike physics were we constantly replace old theories with
> >> new ones.
> >>
> >> The only way to refute all of mathematics is to refute the idea of
> >> unity (one, the identity) upon which all of math is based on.
> >>
> >> -Alex (a grad student in physics)
> >
> > I've described consciousness as the uncollapsed wave function that
> > inhabits this body. I think math comes from a perfect place and is
> > the same place where consciousness comes from. Neither can be
> > "proven" in the way you can prove an apple will fall if you let it go.
> > Find me even one mathematical line in nature. Just one. I don't
> > think you can, it is a concept that comes from a place other than what
> > we experience in this collapsed wavefunction we call reality.
>
> Have you been listening to New Age music or something?

Mike Lane is just a nutjob.

> The mathematics that
> we commonly use is internally consistent and consistent with physical
> phenomena which can be observed and measured in classical Newtonian physics.

Which says little as you can develop other maths that are equally
internally consistent and (I imagine) equally parisimonious with
observed reality. The math is still only a model and a created one at
that (i.e. it's not based on any measurable phenomenon).

> The development of mathematics was not divorced from the development of the
> natural sciences. Although some geniuses made astonishing progress and
> apparently had great intuitive powers, mathematics did not come from some
> "perfect place".

Sure it did.
The Middle East.
If those towel headed, camel riding ****ers hadn't invented Zero, where
would the rest of it be?

> It is an artificially constructed system that was
> constructed primarily to model the physical universe, not the metaphysical.
> There may be no "mathematical lines" in nature, but when you drop an apple,
> it sure as hell falls the way Newton said it would.

Perhaps the planet falls up.

Lyle
My hero, Zero
What a funny little hero...

Lyle McDonald
July 27th 03, 04:56 PM
ATP wrote:
>
> MJL wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:39:49 GMT, Alex > wrote:
> >
> >>> In mathematics, "proof" is used quite liberally. But then the
> >>> question arises: is the math we use "truth", or just the language
> >>> of convenience to describe our perceptions? If even math cannot be
> >>> proven, is then truth an illusion? How does this balance with Dr.
> >>> Samuel Johnson's refutation of Berkeley?
> >>
> >> Of course math can be proven -- That is why it is math. All of the
> >> math that has ever been thought up and proven will always be true
> >> (unless there was a flaw in the proof).
> >>
> >> Math is the one study where new ideas and theorys don't replace old
> >> ones, they merely improve the old ideas. Math is the only perfect
> >> study -- unlike physics were we constantly replace old theories with
> >> new ones.
> >>
> >> The only way to refute all of mathematics is to refute the idea of
> >> unity (one, the identity) upon which all of math is based on.
> >>
> >> -Alex (a grad student in physics)
> >
> > I've described consciousness as the uncollapsed wave function that
> > inhabits this body. I think math comes from a perfect place and is
> > the same place where consciousness comes from. Neither can be
> > "proven" in the way you can prove an apple will fall if you let it go.
> > Find me even one mathematical line in nature. Just one. I don't
> > think you can, it is a concept that comes from a place other than what
> > we experience in this collapsed wavefunction we call reality.
>
> Have you been listening to New Age music or something?

Mike Lane is just a nutjob.

> The mathematics that
> we commonly use is internally consistent and consistent with physical
> phenomena which can be observed and measured in classical Newtonian physics.

Which says little as you can develop other maths that are equally
internally consistent and (I imagine) equally parisimonious with
observed reality. The math is still only a model and a created one at
that (i.e. it's not based on any measurable phenomenon).

> The development of mathematics was not divorced from the development of the
> natural sciences. Although some geniuses made astonishing progress and
> apparently had great intuitive powers, mathematics did not come from some
> "perfect place".

Sure it did.
The Middle East.
If those towel headed, camel riding ****ers hadn't invented Zero, where
would the rest of it be?

> It is an artificially constructed system that was
> constructed primarily to model the physical universe, not the metaphysical.
> There may be no "mathematical lines" in nature, but when you drop an apple,
> it sure as hell falls the way Newton said it would.

Perhaps the planet falls up.

Lyle
My hero, Zero
What a funny little hero...

JC Der Koenig
July 27th 03, 05:07 PM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> ATP wrote:
> >
> > MJL wrote:
> > > On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:39:49 GMT, Alex > wrote:
> > >
> > >>> In mathematics, "proof" is used quite liberally. But then the
> > >>> question arises: is the math we use "truth", or just the language
> > >>> of convenience to describe our perceptions? If even math cannot be
> > >>> proven, is then truth an illusion? How does this balance with Dr.
> > >>> Samuel Johnson's refutation of Berkeley?
> > >>
> > >> Of course math can be proven -- That is why it is math. All of the
> > >> math that has ever been thought up and proven will always be true
> > >> (unless there was a flaw in the proof).
> > >>
> > >> Math is the one study where new ideas and theorys don't replace old
> > >> ones, they merely improve the old ideas. Math is the only perfect
> > >> study -- unlike physics were we constantly replace old theories with
> > >> new ones.
> > >>
> > >> The only way to refute all of mathematics is to refute the idea of
> > >> unity (one, the identity) upon which all of math is based on.
> > >>
> > >> -Alex (a grad student in physics)
> > >
> > > I've described consciousness as the uncollapsed wave function that
> > > inhabits this body. I think math comes from a perfect place and is
> > > the same place where consciousness comes from. Neither can be
> > > "proven" in the way you can prove an apple will fall if you let it go.
> > > Find me even one mathematical line in nature. Just one. I don't
> > > think you can, it is a concept that comes from a place other than what
> > > we experience in this collapsed wavefunction we call reality.
> >
> > Have you been listening to New Age music or something?
>
> Mike Lane is just a nutjob.
>
> > The mathematics that
> > we commonly use is internally consistent and consistent with physical
> > phenomena which can be observed and measured in classical Newtonian
physics.
>
> Which says little as you can develop other maths that are equally
> internally consistent and (I imagine) equally parisimonious with
> observed reality. The math is still only a model and a created one at
> that (i.e. it's not based on any measurable phenomenon).
>
> > The development of mathematics was not divorced from the development of
the
> > natural sciences. Although some geniuses made astonishing progress and
> > apparently had great intuitive powers, mathematics did not come from
some
> > "perfect place".
>
> Sure it did.
> The Middle East.
> If those towel headed, camel riding ****ers hadn't invented Zero, where
> would the rest of it be?
>
> > It is an artificially constructed system that was
> > constructed primarily to model the physical universe, not the
metaphysical.
> > There may be no "mathematical lines" in nature, but when you drop an
apple,
> > it sure as hell falls the way Newton said it would.
>
> Perhaps the planet falls up.
>
> Lyle
> My hero, Zero
> What a funny little hero...

Zero comes from India, coach.

JC Der Koenig
July 27th 03, 05:07 PM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> ATP wrote:
> >
> > MJL wrote:
> > > On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:39:49 GMT, Alex > wrote:
> > >
> > >>> In mathematics, "proof" is used quite liberally. But then the
> > >>> question arises: is the math we use "truth", or just the language
> > >>> of convenience to describe our perceptions? If even math cannot be
> > >>> proven, is then truth an illusion? How does this balance with Dr.
> > >>> Samuel Johnson's refutation of Berkeley?
> > >>
> > >> Of course math can be proven -- That is why it is math. All of the
> > >> math that has ever been thought up and proven will always be true
> > >> (unless there was a flaw in the proof).
> > >>
> > >> Math is the one study where new ideas and theorys don't replace old
> > >> ones, they merely improve the old ideas. Math is the only perfect
> > >> study -- unlike physics were we constantly replace old theories with
> > >> new ones.
> > >>
> > >> The only way to refute all of mathematics is to refute the idea of
> > >> unity (one, the identity) upon which all of math is based on.
> > >>
> > >> -Alex (a grad student in physics)
> > >
> > > I've described consciousness as the uncollapsed wave function that
> > > inhabits this body. I think math comes from a perfect place and is
> > > the same place where consciousness comes from. Neither can be
> > > "proven" in the way you can prove an apple will fall if you let it go.
> > > Find me even one mathematical line in nature. Just one. I don't
> > > think you can, it is a concept that comes from a place other than what
> > > we experience in this collapsed wavefunction we call reality.
> >
> > Have you been listening to New Age music or something?
>
> Mike Lane is just a nutjob.
>
> > The mathematics that
> > we commonly use is internally consistent and consistent with physical
> > phenomena which can be observed and measured in classical Newtonian
physics.
>
> Which says little as you can develop other maths that are equally
> internally consistent and (I imagine) equally parisimonious with
> observed reality. The math is still only a model and a created one at
> that (i.e. it's not based on any measurable phenomenon).
>
> > The development of mathematics was not divorced from the development of
the
> > natural sciences. Although some geniuses made astonishing progress and
> > apparently had great intuitive powers, mathematics did not come from
some
> > "perfect place".
>
> Sure it did.
> The Middle East.
> If those towel headed, camel riding ****ers hadn't invented Zero, where
> would the rest of it be?
>
> > It is an artificially constructed system that was
> > constructed primarily to model the physical universe, not the
metaphysical.
> > There may be no "mathematical lines" in nature, but when you drop an
apple,
> > it sure as hell falls the way Newton said it would.
>
> Perhaps the planet falls up.
>
> Lyle
> My hero, Zero
> What a funny little hero...

