Notices
Results 1 to 68 of 68

Thread: Australian scientist a threat to world security accord NATO

  1. #1 Australian scientist a threat to world security accord NATO 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    Australian scientist colin leslie dean is a threat to world security,according to NATO

    Deans books pointing out science/maths ends in meaninglessness are attacks upon science which NATO regards as a threat to global security

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/32970323/G...d-illegitimate

    GODEL’S INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM. ENDS IN ABSURDITY OR MEANINGLESSNESS GODEL IS A COMPLETE FAILURE AS HE ENDS IN UTTER MEANINGLESSNESS CASE STUDY IN THE MEANINGLESSNESS OF ALL VIEWS



    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...h_science4.pdf
    The absurdities or meaninglessness of mathematics and science: paradoxes and contradiction in mathematics and science which makes them meaningless, mathematics and science are examples of mythical thought, case study of the meaninglessness of all views

    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...ationality.pdf
    Absurdities or meaninglessness or irrationality is no hindrance [sic] to something being 'true' rationality, or, Freedom from contradiction or paradox is not a necessary an/or sufficient condition for 'truth': mathematics and science examples

    NATO finds anti science a threat to world security

    beware colin leslie dean and his followers

    http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle19330.htm
    The Group's Report identifies six key "challenges", which may often result as potential threats to global security:

    point 6 says

    Quote
    There is also the more philosophic problem of the rise of the irrational – the discounting of the rational. Though seemingly abstract, this problem is demonstrated in deeply practical ways. [These include] the decline of respect for logical argument and evidence, a drift away from science in a civilization that is deeply technological


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Australian scientist a threat to world security accord  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    Australian scientist colin leslie dean is a threat to world security,according to NATO

    Deans books pointing out science/maths ends in meaninglessness are attacks upon science which NATO regards as a threat to global security

    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...h_science4.pdf
    The absurdities or meaninglessness of mathematics and science: paradoxes and contradiction in mathematics and science which makes them meaningless, mathematics and science are examples of mythical thought, case study of the meaninglessness of all views

    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...ationality.pdf
    Absurdities or meaninglessness or irrationality is no hindrance [sic] to something being 'true' rationality, or, Freedom from contradiction or paradox is not a necessary an/or sufficient condition for 'truth': mathematics and science examples

    NATO finds anti science a threat to world security

    beware colin leslie dean and his followers

    http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle19330.htm
    The Group's Report identifies six key "challenges", which may often result as potential threats to global security:

    point 6 says

    Quote
    There is also the more philosophic problem of the rise of the irrational – the discounting of the rational. Though seemingly abstract, this problem is demonstrated in deeply practical ways. [These include] the decline of respect for logical argument and evidence, a drift away from science in a civilization that is deeply technological
    There is no evidence anywhere in the links that you provided that NATO even takes notice of the existence of Colin Leslie Dean, let alone view him as a threat. In fact none of your links show any connection to NATO at all.

    Nor is there any evidence that Colin Leslie Dean is a scientist. There is abundant evidence that he is an idiot, and quite likely is a threat to himself.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    you say
    Nor is there any evidence that Colin Leslie Dean is a scientist. There is abundant evidence that he is an idiot, and quite likely is a threat to himself.
    colin leslie dean is the most qualified person in Australia with 9 degrees

    B.SC, B.A, B.LITT (HONS), M.A, B,LITT (HONS), M.A,
    M.A (PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES), MASTER OF PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES, GRAD CERT (LITERARY STUDIES)

    the BSc makes him a scientist-amongst being an anthropologist a philosopher a historian of religion, etc

    There is no evidence anywhere in the links that you provided that NATO even takes notice of the existence of Colin Leslie Dean, let alone view him as a threat. In fact none of your links show any connection to NATO at all.
    point being according to NATO anti-science /irrationality they regard as threats to world security
    colin leslie dean in advocating science end in meaninglessness and irrationality is no hinderance to truth means he is a threat to world security according to NATO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    you say
    Nor is there any evidence that Colin Leslie Dean is a scientist. There is abundant evidence that he is an idiot, and quite likely is a threat to himself.
    colin leslie dean is the most qualified person in Australia with 9 degrees