Zero comes from India, coach.

Lyle McDonald
July 27th 03, 05:41 PM
JC Der Koenig wrote:
>
> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message

> > Lyle
> > My hero, Zero
> > What a funny little hero...
>
> Zero comes from India, coach.

I don't like Indian food.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
July 27th 03, 05:41 PM
JC Der Koenig wrote:
>
> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message

> > Lyle
> > My hero, Zero
> > What a funny little hero...
>
> Zero comes from India, coach.

I don't like Indian food.

Lyle

JC Der Koenig
July 27th 03, 05:48 PM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
>
> > > Lyle
> > > My hero, Zero
> > > What a funny little hero...
> >
> > Zero comes from India, coach.
>
> I don't like Indian food.
>
> Lyle

It's a good thing you know all about tangents.

JC Der Koenig
July 27th 03, 05:48 PM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> JC Der Koenig wrote:
> >
> > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
>
> > > Lyle
> > > My hero, Zero
> > > What a funny little hero...
> >
> > Zero comes from India, coach.
>
> I don't like Indian food.
>
> Lyle

It's a good thing you know all about tangents.

Lyle McDonald
July 27th 03, 06:10 PM
JC Der Koenig wrote:
>
> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> ...
> > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> > >
> > > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> >
> > > > Lyle
> > > > My hero, Zero
> > > > What a funny little hero...
> > >
> > > Zero comes from India, coach.
> >
> > I don't like Indian food.
> >
> > Lyle
>
> It's a good thing you know all about tangents.

Za-zing!

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
July 27th 03, 06:10 PM
JC Der Koenig wrote:
>
> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> ...
> > JC Der Koenig wrote:
> > >
> > > "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
> >
> > > > Lyle
> > > > My hero, Zero
> > > > What a funny little hero...
> > >
> > > Zero comes from India, coach.
> >
> > I don't like Indian food.
> >
> > Lyle
>
> It's a good thing you know all about tangents.

Za-zing!

Lyle

ATP
July 28th 03, 12:59 AM
Lyle McDonald wrote:
> ATP wrote:
>>
>> MJL wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:39:49 GMT, Alex > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In mathematics, "proof" is used quite liberally. But then the
>>>>> question arises: is the math we use "truth", or just the language
>>>>> of convenience to describe our perceptions? If even math cannot be
>>>>> proven, is then truth an illusion? How does this balance with Dr.
>>>>> Samuel Johnson's refutation of Berkeley?
>>>>
>>>> Of course math can be proven -- That is why it is math. All of the
>>>> math that has ever been thought up and proven will always be true
>>>> (unless there was a flaw in the proof).
>>>>
>>>> Math is the one study where new ideas and theorys don't replace old
>>>> ones, they merely improve the old ideas. Math is the only perfect
>>>> study -- unlike physics were we constantly replace old theories
>>>> with new ones.
>>>>
>>>> The only way to refute all of mathematics is to refute the idea of
>>>> unity (one, the identity) upon which all of math is based on.
>>>>
>>>> -Alex (a grad student in physics)
>>>
>>> I've described consciousness as the uncollapsed wave function that
>>> inhabits this body. I think math comes from a perfect place and is
>>> the same place where consciousness comes from. Neither can be
>>> "proven" in the way you can prove an apple will fall if you let it
>>> go. Find me even one mathematical line in nature. Just one. I
>>> don't think you can, it is a concept that comes from a place other
>>> than what we experience in this collapsed wavefunction we call
>>> reality.
>>
>> Have you been listening to New Age music or something?
>
> Mike Lane is just a nutjob.
>
>> The mathematics that
>> we commonly use is internally consistent and consistent with physical
>> phenomena which can be observed and measured in classical Newtonian
>> physics.
>
> Which says little as you can develop other maths that are equally
> internally consistent and (I imagine) equally parisimonious with
> observed reality. The math is still only a model and a created one at
> that (i.e. it's not based on any measurable phenomenon).

First you have to agree on a way to measure the phenomena, so how could it
be? The test is whether it can accurately predict and model physical
systems, and the success of Western science is a testament to that ability.
There could have been variations in the development of a mathematical
system, but it would still have to be capable of solving the same basic
problems of time and motion, for example. In any case, the possibility of
different mathematical systems only reinforces my point that math is first
and foremost a practical tool for solving real problems.


>
>> The development of mathematics was not divorced from the development
>> of the natural sciences. Although some geniuses made astonishing
>> progress and apparently had great intuitive powers, mathematics did
>> not come from some "perfect place".
>
> Sure it did.
> The Middle East.
> If those towel headed, camel riding ****ers hadn't invented Zero,
> where would the rest of it be?

The Mayans claimed the concept as well, but we could all be sitting around
ceremonially draining blood from our penises if they were still in charge.

ATP
July 28th 03, 12:59 AM
Lyle McDonald wrote:
> ATP wrote:
>>
>> MJL wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:39:49 GMT, Alex > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In mathematics, "proof" is used quite liberally. But then the
>>>>> question arises: is the math we use "truth", or just the language
>>>>> of convenience to describe our perceptions? If even math cannot be
>>>>> proven, is then truth an illusion? How does this balance with Dr.
>>>>> Samuel Johnson's refutation of Berkeley?
>>>>
>>>> Of course math can be proven -- That is why it is math. All of the
>>>> math that has ever been thought up and proven will always be true
>>>> (unless there was a flaw in the proof).
>>>>
>>>> Math is the one study where new ideas and theorys don't replace old
>>>> ones, they merely improve the old ideas. Math is the only perfect
>>>> study -- unlike physics were we constantly replace old theories
>>>> with new ones.
>>>>
>>>> The only way to refute all of mathematics is to refute the idea of
>>>> unity (one, the identity) upon which all of math is based on.
>>>>
>>>> -Alex (a grad student in physics)
>>>
>>> I've described consciousness as the uncollapsed wave function that
>>> inhabits this body. I think math comes from a perfect place and is
>>> the same place where consciousness comes from. Neither can be
>>> "proven" in the way you can prove an apple will fall if you let it
>>> go. Find me even one mathematical line in nature. Just one. I
>>> don't think you can, it is a concept that comes from a place other
>>> than what we experience in this collapsed wavefunction we call
>>> reality.
>>
>> Have you been listening to New Age music or something?
>
> Mike Lane is just a nutjob.
>
>> The mathematics that
>> we commonly use is internally consistent and consistent with physical
>> phenomena which can be observed and measured in classical Newtonian
>> physics.
>
> Which says little as you can develop other maths that are equally
> internally consistent and (I imagine) equally parisimonious with
> observed reality. The math is still only a model and a created one at
> that (i.e. it's not based on any measurable phenomenon).

First you have to agree on a way to measure the phenomena, so how could it
be? The test is whether it can accurately predict and model physical
systems, and the success of Western science is a testament to that ability.
There could have been variations in the development of a mathematical
system, but it would still have to be capable of solving the same basic
problems of time and motion, for example. In any case, the possibility of
different mathematical systems only reinforces my point that math is first
and foremost a practical tool for solving real problems.


>
>> The development of mathematics was not divorced from the development
>> of the natural sciences. Although some geniuses made astonishing
>> progress and apparently had great intuitive powers, mathematics did
>> not come from some "perfect place".
>
> Sure it did.
> The Middle East.
> If those towel headed, camel riding ****ers hadn't invented Zero,
> where would the rest of it be?

The Mayans claimed the concept as well, but we could all be sitting around
ceremonially draining blood from our penises if they were still in charge.

Lyle McDonald
July 28th 03, 01:18 AM
ATP wrote:
>
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
> > ATP wrote:

> >> The mathematics that
> >> we commonly use is internally consistent and consistent with physical
> >> phenomena which can be observed and measured in classical Newtonian
> >> physics.
> >
> > Which says little as you can develop other maths that are equally
> > internally consistent and (I imagine) equally parisimonious with
> > observed reality. The math is still only a model and a created one at
> > that (i.e. it's not based on any measurable phenomenon).
>
> First you have to agree on a way to measure the phenomena, so how could it
> be? The test is whether it can accurately predict and model physical
> systems, and the success of Western science is a testament to that ability.

The point simply being that you can develop different maths that
accurately model the system. Math has no inherent meaning outside of
its own definitions.

> > Sure it did.
> > The Middle East.
> > If those towel headed, camel riding ****ers hadn't invented Zero,
> > where would the rest of it be?
>
> The Mayans claimed the concept as well, but we could all be sitting around
> ceremonially draining blood from our penises if they were still in charge.

I'll be back in 5', got something I wanna try...

Lyle

Lyle McDonald
July 28th 03, 01:18 AM
ATP wrote:
>
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
> > ATP wrote:

> >> The mathematics that
> >> we commonly use is internally consistent and consistent with physical
> >> phenomena which can be observed and measured in classical Newtonian
> >> physics.
> >
> > Which says little as you can develop other maths that are equally
> > internally consistent and (I imagine) equally parisimonious with
> > observed reality. The math is still only a model and a created one at
> > that (i.e. it's not based on any measurable phenomenon).
>
> First you have to agree on a way to measure the phenomena, so how could it
> be? The test is whether it can accurately predict and model physical
> systems, and the success of Western science is a testament to that ability.