    B.SC, B.A, B.LITT (HONS), M.A, B,LITT (HONS), M.A,
    M.A (PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES), MASTER OF PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES, GRAD CERT (LITERARY STUDIES)

    the BSc makes him a scientist-amongst being an anthropologist a philosopher a historian of religion, etc

    There is no evidence anywhere in the links that you provided that NATO even takes notice of the existence of Colin Leslie Dean, let alone view him as a threat. In fact none of your links show any connection to NATO at all.
    point being according to NATO anti-science /irrationality they regard as threats to world security
    colin leslie dean in advocating science end in meaninglessness and irrationality is no hinderance to truth means he is a threat to world security according to NATO
    Nope.

    If you were even close to correct, Australia should feel very threatened. But there are some pretty intelligent and competent Australians. Collin Leslie Dean is not one of them.

    He is quite clearly an idiot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    If you were even close to correct, Australia should feel very threatened. But there are some pretty intelligent and competent Australians. Collin Leslie Dean is not one of them.

    He is quite clearly an idiot.
    fact being colin leslie dean is more qualified than any one in Australia with his 9 degrees
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    If you were even close to correct, Australia should feel very threatened. But there are some pretty intelligent and competent Australians. Collin Leslie Dean is not one of them.

    He is quite clearly an idiot.
    fact being colin leslie dean is more qualified than any one in Australia with his 9 degrees
    That is not a fact. That is a delusion. He is very clearly an idiot. Just read the links that you provided for incontrovertible proof.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    fact being colin leslie dean is more qualified than any one in Australia with his 9 degrees
    OK, let's assume it's true. How exactly it proves his sanity?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    fact being colin leslie dean is more qualified than any one in Australia with his 9 degrees
    OK, let's assume it's true. How exactly it proves his sanity?
    That is easy. Any falso premise implies any conclusion whatever.

    Since the evidence clearly shows that he is an idiot and unqualified for almost anything, assuming the false premise implies that he is sane. It also implies that he is insane. I'll take the latter side of that bet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Colin you say, colin' mister bean? never heard of him..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    He is very clearly an idiot. Just read the links that you provided for incontrovertible proof
    maths ends in meaninglessness

    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...ationality.pdf
    As Bunch states:

    “None of them [paradoxes] has been resolved by thinking the way mathematicians thought until the end of the nineteenth century. To get around them requires some reformulation of mathematics. Most reformulations except for axiomatic set theory, results in the loss of mathematical ideas and results that have proven to be extremely useful. Axiomatic set theory explicitly eliminates the known paradoxes, but cannot be shown to be consistent. Therefore, other paradoxes can occur at any time [i.e. the Skolem paradox].”
    B. Bunch, Mathematical Fallacies and Paradoxes, Dover, 1982, p.140.
    ibid., p.136.

    science ends in meaninglessness

    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...h_science4.pdf
    In regard to the paradoxes and contradictions of quantum theory Wick state the orthodox view when he says “here my opinion of the orthodox quantum mechanics, like Bohr, comes down to the meaning of words. “Classical” and “complementarity”, insult and commendation, are euphemisms; the belief concealed is that Nature has been found in a contradiction. But quantum physicists are not simpletons. In their hearts they know such a claim is philosophically unacceptable and would be rejected in other sciences.”
    Wick notes “ I believe orthodox quantum theorists [slates] reason, consciously or unconsciously, something like this. The microscopic world exhibits paradoxes or contradictions and this fact is reflected in the best theory describing it.
    A. Wick, The Infamous Boundary, Birkhauser, Berlin, 1995, p.184
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    I don't think anybody in their right mind would say maths in meaninful on its own. It's when you apply it to some problem that it starts to become meaningful.

    This whole thread is a waste of time.

    It is neither about physics or maths, but about someone advocating that both are a waste of time.

    Should be trashed.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    He is very clearly an idiot. Just read the links that you provided for incontrovertible proof
    maths ends in meaninglessness

    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...ationality.pdf
    As Bunch states:

    “None of them [paradoxes] has been resolved by thinking the way mathematicians thought until the end of the nineteenth century. To get around them requires some reformulation of mathematics. Most reformulations except for axiomatic set theory, results in the loss of mathematical ideas and results that have proven to be extremely useful. Axiomatic set theory explicitly eliminates the known paradoxes, but cannot be shown to be consistent. Therefore, other paradoxes can occur at any time [i.e. the Skolem paradox].”
    B. Bunch, Mathematical Fallacies and Paradoxes, Dover, 1982, p.140.
    ibid., p.136.

    science ends in meaninglessness

    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...h_science4.pdf
    In regard to the paradoxes and contradictions of quantum theory Wick state the orthodox view when he says “here my opinion of the orthodox quantum mechanics, like Bohr, comes down to the meaning of words. “Classical” and “complementarity”, insult and commendation, are euphemisms; the belief concealed is that Nature has been found in a contradiction. But quantum physicists are not simpletons. In their hearts they know such a claim is philosophically unacceptable and would be rejected in other sciences.”
    Wick notes “ I believe orthodox quantum theorists [slates] reason, consciously or unconsciously, something like this. The microscopic world exhibits paradoxes or contradictions and this fact is reflected in the best theory describing it.
    A. Wick, The Infamous Boundary, Birkhauser, Berlin, 1995, p.184
    I see that you are coming around, have thought this through, gained some clarity, and have provided more concrete evidence that Colin Leslie Dean is indeed an idiot. His own writings demonstrate this fact. As they say at Princeton, hoist by his own petard.

    What an idiot. Clearly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    I don't think anybody in their right mind would say maths in meaninful on its own. It's when you apply it to some problem that it starts to become meaningful.
    That rather depends on where you find meaning. Mathematicians would disagree with your statement.

    If you mean that mathematics, in and of itself, is not physics then that is correct. But there is a lot more to mathematics than its applicatioins to physics. In fact physicists are notoriously sloppy in their application of mathematics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    What an idiot. Clearly.



    In fact physicists are notoriously sloppy in their application of mathematics.
    dean points out

    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...ationality.pdf
    Bunch notes that it is “… amazing that mathematics works so well.” Since the mathematical way of looking at the world generates contradictory results from that of science, such as the mathematical notion of the continuum, and quantum mechanical concept of quanta. As Bunch notes “… the discoveries of quantum theory or the special theory of relativity were all made through extensive use of mathematics that was built on the concept of the continuum…that mathematical way of looking at the world and the scientific way of looking at the world produced contradictory results.”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    What an idiot. Clearly.



    In fact physicists are notoriously sloppy in their application of mathematics.
    dean points out

    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...ationality.pdf
    Bunch notes that it is “… amazing that mathematics works so well.” Since the mathematical way of looking at the world generates contradictory results from that of science, such as the mathematical notion of the continuum, and quantum mechanical concept of quanta. As Bunch notes “… the discoveries of quantum theory or the special theory of relativity were all made through extensive use of mathematics that was built on the concept of the continuum…that mathematical way of looking at the world and the scientific way of looking at the world produced contradictory results.”
    You are absolutely right. This is even more convincing evidence that Colin Leslie Dean is a complete idiot. Anyone can see that. It is truly that obvious. Thank you for providing this convincing evidence.

    You have surpassed your self by bringing to our attention this Bunch guy who apparently rivals Dean in his lack of understanding of mathematics and the meaning of the Gödel theorems. What pair. Bunch and Dean. Now we have a bunch of idiots. Are there any more to add to this bunch ?