The point simply being that you can develop different maths that
accurately model the system. Math has no inherent meaning outside of
its own definitions.

> > Sure it did.
> > The Middle East.
> > If those towel headed, camel riding ****ers hadn't invented Zero,
> > where would the rest of it be?
>
> The Mayans claimed the concept as well, but we could all be sitting around
> ceremonially draining blood from our penises if they were still in charge.

I'll be back in 5', got something I wanna try...

Lyle

J. Thiessen
July 28th 03, 07:55 PM
In article >, Lyle McDonald wrote:
> ATP wrote:
>>
>> Lyle McDonald wrote:
>> > ATP wrote:
>
>> >> The mathematics that
>> >> we commonly use is internally consistent and consistent with physical
>> >> phenomena which can be observed and measured in classical Newtonian
>> >> physics.
>> >
>> > Which says little as you can develop other maths that are equally
>> > internally consistent and (I imagine) equally parisimonious with
>> > observed reality. The math is still only a model and a created one at
>> > that (i.e. it's not based on any measurable phenomenon).
>>
>> First you have to agree on a way to measure the phenomena, so how could it
>> be? The test is whether it can accurately predict and model physical
>> systems, and the success of Western science is a testament to that ability.
>
> The point simply being that you can develop different maths that
> accurately model the system. Math has no inherent meaning outside of
> its own definitions.

This last sentence is what so few people get. It's also what makes math
really fun (to me, at least).

My wife has a math degree. ~95% of the people who find that out think that
means she's really good at adding numbers.

J.

J. Thiessen
July 28th 03, 07:55 PM
In article >, Lyle McDonald wrote:
> ATP wrote:
>>
>> Lyle McDonald wrote:
>> > ATP wrote:
>
>> >> The mathematics that
>> >> we commonly use is internally consistent and consistent with physical
>> >> phenomena which can be observed and measured in classical Newtonian
>> >> physics.
>> >
>> > Which says little as you can develop other maths that are equally
>> > internally consistent and (I imagine) equally parisimonious with
>> > observed reality. The math is still only a model and a created one at
>> > that (i.e. it's not based on any measurable phenomenon).
>>
>> First you have to agree on a way to measure the phenomena, so how could it
>> be? The test is whether it can accurately predict and model physical
>> systems, and the success of Western science is a testament to that ability.
>
> The point simply being that you can develop different maths that
> accurately model the system. Math has no inherent meaning outside of
> its own definitions.

This last sentence is what so few people get. It's also what makes math
really fun (to me, at least).

My wife has a math degree. ~95% of the people who find that out think that
means she's really good at adding numbers.

J.

Tom Morley
July 28th 03, 10:55 PM
J. Thiessen wrote:
> In article >, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>
>>ATP wrote:
>>
>>>Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>>
>>>>ATP wrote:
>>
>>>>>The mathematics that
>>>>>we commonly use is internally consistent and consistent with physical
>>>>>phenomena which can be observed and measured in classical Newtonian
>>>>>physics.
>>>>
>>>>Which says little as you can develop other maths that are equally
>>>>internally consistent and (I imagine) equally parisimonious with
>>>>observed reality. The math is still only a model and a created one at
>>>>that (i.e. it's not based on any measurable phenomenon).
>>>
>>>First you have to agree on a way to measure the phenomena, so how could it
>>>be? The test is whether it can accurately predict and model physical
>>>systems, and the success of Western science is a testament to that ability.
>>
>>The point simply being that you can develop different maths that
>>accurately model the system. Math has no inherent meaning outside of
>>its own definitions.
>
>
> This last sentence is what so few people get. It's also what makes math
> really fun (to me, at least).
>
> My wife has a math degree. ~95% of the people who find that out think that
> means she's really good at adding numbers.
>
> J.


Numbers?

There are three kinds of people in the world.
Those that can count, and those that can't

--
Tom Morley | Same roads
| Same rights
| Same rules
AIM: DocTDM

Tom Morley
July 28th 03, 10:55 PM
J. Thiessen wrote:
> In article >, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>
>>ATP wrote:
>>
>>>Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>>
>>>>ATP wrote:
>>
>>>>>The mathematics that
>>>>>we commonly use is internally consistent and consistent with physical
>>>>>phenomena which can be observed and measured in classical Newtonian
>>>>>physics.
>>>>
>>>>Which says little as you can develop other maths that are equally
>>>>internally consistent and (I imagine) equally parisimonious with
>>>>observed reality. The math is still only a model and a created one at
>>>>that (i.e. it's not based on any measurable phenomenon).
>>>
>>>First you have to agree on a way to measure the phenomena, so how could it
>>>be? The test is whether it can accurately predict and model physical
>>>systems, and the success of Western science is a testament to that ability.
>>
>>The point simply being that you can develop different maths that
>>accurately model the system. Math has no inherent meaning outside of
>>its own definitions.
>
>
> This last sentence is what so few people get. It's also what makes math
> really fun (to me, at least).
>
> My wife has a math degree. ~95% of the people who find that out think that
> means she's really good at adding numbers.
>
> J.


Numbers?

There are three kinds of people in the world.
Those that can count, and those that can't

--
Tom Morley | Same roads
| Same rights
| Same rules
AIM: DocTDM

J. Thiessen
July 29th 03, 04:02 AM
In article >, Tom Morley wrote:
>
>
> J. Thiessen wrote:
>> In article >, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>
>>>ATP wrote:
>>>
>>>>Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>ATP wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>The mathematics that
>>>>>>we commonly use is internally consistent and consistent with physical
>>>>>>phenomena which can be observed and measured in classical Newtonian
>>>>>>physics.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which says little as you can develop other maths that are equally
>>>>>internally consistent and (I imagine) equally parisimonious with
>>>>>observed reality. The math is still only a model and a created one at
>>>>>that (i.e. it's not based on any measurable phenomenon).
>>>>
>>>>First you have to agree on a way to measure the phenomena, so how could it
>>>>be? The test is whether it can accurately predict and model physical
>>>>systems, and the success of Western science is a testament to that ability.
>>>
>>>The point simply being that you can develop different maths that
>>>accurately model the system. Math has no inherent meaning outside of
>>>its own definitions.
>>
>>
>> This last sentence is what so few people get. It's also what makes math
>> really fun (to me, at least).
>>
>> My wife has a math degree. ~95% of the people who find that out think that
>> means she's really good at adding numbers.
>>
>> J.
>
>
> Numbers?
>
> There are three kinds of people in the world.
> Those that can count, and those that can't

Do you have any good recipes for canned count?

J.

J. Thiessen
July 29th 03, 04:02 AM
In article >, Tom Morley wrote:
>
>
> J. Thiessen wrote:
>> In article >, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>
>>>ATP wrote:
>>>
>>>>Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>ATP wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>The mathematics that
>>>>>>we commonly use is internally consistent and consistent with physical
>>>>>>phenomena which can be observed and measured in classical Newtonian
>>>>>>physics.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which says little as you can develop other maths that are equally
>>>>>internally consistent and (I imagine) equally parisimonious with
>>>>>observed reality. The math is still only a model and a created one at
>>>>>that (i.e. it's not based on any measurable phenomenon).
>>>>
>>>>First you have to agree on a way to measure the phenomena, so how could it
>>>>be? The test is whether it can accurately predict and model physical
>>>>systems, and the success of Western science is a testament to that ability.
>>>
>>>The point simply being that you can develop different maths that
>>>accurately model the system. Math has no inherent meaning outside of
>>>its own definitions.
>>
>>
>> This last sentence is what so few people get. It's also what makes math
>> really fun (to me, at least).
>>
>> My wife has a math degree. ~95% of the people who find that out think that
>> means she's really good at adding numbers.
>>
>> J.
>
>
> Numbers?
>
> There are three kinds of people in the world.
> Those that can count, and those that can't

Do you have any good recipes for canned count?

J.

JC Der Koenig
July 29th 03, 04:45 AM
"MJL" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:59:06 GMT, "ATP" >
> wrote:
>
>
> >First you have to agree on a way to measure the phenomena, so how could
it
> >be? The test is whether it can accurately predict and model physical
> >systems, and the success of Western science is a testament to that
ability.
> >There could have been variations in the development of a mathematical
> >system, but it would still have to be capable of solving the same basic
> >problems of time and motion, for example. In any case, the possibility of
> >different mathematical systems only reinforces my point that math is
first
> >and foremost a practical tool for solving real problems.
>
> Yes but WHY is something founded in things that do not exist in nature
> so good as predicting what will happen in nature. Oh how easily
> people gloss over the philosophical implications of mathematics.
>
>

What do you know of Fibonacci and the way plants grow?

JC Der Koenig
July 29th 03, 04:45 AM
"MJL" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:59:06 GMT, "ATP" >
> wrote:
>
>
> >First you have to agree on a way to measure the phenomena, so how could
it
> >be? The test is whether it can accurately predict and model physical
> >systems, and the success of Western science is a testament to that
ability.
> >There could have been variations in the development of a mathematical
> >system, but it would still have to be capable of solving the same basic
> >problems of time and motion, for example. In any case, the possibility of
> >different mathematical systems only reinforces my point that math is
first
> >and foremost a practical tool for solving real problems.
>
> Yes but WHY is something founded in things that do not exist in nature
> so good as predicting what will happen in nature. Oh how easily
> people gloss over the philosophical implications of mathematics.
>
>

What do you know of Fibonacci and the way plants grow?

MJL
July 29th 03, 05:05 AM
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 09:56:22 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:

>ATP wrote:
>>
>> MJL wrote:
>> > On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:39:49 GMT, Alex > wrote:
>> >
>> >>> In mathematics, "proof" is used quite liberally. But then the
>> >>> question arises: is the math we use "truth", or just the language
>> >>> of convenience to describe our perceptions? If even math cannot be
>> >>> proven, is then truth an illusion? How does this balance with Dr.
>> >>> Samuel Johnson's refutation of Berkeley?
>> >>
>> >> Of course math can be proven -- That is why it is math. All of the
>> >> math that has ever been thought up and proven will always be true
>> >> (unless there was a flaw in the proof).
>> >>
>> >> Math is the one study where new ideas and theorys don't replace old
>> >> ones, they merely improve the old ideas. Math is the only perfect
>> >> study -- unlike physics were we constantly replace old theories with
>> >> new ones.
>> >>
>> >> The only way to refute all of mathematics is to refute the idea of
>> >> unity (one, the identity) upon which all of math is based on.
>> >>
>> >> -Alex (a grad student in physics)
>> >
>> > I've described consciousness as the uncollapsed wave function that
>> > inhabits this body. I think math comes from a perfect place and is
>> > the same place where consciousness comes from. Neither can be
>> > "proven" in the way you can prove an apple will fall if you let it go.
>> > Find me even one mathematical line in nature. Just one. I don't
>> > think you can, it is a concept that comes from a place other than what
>> > we experience in this collapsed wavefunction we call reality.
>>
>> Have you been listening to New Age music or something?
>
>Mike Lane is just a nutjob.

and what, exactly, are you?

MJL
July 29th 03, 05:05 AM
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 09:56:22 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:

>ATP wrote:
>>
>> MJL wrote:
>> > On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:39:49 GMT, Alex > wrote:
>> >
>> >>> In mathematics, "proof" is used quite liberally. But then the
>> >>> question arises: is the math we use "truth", or just the language
>> >>> of convenience to describe our perceptions? If even math cannot be
>> >>> proven, is then truth an illusion? How does this balance with Dr.
>> >>> Samuel Johnson's refutation of Berkeley?
>> >>
>> >> Of course math can be proven -- That is why it is math. All of the
>> >> math that has ever been thought up and proven will always be true
>> >> (unless there was a flaw in the proof).
>> >>
>> >> Math is the one study where new ideas and theorys don't replace old
>> >> ones, they merely improve the old ideas. Math is the only perfect
>> >> study -- unlike physics were we constantly replace old theories with
>> >> new ones.
>> >>
>> >> The only way to refute all of mathematics is to refute the idea of
>> >> unity (one, the identity) upon which all of math is based on.
>> >>
>> >> -Alex (a grad student in physics)
>> >
>> > I've described consciousness as the uncollapsed wave function that
>> > inhabits this body. I think math comes from a perfect place and is
>> > the same place where consciousness comes from. Neither can be
>> > "proven" in the way you can prove an apple will fall if you let it go.
>> > Find me even one mathematical line in nature. Just one. I don't
>> > think you can, it is a concept that comes from a place other than what
>> > we experience in this collapsed wavefunction we call reality.
>>
>> Have you been listening to New Age music or something?
>
>Mike Lane is just a nutjob.

and what, exactly, are you?

Dr_Dickie
July 29th 03, 12:49 PM
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 06:01:49 -0400, Tom Morley
> wrote:

>
>
>JC Der Koenig wrote:
>> "MJL" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:59:06 GMT, "ATP" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>First you have to agree on a way to measure the phenomena, so how could
>>
>> it
>>
>>>>be? The test is whether it can accurately predict and model physical
>>>>systems, and the success of Western science is a testament to that
>>
>> ability.
>>
>>>>There could have been variations in the development of a mathematical
>>>>system, but it would still have to be capable of solving the same basic
>>>>problems of time and motion, for example. In any case, the possibility of
>>>>different mathematical systems only reinforces my point that math is
>>
>> first
>>
>>>>and foremost a practical tool for solving real problems.
>>>
>>>Yes but WHY is something founded in things that do not exist in nature
>>>so good as predicting what will happen in nature. Oh how easily
>>>people gloss over the philosophical implications of mathematics.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> What do you know of Fibonacci and the way plants grow?
>>
>>
>
>
>What is sometimes misunderstood is that science (and mathematics, for
>that matter) is often about insight, rather than prediction.


True, but that insight is then tested by making predictions and
running tests to see if it holds up; or at least that is what you
would say in the grant!
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick
====================================
"Let be be finale of seem.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream"
Wallace Stevens-1923
=====================================

Dr_Dickie
July 29th 03, 12:49 PM
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 06:01:49 -0400, Tom Morley
> wrote:

>
>
>JC Der Koenig wrote:
>> "MJL" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:59:06 GMT, "ATP" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>First you have to agree on a way to measure the phenomena, so how could
>>
>> it
>>
>>>>be? The test is whether it can accurately predict and model physical
>>>>systems, and the success of Western science is a testament to that
>>
>> ability.
>>
>>>>There could have been variations in the development of a mathematical
>>>>system, but it would still have to be capable of solving the same basic
>>>>problems of time and motion, for example. In any case, the possibility of
>>>>different mathematical systems only reinforces my point that math is
>>
>> first
>>
>>>>and foremost a practical tool for solving real problems.
>>>
>>>Yes but WHY is something founded in things that do not exist in nature
>>>so good as predicting what will happen in nature. Oh how easily
>>>people gloss over the philosophical implications of mathematics.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> What do you know of Fibonacci and the way plants grow?
>>
>>
>
>
>What is sometimes misunderstood is that science (and mathematics, for
>that matter) is often about insight, rather than prediction.


True, but that insight is then tested by making predictions and
running tests to see if it holds up; or at least that is what you
would say in the grant!
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick
====================================
"Let be be finale of seem.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream"
Wallace Stevens-1923
=====================================

JC Der Koenig
July 29th 03, 02:33 PM
"Tom Morley" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> JC Der Koenig wrote:
> > "MJL" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:59:06 GMT, "ATP" >
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>First you have to agree on a way to measure the phenomena, so how could
> >
> > it
> >
> >>>be? The test is whether it can accurately predict and model physical
> >>>systems, and the success of Western science is a testament to that
> >
> > ability.
> >
> >>>There could have been variations in the development of a mathematical
> >>>system, but it would still have to be capable of solving the same basic
> >>>problems of time and motion, for example. In any case, the possibility
of
> >>>different mathematical systems only reinforces my point that math is
> >
> > first
> >
> >>>and foremost a practical tool for solving real problems.
> >>
> >>Yes but WHY is something founded in things that do not exist in nature
> >>so good as predicting what will happen in nature. Oh how easily
> >>people gloss over the philosophical implications of mathematics.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > What do you know of Fibonacci and the way plants grow?
> >
> >
>
>
> What is sometimes misunderstood is that science (and mathematics, for
> that matter) is often about insight, rather than prediction.
>
> --
> Tom Morley | Same roads
> | Same rights
> | Same rules
> AIM: DocTDM
>

I misunderstand science (and mathematics, for that matter) quite often.

JC Der Koenig
July 29th 03, 02:33 PM
"Tom Morley" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> JC Der Koenig wrote:
> > "MJL" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:59:06 GMT, "ATP" >
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>First you have to agree on a way to measure the phenomena, so how could
> >
> > it
> >
> >>>be? The test is whether it can accurately predict and model physical
> >>>systems, and the success of Western science is a testament to that
> >
> > ability.
> >
> >>>There could have been variations in the development of a mathematical
> >>>system, but it would still have to be capable of solving the same basic
> >>>problems of time and motion, for example. In any case, the possibility
of
> >>>different mathematical systems only reinforces my point that math is
> >
> > first
> >
> >>>and foremost a practical tool for solving real problems.
> >>
> >>Yes but WHY is something founded in things that do not exist in nature
> >>so good as predicting what will happen in nature. Oh how easily
> >>people gloss over the philosophical implications of mathematics.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > What do you know of Fibonacci and the way plants grow?
> >
> >
>
>
> What is sometimes misunderstood is that science (and mathematics, for
> that matter) is often about insight, rather than prediction.
>
> --
> Tom Morley | Same roads
> | Same rights
> | Same rules
> AIM: DocTDM
>

I misunderstand science (and mathematics, for that matter) quite often.