    Where did you ever find such absurd writings? Without the links that you provided no one would ever believe that anyone could possibly be as stupid as this . These guys should be submitted for inclusion in the Guinness Book of World Records -- dumbest people ever on this planet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    As they say at Princeton, hoist by his own petard.
    Who are they and how do you know they say that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    They told him.
    They are the Shakespearean scholars in Princeton, the only educated them in America.
    :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Osby
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    As they say at Princeton, hoist by his own petard.
    Who are they and how do you know they say that?
    They are, of course, Princeton students and graduates. One only has to listen to hear it being said by THEM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    59
    As regards his degrees, Psychoanalytic studies and Literary studies sound highly dubious. They are the sort of degrees you get by sending fifty dollars to some strange college in Ohio or somewhere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by bradford28
    As regards his degrees, Psychoanalytic studies and Literary studies sound highly dubious. They are the sort of degrees you get by sending fifty dollars to some strange college in Ohio or somewhere.
    Run a search on this toad. It is interesting.

    What an idiot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    They told him.
    They are the Shakespearean scholars in Princeton, the only educated them in America.
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    They are, of course, Princeton students and graduates. One only has to listen to hear it being said by THEM.
    Thanks. I was just curious as to why you associated the phrase with Princeton specifically.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Osby
    Thanks. I was just curious as to why you associated the phrase with Princeton specifically.
    It was a favorite expression of a former topology professor, who was from Princeton. He regarded it as a trademark expression of mathematicians there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    Run a search on this toad. It is interesting.
    apparently apart from being Australias most qualified intellectual he is Australias leading erotic poet

    http://dodsonandross.com/blogs/jexhi...t-womans-pants
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,919
    As they say at Princeton, hoist by his own petard.
    I was aware of this particular colloquialism, but not of it's association with Princeton University, or it's use by mathematician's. Fascinating! Do mathematician's have a predilection for Shakespeare?

    As for this Dean guy, I checked out one of those link's for a moment. What an idiot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    As they say at Princeton, hoist by his own petard.
    I was aware of this particular colloquialism, but not of it's association with Princeton University, or it's use by mathematician's. Fascinating! Do mathematician's have a predilection for Shakespeare?
    Mathematicians, like everyone else, can have all sorts of interests.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,919
    If mathematics can be considered as a language, then certainly we can consider mathematicians as linguist's, highly specialized of course. It follows that mathematicians might in general be fascinated by Shakespeare. I now dub mathematicians "Bard's of the quantifiable".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    If mathematics can be considered as a language, then certainly we can consider mathematicians as linguist's, highly specialized of course. It follows that mathematicians might in general be fascinated by Shakespeare. I now dub mathematicians "Bard's of the quantifiable".
    Mathematics is to a large extent the very precise use of a specialized language.

    Many mathematicians also consider mathematics to be an art form.

    So you may be pretty close to the mark.

    Mathematics is most definitely not science. It does not rely on experiment to vaidate "truths" but instead has logical proofs based on a very small set of axioms and some very tight and intricate reasoning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    As for this Dean guy, I checked out one of those link's for a moment. What an idiot.
    you can call dean an idiot as much as you want
    fact is
    science/maths ends up in meaninglessness
    your attacking dean and not his arguments shows a real lack of intellectual ability
    come on lets see some reasoned rebutal of deans argument/references
    if you cant do that
    then stop wasting our time by just personally attacking dean


    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...h_science4.pdf
    In regard to the paradoxes and contradictions of quantum theory Wick state the orthodox view when he says “here my opinion of the orthodox quantum mechanics, like Bohr, comes down to the meaning of words. “Classical” and “complementarity”, insult and commendation, are euphemisms; the belief concealed is that Nature has been found in a contradiction. But quantum physicists are not simpletons. In their hearts they know such a claim is philosophically unacceptable and would be rejected in other sciences.”
    Wick notes “ I believe orthodox quantum theorists [slates] reason, consciously or unconsciously, something like this. The microscopic world exhibits paradoxes or contradictions and this fact is reflected in the best theory describing it.
    A. Wick, The Infamous Boundary, Birkhauser, Berlin, 1995, p.184
    and maths like wise end in meaninglessness