ATP
July 30th 03, 02:51 AM
MJL wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:59:06 GMT, "ATP" >
> wrote:
>
>
>> First you have to agree on a way to measure the phenomena, so how
>> could it be? The test is whether it can accurately predict and model
>> physical systems, and the success of Western science is a testament
>> to that ability. There could have been variations in the development
>> of a mathematical system, but it would still have to be capable of
>> solving the same basic problems of time and motion, for example. In
>> any case, the possibility of different mathematical systems only
>> reinforces my point that math is first and foremost a practical tool
>> for solving real problems.
>
> Yes but WHY is something founded in things that do not exist in nature
> so good as predicting what will happen in nature. Oh how easily
> people gloss over the philosophical implications of mathematics.

I don't deny that there are philosophical implications, there was a time
when philosophy and science/mathematics were considered part of the same
realm. There was progress at that time in mathematics, however it took a
combination of insight and the development of the scientific method to get
things to really advance in a useful direction. In the early days there was
apparently a lot of "hand-waving". It's no accident that math is useful for
solving problems in nature, many famous names you'll find in a textbook were
trying to solve some problem. Instead of going to the Math Learning Center
they just developed the math they needed.

ATP
July 30th 03, 02:51 AM
MJL wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:59:06 GMT, "ATP" >
> wrote:
>
>
>> First you have to agree on a way to measure the phenomena, so how
>> could it be? The test is whether it can accurately predict and model
>> physical systems, and the success of Western science is a testament
>> to that ability. There could have been variations in the development
>> of a mathematical system, but it would still have to be capable of
>> solving the same basic problems of time and motion, for example. In
>> any case, the possibility of different mathematical systems only
>> reinforces my point that math is first and foremost a practical tool
>> for solving real problems.
>
> Yes but WHY is something founded in things that do not exist in nature
> so good as predicting what will happen in nature. Oh how easily
> people gloss over the philosophical implications of mathematics.

I don't deny that there are philosophical implications, there was a time
when philosophy and science/mathematics were considered part of the same
realm. There was progress at that time in mathematics, however it took a
combination of insight and the development of the scientific method to get
things to really advance in a useful direction. In the early days there was
apparently a lot of "hand-waving". It's no accident that math is useful for
solving problems in nature, many famous names you'll find in a textbook were
trying to solve some problem. Instead of going to the Math Learning Center
they just developed the math they needed.

Donovan Rebbechi
July 30th 03, 06:02 AM
In article >, MJL wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:51:30 GMT, "ATP" >

> I just find it amazing to talk to people, even (or especially) people
> with an advanced math background who are not amazed by the simple
> definition of a mathematical line.

I'm not sure which "mathematical line" you mean, but I think you'd need a
homeomorphic image of the real number line to have a useful and general
definition. So I think I'd start by defining "the real numbers", then follow
up with defining the terms "function", "topology", "continuous", "bijection",
and "homemorphism" (in approximately that order)

> I guess you could back even further to the concept of a point.

It's less confusing conceptually to start off with "sets" which have
"elements". The elements are allowed to be abstract symbols, so you don't get
into the confusing questions about what a point actually is.

[snip]

> What I don't know, but would be interested to find out is if there are
> applications of mathematics where the derivations are so complex and long and
> involve so many iterations of variables that they could ONLY work if the
> mathematical concept of a point "exists".

I don't think whether or not a point exists is a big issue. However, some
philosophical issues include

(1) the principle of mathematical induction
(2) the countable axiom of choice
http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~schectex/ccc/choice.html

These are both often used.

> If it does, it suggests to me a
> level of reality that we can not perceive yet of which we can CONceive and
> that allows us to do "real" things. I guess exploding atom bombs comes to
> mind but I don't know if the point in math could actually still have some
> infinitesimal mass and still allow the calculations to work.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The concept of limits and
continuity is discussed in fairly rigorous detail (epsilon-delta proofs) in
introductory real analysis courses (and some calc courses) But it appears to
be of remarkably little use in the real world (the rigorous theoretical
exposition, that is)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi
July 30th 03, 06:02 AM
In article >, MJL wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:51:30 GMT, "ATP" >

> I just find it amazing to talk to people, even (or especially) people
> with an advanced math background who are not amazed by the simple
> definition of a mathematical line.

I'm not sure which "mathematical line" you mean, but I think you'd need a
homeomorphic image of the real number line to have a useful and general
definition. So I think I'd start by defining "the real numbers", then follow
up with defining the terms "function", "topology", "continuous", "bijection",
and "homemorphism" (in approximately that order)

> I guess you could back even further to the concept of a point.

It's less confusing conceptually to start off with "sets" which have
"elements". The elements are allowed to be abstract symbols, so you don't get
into the confusing questions about what a point actually is.

[snip]

> What I don't know, but would be interested to find out is if there are
> applications of mathematics where the derivations are so complex and long and
> involve so many iterations of variables that they could ONLY work if the
> mathematical concept of a point "exists".

I don't think whether or not a point exists is a big issue. However, some
philosophical issues include

(1) the principle of mathematical induction
(2) the countable axiom of choice
http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~schectex/ccc/choice.html

These are both often used.

> If it does, it suggests to me a
> level of reality that we can not perceive yet of which we can CONceive and
> that allows us to do "real" things. I guess exploding atom bombs comes to
> mind but I don't know if the point in math could actually still have some
> infinitesimal mass and still allow the calculations to work.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The concept of limits and
continuity is discussed in fairly rigorous detail (epsilon-delta proofs) in
introductory real analysis courses (and some calc courses) But it appears to
be of remarkably little use in the real world (the rigorous theoretical
exposition, that is)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

MJL
July 30th 03, 06:13 AM
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:51:30 GMT, "ATP" >
wrote:

>MJL wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:59:06 GMT, "ATP" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> First you have to agree on a way to measure the phenomena, so how
>>> could it be? The test is whether it can accurately predict and model
>>> physical systems, and the success of Western science is a testament
>>> to that ability. There could have been variations in the development
>>> of a mathematical system, but it would still have to be capable of
>>> solving the same basic problems of time and motion, for example. In
>>> any case, the possibility of different mathematical systems only
>>> reinforces my point that math is first and foremost a practical tool
>>> for solving real problems.
>>
>> Yes but WHY is something founded in things that do not exist in nature
>> so good as predicting what will happen in nature. Oh how easily
>> people gloss over the philosophical implications of mathematics.
>
>I don't deny that there are philosophical implications, there was a time
>when philosophy and science/mathematics were considered part of the same
>realm. There was progress at that time in mathematics, however it took a
>combination of insight and the development of the scientific method to get
>things to really advance in a useful direction. In the early days there was
>apparently a lot of "hand-waving". It's no accident that math is useful for
>solving problems in nature, many famous names you'll find in a textbook were
>trying to solve some problem. Instead of going to the Math Learning Center
>they just developed the math they needed.
>

I just find it amazing to talk to people, even (or especially) people
with an advanced math background who are not amazed by the simple
definition of a mathematical line. I guess you could back even
further to the concept of a point. If I were a math professor my
first question in any math class, especially advanced ones, would be
"define for me a line"and then "find me one". From there, I
personally think the conversation gets rather interesting.

What I don't know, but would be interested to find out is if there are
applications of mathematics where the derivations are so complex and
long and involve so many iterations of variables that they could ONLY
work if the mathematical concept of a point "exists". If it does, it
suggests to me a level of reality that we can not perceive yet of
which we can CONceive and that allows us to do "real" things. I guess
exploding atom bombs comes to mind but I don't know if the point in
math could actually still have some infinitesimal mass and still allow
the calculations to work.

MJL
July 30th 03, 06:13 AM
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:51:30 GMT, "ATP" >
wrote:

>MJL wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:59:06 GMT, "ATP" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> First you have to agree on a way to measure the phenomena, so how
>>> could it be? The test is whether it can accurately predict and model
>>> physical systems, and the success of Western science is a testament
>>> to that ability. There could have been variations in the development
>>> of a mathematical system, but it would still have to be capable of
>>> solving the same basic problems of time and motion, for example. In
>>> any case, the possibility of different mathematical systems only
>>> reinforces my point that math is first and foremost a practical tool
>>> for solving real problems.
>>
>> Yes but WHY is something founded in things that do not exist in nature
>> so good as predicting what will happen in nature. Oh how easily
>> people gloss over the philosophical implications of mathematics.
>
>I don't deny that there are philosophical implications, there was a time
>when philosophy and science/mathematics were considered part of the same
>realm. There was progress at that time in mathematics, however it took a
>combination of insight and the development of the scientific method to get
>things to really advance in a useful direction. In the early days there was
>apparently a lot of "hand-waving". It's no accident that math is useful for
>solving problems in nature, many famous names you'll find in a textbook were
>trying to solve some problem. Instead of going to the Math Learning Center
>they just developed the math they needed.
>

I just find it amazing to talk to people, even (or especially) people
with an advanced math background who are not amazed by the simple
definition of a mathematical line. I guess you could back even
further to the concept of a point. If I were a math professor my
first question in any math class, especially advanced ones, would be
"define for me a line"and then "find me one". From there, I
personally think the conversation gets rather interesting.