    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...ationality.pdf
    As Bunch states:

    “None of them [paradoxes] has been resolved by thinking the way mathematicians thought until the end of the nineteenth century. To get around them requires some reformulation of mathematics. Most reformulations except for axiomatic set theory, results in the loss of mathematical ideas and results that have proven to be extremely useful. Axiomatic set theory explicitly eliminates the known paradoxes, but cannot be shown to be consistent. Therefore, other paradoxes can occur at any time [i.e. the Skolem paradox].”
    B. Bunch, Mathematical Fallacies and Paradoxes, Dover, 1982, p.140.
    ibid., p.136.
    similarly
    maths and science are mutually contradictory


    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...ationality.pdf
    Quote:
    Bunch notes that it is “… amazing that mathematics works so well.” Since the mathematical way of looking at the world generates contradictory results from that of science, such as the mathematical notion of the continuum, and quantum mechanical concept of quanta. As Bunch notes “… the discoveries of quantum theory or the special theory of relativity were all made through extensive use of mathematics that was built on the concept of the continuum…that mathematical way of looking at the world and the scientific way of looking at the world produced contradictory results.”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    the belief concealed is that Nature has been found in a contradiction.
    That believe puts what is found by quantumfysics as being not dependant of the observer and the way of observing (which is often technical).
    At the same time the observer and thus the way of observing is known to play an important role in what is found in quantum-fysics. That in itself is a paradox for the belief. It is what makes it a belief and filosophically weak.

    The role of the observer is not just that there are different ways of observing. observing in quantumfysics is technical. If the observer has influence it is likely that the way of observing is of influence also and thus can have it,s subjektivity, a technical subjectivity.

    An example that illustrates more or less (anyone may decide for himself how much more or less) such a subjektivity would be placing a camera to the sky that gets activated as a bird flies by. If it would fly fast based on the blurration of the picture and some technical data it is possible to say something about how fast it goes and how much energy it has. But "position" is highly blurred.

    To know more precise we would have to use a different camera that opens and closes quicker. Now we get a sharper image, we know more about "position" but less about how fast it flies, it,s energy.

    To optimize the determination of location we would have to make the open time for the camera as short as possible. But there is a limit to that set by the frecquency. A frecquency for observing is never endlessly high. It can be very high but an observation during a moment of time (without duration) is impossible by definition. observing takes a minimum of time and this makes it fundamentally impossible to determin position. A camera with an endlessly short opentime would simply have no open time.

    Observing this way what the camera sees passes by. In a way the use of the word position is completely out of place. What moves has no position for any duration so it can,t be observed as having a position.

    But their are other ways of observing. A birdwatcher in the forrest might keep the camera in his hand, see a bird in the sky, focus his camera and then moves the camera with the bird. So relative to the camera/observer their is at least more certainty about position now. Not because nature changed but because of the different way of observing. A way of observing that - to my knowledge - is not possible at the usual scale of quantumfysics.

    Stil the birdwatchers foto is limited the distance is not clear if the size of the bird is unknown. But this could be overcome if the camera has a constant autofocus and registrates the focusdistance. But if the bird flies towards him what type of focussing would be better ; stepwise or continuous ?

    Stepwise the problem of a non sharp picture could occur as the bird moves continuously.

    Someone good at playing tennis knows that a camera should have a continuous autofocus to what it observes to have a focussed view. A tennisplayer focusses not in steps but continuous.
    Would a tennisplayer seeing the ball through the eyes of quantumfysics be a good tennisplayer ? Or would his focus be lacking to much including his knowing (not knowledge) of where the ball is and what energy it has, kinetical and spinwise ? Genralizing the technical ways of observing to observing in general and acknowledging no difference results offcourse in the conclusion that what is found is objektive fact of nature...as it would be general for all types of observation, all possibilities for observing for now and eternity.
    Being critisized in a philosophical way for what often are filosophical (but methafysical because presented as "truths of Nature" ) conclusions is what can be expected then. just as I can expect to be critisized for my bad English.....
    A penguin can,t be half a penguin beit purple or any other colour.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    Ghrasp and Edam I get the feeling you guys will get on well.
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    As for this Dean guy, I checked out one of those link's for a moment. What an idiot.
    you can call dean an idiot as much as you want
    fact is
    science/maths ends up in meaninglessness
    your attacking dean and not his arguments shows a real lack of intellectual ability
    come on lets see some reasoned rebutal of deans argument/references
    if you cant do that
    then stop wasting our time by just personally attacking dean
    I did look at Dean's writings.

    They are not worth wasting one's time in any detailed rebuttal.

    He is an idiot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    I did look at Dean's writings.

    They are not worth wasting one's time in any detailed rebuttal.

    He is an idiot.
    so lets see the simplified reasoned rebuttle then

    start with this
    the belief concealed is that Nature has been found in a contradiction. But quantum physicists are not simpletons. In their hearts they know such a claim is philosophically unacceptable and would be rejected in other sciences.”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    I did look at Dean's writings.

    They are not worth wasting one's time in any detailed rebuttal.

    He is an idiot.
    so lets see the simplified reasoned rebuttle then

    start with this
    the belief concealed is that Nature has been found in a contradiction. But quantum physicists are not simpletons. In their hearts they know such a claim is philosophically unacceptable and would be rejected in other sciences.”
    There is not even a cogent thought there to rebut. What an idiot.

    Are you Dean ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    There is not even a cogent thought there to rebut. What an idiot.
    fact is colin leslie dean ideas make him a threat to world security according to NATO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    There is not even a cogent thought there to rebut. What an idiot.
    fact is colin leslie dean ideas make him a threat to world security according to NATO
    Nonsense. Not according to NATO.

    According to you according to NAO.

    In truth Colin Leslie Dean is such an idiot that he is only a threat to himself. Which is to say not much of a threat, since nothing of value is threatened.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    In fairness, there's a lot of idiocy and 50-kiloton thermo-stupid running rampant in this world, where vast swaths of the populace are painfully disconnected from reality. I think it only fair to acknowledge the threat this viral ignorance poses to all of us collectively on a global scale.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Well, a relaxed day I would say... sounds like a priest; what did they ever teach right? refer to the "ends in meaninglessness"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    In fairness, there's a lot of idiocy and 50-kiloton thermo-stupid running rampant in this world, where vast swaths of the populace are painfully disconnected from reality. I think it only fair to acknowledge the threat this viral ignorance poses to all of us collectively on a global scale.
    I have to agree with this sentiment. Sometimes I think Douglas Adams had the right idea, but then that's why we're here in the first place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    98
    Wow this is like what is happening in te USA IDIOCRACY!!!
    Once a door is opened it never truly closes
    Once a door is closed new ones are open
    Two concepts forever intwined it is you decision to make them for the better or the worse.

    Being invisble lets you run away from pain
    Being visible gives you irraplacable experiences.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    There is not even a cogent thought there to rebut. What an idiot.
    fact is colin leslie dean ideas make him a threat to world security according to NATO
    Colin Leslie Dean is probably just another person who wishes he were so important that a massive world wide organization like NATO cared what he thought.

    It doesn't require genius to look at a data set and reject all the patterns others have found (you simply need to set the burden of proof beyond practical limits), nor does it require genius to see patterns everywhere you look (you simply need to set the burden of proof so low that everything meets it) . What requires genius is finding accurate patterns, and then managing to prove that they are real by setting up experiments that demonstrate the reality in them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    Im sorry everyone, but you are forgetting that the Dean has said everything ends in meaningless. What a brilliant insight that is. We have no option but to all give up the search for truth, stop discussions, close the forum and all sit quietly in the dark until we expire.
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    What a brilliant insight that is. We have no option but to all give up the search for truth
    take your pick
    all have major problems
    truth much talked much claimed
    yet no one can agree on just what it is


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

    Various theories and views of truth continue to be debated among scholars and philosophers. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; what things are truthbearers capable of being true or false; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute. This article introduces the various perspectives and claims, both today and throughout history.