What I don't know, but would be interested to find out is if there are
applications of mathematics where the derivations are so complex and
long and involve so many iterations of variables that they could ONLY
work if the mathematical concept of a point "exists". If it does, it
suggests to me a level of reality that we can not perceive yet of
which we can CONceive and that allows us to do "real" things. I guess
exploding atom bombs comes to mind but I don't know if the point in
math could actually still have some infinitesimal mass and still allow
the calculations to work.

JC Der Koenig
July 30th 03, 06:17 AM
"MJL" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:51:30 GMT, "ATP" >
> wrote:
>
> >MJL wrote:
> >> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:59:06 GMT, "ATP" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> First you have to agree on a way to measure the phenomena, so how
> >>> could it be? The test is whether it can accurately predict and model
> >>> physical systems, and the success of Western science is a testament
> >>> to that ability. There could have been variations in the development
> >>> of a mathematical system, but it would still have to be capable of
> >>> solving the same basic problems of time and motion, for example. In
> >>> any case, the possibility of different mathematical systems only
> >>> reinforces my point that math is first and foremost a practical tool
> >>> for solving real problems.
> >>
> >> Yes but WHY is something founded in things that do not exist in nature
> >> so good as predicting what will happen in nature. Oh how easily
> >> people gloss over the philosophical implications of mathematics.
> >
> >I don't deny that there are philosophical implications, there was a time
> >when philosophy and science/mathematics were considered part of the same
> >realm. There was progress at that time in mathematics, however it took a
> >combination of insight and the development of the scientific method to
get
> >things to really advance in a useful direction. In the early days there
was
> >apparently a lot of "hand-waving". It's no accident that math is useful
for
> >solving problems in nature, many famous names you'll find in a textbook
were
> >trying to solve some problem. Instead of going to the Math Learning
Center
> >they just developed the math they needed.
> >
>
> I just find it amazing to talk to people, even (or especially) people
> with an advanced math background who are not amazed by the simple
> definition of a mathematical line. I guess you could back even
> further to the concept of a point. If I were a math professor my
> first question in any math class, especially advanced ones, would be
> "define for me a line"and then "find me one". From there, I
> personally think the conversation gets rather interesting.
>
> What I don't know, but would be interested to find out is if there are
> applications of mathematics where the derivations are so complex and
> long and involve so many iterations of variables that they could ONLY
> work if the mathematical concept of a point "exists". If it does, it
> suggests to me a level of reality that we can not perceive yet of
> which we can CONceive and that allows us to do "real" things. I guess
> exploding atom bombs comes to mind but I don't know if the point in
> math could actually still have some infinitesimal mass and still allow
> the calculations to work.
>
>

Yeah man that's kinda like when you eat some mushrooms and after a while
when you start getting a buzz on and then you look in the mirror and you
start trippin over how you can see every pore in your face and how people
aren't even amazed at how you can see every pore in your face and how much
different it looks when you really look at it..... or something like that.

JC Der Koenig
July 30th 03, 06:17 AM
"MJL" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:51:30 GMT, "ATP" >
> wrote:
>
> >MJL wrote:
> >> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:59:06 GMT, "ATP" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> First you have to agree on a way to measure the phenomena, so how
> >>> could it be? The test is whether it can accurately predict and model
> >>> physical systems, and the success of Western science is a testament
> >>> to that ability. There could have been variations in the development
> >>> of a mathematical system, but it would still have to be capable of
> >>> solving the same basic problems of time and motion, for example. In
> >>> any case, the possibility of different mathematical systems only
> >>> reinforces my point that math is first and foremost a practical tool
> >>> for solving real problems.
> >>
> >> Yes but WHY is something founded in things that do not exist in nature
> >> so good as predicting what will happen in nature. Oh how easily
> >> people gloss over the philosophical implications of mathematics.
> >
> >I don't deny that there are philosophical implications, there was a time
> >when philosophy and science/mathematics were considered part of the same
> >realm. There was progress at that time in mathematics, however it took a
> >combination of insight and the development of the scientific method to
get
> >things to really advance in a useful direction. In the early days there
was
> >apparently a lot of "hand-waving". It's no accident that math is useful
for
> >solving problems in nature, many famous names you'll find in a textbook
were
> >trying to solve some problem. Instead of going to the Math Learning
Center
> >they just developed the math they needed.
> >
>
> I just find it amazing to talk to people, even (or especially) people
> with an advanced math background who are not amazed by the simple
> definition of a mathematical line. I guess you could back even
> further to the concept of a point. If I were a math professor my
> first question in any math class, especially advanced ones, would be
> "define for me a line"and then "find me one". From there, I
> personally think the conversation gets rather interesting.
>
> What I don't know, but would be interested to find out is if there are
> applications of mathematics where the derivations are so complex and
> long and involve so many iterations of variables that they could ONLY
> work if the mathematical concept of a point "exists". If it does, it
> suggests to me a level of reality that we can not perceive yet of
> which we can CONceive and that allows us to do "real" things. I guess
> exploding atom bombs comes to mind but I don't know if the point in
> math could actually still have some infinitesimal mass and still allow
> the calculations to work.
>
>

Yeah man that's kinda like when you eat some mushrooms and after a while
when you start getting a buzz on and then you look in the mirror and you
start trippin over how you can see every pore in your face and how people
aren't even amazed at how you can see every pore in your face and how much
different it looks when you really look at it..... or something like that.

Tom Morley
July 30th 03, 11:54 AM
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> In article >, MJL wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:51:30 GMT, "ATP" >
>
>
>
>>I just find it amazing to talk to people, even (or especially) people
>>with an advanced math background who are not amazed by the simple
>>definition of a mathematical line.
>
>
> I'm not sure which "mathematical line" you mean, but I think you'd need a
> homeomorphic image of the real number line to have a useful and general
> definition. So I think I'd start by defining "the real numbers", then follow
> up with defining the terms "function", "topology", "continuous", "bijection",
> and "homemorphism" (in approximately that order)
>
>
>>I guess you could back even further to the concept of a point.
>
>
> It's less confusing conceptually to start off with "sets" which have
> "elements". The elements are allowed to be abstract symbols, so you don't get
> into the confusing questions about what a point actually is.
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>What I don't know, but would be interested to find out is if there are
>>applications of mathematics where the derivations are so complex and long and
>>involve so many iterations of variables that they could ONLY work if the
>>mathematical concept of a point "exists".
>
>
> I don't think whether or not a point exists is a big issue. However, some
> philosophical issues include
>
> (1) the principle of mathematical induction
> (2) the countable axiom of choice
> http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~schectex/ccc/choice.html
>
> These are both often used.
>
>
>>If it does, it suggests to me a
>>level of reality that we can not perceive yet of which we can CONceive and
>>that allows us to do "real" things. I guess exploding atom bombs comes to
>>mind but I don't know if the point in math could actually still have some
>>infinitesimal mass and still allow the calculations to work.
>
>
> I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The concept of limits and
> continuity is discussed in fairly rigorous detail (epsilon-delta proofs) in
> introductory real analysis courses (and some calc courses) But it appears to
> be of remarkably little use in the real world (the rigorous theoretical
> exposition, that is)
>
> Cheers,


Well, the "rigorous" definition gave rise at some point to actual
error analysis.
--
Tom Morley | Same roads
| Same rights
| Same rules
AIM: DocTDM

Tom Morley
July 30th 03, 11:54 AM
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> In article >, MJL wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:51:30 GMT, "ATP" >
>
>
>
>>I just find it amazing to talk to people, even (or especially) people
>>with an advanced math background who are not amazed by the simple
>>definition of a mathematical line.
>
>
> I'm not sure which "mathematical line" you mean, but I think you'd need a
> homeomorphic image of the real number line to have a useful and general
> definition. So I think I'd start by defining "the real numbers", then follow
> up with defining the terms "function", "topology", "continuous", "bijection",
> and "homemorphism" (in approximately that order)
>
>
>>I guess you could back even further to the concept of a point.
>
>
> It's less confusing conceptually to start off with "sets" which have
> "elements". The elements are allowed to be abstract symbols, so you don't get
> into the confusing questions about what a point actually is.
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>What I don't know, but would be interested to find out is if there are
>>applications of mathematics where the derivations are so complex and long and
>>involve so many iterations of variables that they could ONLY work if the
>>mathematical concept of a point "exists".
>
>
> I don't think whether or not a point exists is a big issue. However, some
> philosophical issues include
>
> (1) the principle of mathematical induction
> (2) the countable axiom of choice
> http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~schectex/ccc/choice.html
>
> These are both often used.
>
>
>>If it does, it suggests to me a
>>level of reality that we can not perceive yet of which we can CONceive and
>>that allows us to do "real" things. I guess exploding atom bombs comes to
>>mind but I don't know if the point in math could actually still have some
>>infinitesimal mass and still allow the calculations to work.
>
>
> I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The concept of limits and
> continuity is discussed in fairly rigorous detail (epsilon-delta proofs) in
> introductory real analysis courses (and some calc courses) But it appears to
> be of remarkably little use in the real world (the rigorous theoretical
> exposition, that is)
>
> Cheers,


Well, the "rigorous" definition gave rise at some point to actual
error analysis.
--
Tom Morley | Same roads
| Same rights
| Same rules
AIM: DocTDM

Tom Morley
July 30th 03, 11:55 AM
ATP wrote:
> MJL wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:59:06 GMT, "ATP" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>First you have to agree on a way to measure the phenomena, so how
>>>could it be? The test is whether it can accurately predict and model
>>>physical systems, and the success of Western science is a testament
>>>to that ability. There could have been variations in the development
>>>of a mathematical system, but it would still have to be capable of
>>>solving the same basic problems of time and motion, for example. In
>>>any case, the possibility of different mathematical systems only
>>>reinforces my point that math is first and foremost a practical tool
>>>for solving real problems.
>>
>>Yes but WHY is something founded in things that do not exist in nature
>>so good as predicting what will happen in nature. Oh how easily
>>people gloss over the philosophical implications of mathematics.
>
>
> I don't deny that there are philosophical implications, there was a time
> when philosophy and science/mathematics were considered part of the same
> realm. There was progress at that time in mathematics, however it took a
> combination of insight and the development of the scientific method to get
> things to really advance in a useful direction. In the early days there was
> apparently a lot of "hand-waving". It's no accident that math is useful for
> solving problems in nature, many famous names you'll find in a textbook were
> trying to solve some problem. Instead of going to the Math Learning Center
> they just developed the math they needed.
>
>

There was no such thing as a mathematician. Gauss's job
description was "astronomer".

--
Tom Morley | Same roads
| Same rights
| Same rules
AIM: DocTDM

Tom Morley
July 30th 03, 11:55 AM
ATP wrote:
> MJL wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:59:06 GMT, "ATP" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>First you have to agree on a way to measure the phenomena, so how
>>>could it be? The test is whether it can accurately predict and model
>>>physical systems, and the success of Western science is a testament
>>>to that ability. There could have been variations in the development
>>>of a mathematical system, but it would still have to be capable of
>>>solving the same basic problems of time and motion, for example. In
>>>any case, the possibility of different mathematical systems only
>>>reinforces my point that math is first and foremost a practical tool
>>>for solving real problems.
>>
>>Yes but WHY is something founded in things that do not exist in nature
>>so good as predicting what will happen in nature. Oh how easily
>>people gloss over the philosophical implications of mathematics.
>
>
> I don't deny that there are philosophical implications, there was a time
> when philosophy and science/mathematics were considered part of the same
> realm. There was progress at that time in mathematics, however it took a
> combination of insight and the development of the scientific method to get
> things to really advance in a useful direction. In the early days there was
> apparently a lot of "hand-waving". It's no accident that math is useful for
> solving problems in nature, many famous names you'll find in a textbook were
> trying to solve some problem. Instead of going to the Math Learning Center
> they just developed the math they needed.
>
>

There was no such thing as a mathematician. Gauss's job
description was "astronomer".

--
Tom Morley | Same roads
| Same rights
| Same rules
AIM: DocTDM

omegazero2003
July 30th 03, 06:36 PM
"MJL" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:51:30 GMT, "ATP" >
> wrote:
>
> >MJL wrote:
> >> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:59:06 GMT, "ATP" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> First you have to agree on a way to measure the phenomena, so how
> >>> could it be? The test is whether it can accurately predict and model
> >>> physical systems, and the success of Western science is a testament
> >>> to that ability. There could have been variations in the development
> >>> of a mathematical system, but it would still have to be capable of
> >>> solving the same basic problems of time and motion, for example. In
> >>> any case, the possibility of different mathematical systems only
> >>> reinforces my point that math is first and foremost a practical tool
> >>> for solving real problems.
> >>
> >> Yes but WHY is something founded in things that do not exist in nature
> >> so good as predicting what will happen in nature.

Because all of those mathematical "things" DO exist in nature - in the
particular configurations of neurochemicals, em signals, connections,
cellular communications and myriad other aspects of the brain. Do you think
a thought about an imaginary number, for example is not some particular
configuration of a physical system?

There is no mathematics without consciousness and the embodiment of
consciousness within and throughout the brain. Just because there is no
*additional* analog of the thought manifest "out there" does not mean that
the matematical "system" (or its components), does not exist; by defintion,
all that exists, exists in a natural Universe, or Multiverse
(quantum-mechanically-speaking).

The rift between Aristotelian and Platonic paradigms is not that great as
once believed. The notiton that "Mathematics describes the Universe so
welll because the universe is inherently mathematical." (Max Tegmark), does
not mean that mathematical structures are ONLY abstract, immutable
structures existing outside of space-time!!!! While many mathematical
structures are not translationally extant in the space-time of which we are
part, the deliniation of their structures, in thought, on paper, on
blackboard, in computer models, is (and this is a non-sophist argement -
lest you crawl down that road).

omegazero2003
July 30th 03, 06:36 PM
"MJL" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:51:30 GMT, "ATP" >
> wrote:
>
> >MJL wrote:
> >> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:59:06 GMT, "ATP" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> First you have to agree on a way to measure the phenomena, so how
> >>> could it be? The test is whether it can accurately predict and model
> >>> physical systems, and the success of Western science is a testament
> >>> to that ability. There could have been variations in the development
> >>> of a mathematical system, but it would still have to be capable of
> >>> solving the same basic problems of time and motion, for example. In
> >>> any case, the possibility of different mathematical systems only
> >>> reinforces my point that math is first and foremost a practical tool
> >>> for solving real problems.
> >>
> >> Yes but WHY is something founded in things that do not exist in nature
> >> so good as predicting what will happen in nature.

Because all of those mathematical "things" DO exist in nature - in the
particular configurations of neurochemicals, em signals, connections,
cellular communications and myriad other aspects of the brain. Do you think
a thought about an imaginary number, for example is not some particular
configuration of a physical system?

There is no mathematics without consciousness and the embodiment of
consciousness within and throughout the brain. Just because there is no
*additional* analog of the thought manifest "out there" does not mean that
the matematical "system" (or its components), does not exist; by defintion,
all that exists, exists in a natural Universe, or Multiverse
(quantum-mechanically-speaking).

The rift between Aristotelian and Platonic paradigms is not that great as
once believed. The notiton that "Mathematics describes the Universe so
welll because the universe is inherently mathematical." (Max Tegmark), does
not mean that mathematical structures are ONLY abstract, immutable
structures existing outside of space-time!!!! While many mathematical
structures are not translationally extant in the space-time of which we are
part, the deliniation of their structures, in thought, on paper, on
blackboard, in computer models, is (and this is a non-sophist argement -
lest you crawl down that road).

omegazero2003
July 30th 03, 06:48 PM
"Tom Morley" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > In article >, MJL wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:51:30 GMT, "ATP" >
> >
> >
> >
> >>I just find it amazing to talk to people, even (or especially) people
> >>with an advanced math background who are not amazed by the simple
> >>definition of a mathematical line.

Yes - an infinitely-thin thing composed of infinitely-small things. Of
course this is an abstraction that only exists in neural networks and
computer code etc.

No person has ever constructed the Platonic line (or point or plane) outside
those *types* of representations. That is because the Aristotelian Universe
is composed of things that are described in terms of S-T dimensionalities or
Multiversian QM alternatives (if a Multiverse is your thing)..

omegazero2003
July 30th 03, 06:48 PM
"Tom Morley" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > In article >, MJL wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:51:30 GMT, "ATP" >
> >
> >
> >
> >>I just find it amazing to talk to people, even (or especially) people
> >>with an advanced math background who are not amazed by the simple
> >>definition of a mathematical line.

Yes - an infinitely-thin thing composed of infinitely-small things. Of
course this is an abstraction that only exists in neural networks and
computer code etc.

No person has ever constructed the Platonic line (or point or plane) outside
those *types* of representations. That is because the Aristotelian Universe
is composed of things that are described in terms of S-T dimensionalities or
Multiversian QM alternatives (if a Multiverse is your thing)..

RedGuru
July 30th 03, 10:42 PM
Donovan Rebbechi > wrote in
:

> In article >, MJL wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:51:30 GMT, "ATP"
>> >

>> What I don't know, but would be interested to find out is if there
>> are applications of mathematics where the derivations are so complex
>> and long and involve so many iterations of variables that they could
>> ONLY work if the mathematical concept of a point "exists".

Can you not prove that a point must exist if two functions are identical
except at one point? And is not a line defined by f(x)=c? Not sure i am
getting the gist of his reasoning?

RedGuru
July 30th 03, 10:42 PM
Donovan Rebbechi > wrote in
:

> In article >, MJL wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:51:30 GMT, "ATP"
>> >

>> What I don't know, but would be interested to find out is if there
>> are applications of mathematics where the derivations are so complex
>> and long and involve so many iterations of variables that they could
>> ONLY work if the mathematical concept of a point "exists".

Can you not prove that a point must exist if two functions are identical
except at one point? And is not a line defined by f(x)=c? Not sure i am
getting the gist of his reasoning?

Tom Morley
July 30th 03, 11:30 PM
RedGuru wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>In article >, MJL wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:51:30 GMT, "ATP"
>
>
>
>>>What I don't know, but would be interested to find out is if there
>>>are applications of mathematics where the derivations are so complex
>>>and long and involve so many iterations of variables that they could
>>>ONLY work if the mathematical concept of a point "exists".
>
>
> Can you not prove that a point must exist if two functions are identical
> except at one point? And is not a line defined by f(x)=c? Not sure i am
> getting the gist of his reasoning?
>
>
>
>


There are some interesting issues in the "existance" of
matheamtical objects. I more or less agree with Hillary
Putnam in his essay: "What numbers cannot be".


--
Tom Morley | Same roads
| Same rights
| Same rules
AIM: DocTDM

Tom Morley
July 30th 03, 11:30 PM
RedGuru wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>In article >, MJL wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:51:30 GMT, "ATP"
>
>
>
>>>What I don't know, but would be interested to find out is if there
>>>are applications of mathematics where the derivations are so complex
>>>and long and involve so many iterations of variables that they could
>>>ONLY work if the mathematical concept of a point "exists".
>
>
> Can you not prove that a point must exist if two functions are identical
> except at one point? And is not a line defined by f(x)=c? Not sure i am
> getting the gist of his reasoning?
>
>
>
>


There are some interesting issues in the "existance" of
matheamtical objects. I more or less agree with Hillary
Putnam in his essay: "What numbers cannot be".


--
Tom Morley | Same roads
| Same rights
| Same rules
AIM: DocTDM

RedGuru
July 30th 03, 11:54 PM
Tom Morley > wrote in
:


> There are some interesting issues in the "existance" of
> matheamtical objects. I more or less agree with Hillary
> Putnam in his essay: "What numbers cannot be".
>

While I agree that numbers are merely a convention, objects such as a
point can be defined without numbers. I think I may have missed some of
this thread. I may be guessing here but it seems we are either in a
"sophist versus mathemetician" mode or the "sophist is a mathemetician
mode". I think Liebniz would say I am both yet neither if he were alive
today. Of course someone would accuse him of plagiarism. :)

RedGuru
July 30th 03, 11:54 PM
Tom Morley > wrote in
:


> There are some interesting issues in the "existance" of
> matheamtical objects. I more or less agree with Hillary
> Putnam in his essay: "What numbers cannot be".
>

While I agree that numbers are merely a convention, objects such as a
point can be defined without numbers. I think I may have missed some of
this thread. I may be guessing here but it seems we are either in a
"sophist versus mathemetician" mode or the "sophist is a mathemetician
mode". I think Liebniz would say I am both yet neither if he were alive
today. Of course someone would accuse him of plagiarism. :)

Donovan Rebbechi
July 31st 03, 12:16 AM
In article >, RedGuru wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi > wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, MJL wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:51:30 GMT, "ATP"
>>> >
>
>>> What I don't know, but would be interested to find out is if there
>>> are applications of mathematics where the derivations are so complex
>>> and long and involve so many iterations of variables that they could
>>> ONLY work if the mathematical concept of a point "exists".
>
> Can you not prove that a point must exist if two functions are identical
> except at one point?

I'm not sure what's so difficult about the notion of a "point" either. A
"point" is just an element of some set. What is less simple is a continuous
object (like a line or a plane) that is made up of points.

> And is not a line defined by f(x)=c? Not sure i am

What is f ? I take it you mean that f: R -> R, but you haven't defined the
real numbers.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi
July 31st 03, 12:16 AM
In article >, RedGuru wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi > wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, MJL wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:51:30 GMT, "ATP"
>>> >
>
>>> What I don't know, but would be interested to find out is if there
>>> are applications of mathematics where the derivations are so complex
>>> and long and involve so many iterations of variables that they could
>>> ONLY work if the mathematical concept of a point "exists".
>
> Can you not prove that a point must exist if two functions are identical
> except at one point?

I'm not sure what's so difficult about the notion of a "point" either. A
"point" is just an element of some set. What is less simple is a continuous
object (like a line or a plane) that is made up of points.

> And is not a line defined by f(x)=c? Not sure i am

What is f ? I take it you mean that f: R -> R, but you haven't defined the
real numbers.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

RedGuru
July 31st 03, 12:20 AM
Donovan Rebbechi > wrote in
:

> What is f ? I take it you mean that f: R -> R, but you haven't
> defined the real numbers.
>
> Cheers,

F being the value of a function at any point (x,y,z) while c being a
constant.

RedGuru
July 31st 03, 12:20 AM
Donovan Rebbechi > wrote in
:

> What is f ? I take it you mean that f: R -> R, but you haven't
> defined the real numbers.
>
> Cheers,

F being the value of a function at any point (x,y,z) while c being a
constant.

omegazero2003
July 31st 03, 02:08 AM
"RedGuru" > wrote in message
.187...
> Tom Morley > wrote in
> :
>
>
> > There are some interesting issues in the "existance" of
> > matheamtical objects. I more or less agree with Hillary
> > Putnam in his essay: "What numbers cannot be".
> >
>
> While I agree that numbers are merely a convention, objects such as a
> point can be defined without numbers.

A point, of course, does not exist in the real Universe (of physics and QM
etc.) - being infinitely small and all...


> I think I may have missed some of
> this thread. I may be guessing here but it seems we are either in a
> "sophist versus mathemetician" mode or the "sophist is a mathemetician
> mode". I think Liebniz would say I am both yet neither if he were alive
> today. Of course someone would accuse him of plagiarism. :)
>
>
>

omegazero2003
July 31st 03, 02:08 AM
"RedGuru" > wrote in message
.187...
> Tom Morley > wrote in
> :
>
>
> > There are some interesting issues in the "existance" of
> > matheamtical objects. I more or less agree with Hillary
> > Putnam in his essay: "What numbers cannot be".
> >
>
> While I agree that numbers are merely a convention, objects such as a
> point can be defined without numbers.

A point, of course, does not exist in the real Universe (of physics and QM
etc.) - being infinitely small and all...


> I think I may have missed some of
> this thread. I may be guessing here but it seems we are either in a
> "sophist versus mathemetician" mode or the "sophist is a mathemetician
> mode". I think Liebniz would say I am both yet neither if he were alive
> today. Of course someone would accuse him of plagiarism. :)
>
>
>

ATP
July 31st 03, 04:35 AM
Tom Morley wrote:
> ATP wrote:
>> MJL wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:59:06 GMT, "ATP"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> First you have to agree on a way to measure the phenomena, so how
>>>> could it be? The test is whether it can accurately predict and
>>>> model physical systems, and the success of Western science is a
>>>> testament to that ability. There could have been variations in the
>>>> development of a mathematical system, but it would still have to
>>>> be capable of solving the same basic problems of time and motion,
>>>> for example. In any case, the possibility of different
>>>> mathematical systems only reinforces my point that math is first
>>>> and foremost a practical tool for solving real problems.
>>>
>>> Yes but WHY is something founded in things that do not exist in
>>> nature so good as predicting what will happen in nature. Oh how
>>> easily people gloss over the philosophical implications of
>>> mathematics.
>>
>>
>> I don't deny that there are philosophical implications, there was a
>> time when philosophy and science/mathematics were considered part of
>> the same realm. There was progress at that time in mathematics,
>> however it took a combination of insight and the development of the
>> scientific method to get things to really advance in a useful
>> direction. In the early days there was apparently a lot of
>> "hand-waving". It's no accident that math is useful for solving
>> problems in nature, many famous names you'll find in a textbook were
>> trying to solve some problem. Instead of going to the Math Learning
>> Center they just developed the math they needed.
>>
>>
>
> There was no such thing as a mathematician. Gauss's job
> description was "astronomer".

That was something that surprised me. The scope of what some of these guys
took on was really mind-boggling.

ATP
July 31st 03, 04:35 AM
Tom Morley wrote:
> ATP wrote:
>> MJL wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:59:06 GMT, "ATP"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> First you have to agree on a way to measure the phenomena, so how
>>>> could it be? The test is whether it can accurately predict and
>>>> model physical systems, and the success of Western science is a
>>>> testament to that ability. There could have been variations in the
>>>> development of a mathematical system, but it would still have to
>>>> be capable of solving the same basic problems of time and motion,
>>>> for example. In any case, the possibility of different
>>>> mathematical systems only reinforces my point that math is first
>>>> and foremost a practical tool for solving real problems.
>>>
>>> Yes but WHY is something founded in things that do not exist in
>>> nature so good as predicting what will happen in nature. Oh how
>>> easily people gloss over the philosophical implications of
>>> mathematics.
>>
>>
>> I don't deny that there are philosophical implications, there was a
>> time when philosophy and science/mathematics were considered part of
>> the same realm. There was progress at that time in mathematics,
>> however it took a combination of insight and the development of the
>> scientific method to get things to really advance in a useful
>> direction. In the early days there was apparently a lot of
>> "hand-waving". It's no accident that math is useful for solving
>> problems in nature, many famous names you'll find in a textbook were
>> trying to solve some problem. Instead of going to the Math Learning
>> Center they just developed the math they needed.
>>
>>
>
> There was no such thing as a mathematician. Gauss's job
> description was "astronomer".

That was something that surprised me. The scope of what some of these guys
took on was really mind-boggling.