    Contents
    [hide]

    * 1 Nomenclature, orthography and etymology
    * 2 The major theories of truth
    o 2.1 Substantive theories
    + 2.1.1 Correspondence theory
    + 2.1.2 Coherence theory
    + 2.1.3 Constructivist theory
    + 2.1.4 Consensus theory
    + 2.1.5 Pragmatic theory
    o 2.2 Minimalist (deflationary) theories
    + 2.2.1 Performative theory of truth
    + 2.2.2 Redundancy and related theories
    o 2.3 Pluralist theories
    o 2.4 Most believed theories
    * 3 Formal theories
    o 3.1 Truth in logic
    o 3.2 Truth in mathematics
    o 3.3 Semantic theory of truth
    o 3.4 Kripke's theory of truth
    * 4 Personifications of truth
    * 5 Notable views
    o 5.1 Ancient history
    o 5.2 Medieval age
    + 5.2.1 Avicenna
    + 5.2.2 Aquinas
    o 5.3 Modern age
    + 5.3.1 Kant
    + 5.3.2 Hegel
    + 5.3.3 Schopenhauer
    + 5.3.4 Kierkegaard
    + 5.3.5 Nietzsche
    + 5.3.6 Whitehead
    + 5.3.7 Nishida
    + 5.3.8 Fromm
    + 5.3.9 Foucault
    + 5.3.10 Baudrillard
    + 5.3.11 Ratzinger
    * 6 See also
    o 6.1 Truth in logic
    o 6.2 Theories of truth
    o 6.3 Major theorists
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    What a brilliant insight that is. We have no option but to all give up the search for truth
    take your pick
    all have major problems
    truth much talked much claimed
    yet no one can agree on just what it is


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

    Various theories and views of truth continue to be debated among scholars and philosophers. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; what things are truthbearers capable of being true or false; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute. This article introduces the various perspectives and claims, both today and throughout history.


    Contents
    [hide]

    * 1 Nomenclature, orthography and etymology
    * 2 The major theories of truth
    o 2.1 Substantive theories
    + 2.1.1 Correspondence theory
    + 2.1.2 Coherence theory
    + 2.1.3 Constructivist theory
    + 2.1.4 Consensus theory
    + 2.1.5 Pragmatic theory
    o 2.2 Minimalist (deflationary) theories
    + 2.2.1 Performative theory of truth
    + 2.2.2 Redundancy and related theories
    o 2.3 Pluralist theories
    o 2.4 Most believed theories
    * 3 Formal theories
    o 3.1 Truth in logic
    o 3.2 Truth in mathematics
    o 3.3 Semantic theory of truth
    o 3.4 Kripke's theory of truth
    * 4 Personifications of truth
    * 5 Notable views
    o 5.1 Ancient history
    o 5.2 Medieval age
    + 5.2.1 Avicenna
    + 5.2.2 Aquinas
    o 5.3 Modern age
    + 5.3.1 Kant
    + 5.3.2 Hegel
    + 5.3.3 Schopenhauer
    + 5.3.4 Kierkegaard
    + 5.3.5 Nietzsche
    + 5.3.6 Whitehead
    + 5.3.7 Nishida
    + 5.3.8 Fromm
    + 5.3.9 Foucault
    + 5.3.10 Baudrillard
    + 5.3.11 Ratzinger
    * 6 See also
    o 6.1 Truth in logic
    o 6.2 Theories of truth
    o 6.3 Major theorists
    This is neither physics nor mathematics. It is just philosophical crap.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by harvestein
    Im sorry everyone, but you are forgetting that the Dean has said everything ends in meaningless. What a brilliant insight that is. We have no option but to all give up the search for truth, stop discussions, close the forum and all sit quietly in the dark until we expire.
    If this involves drinking large quantities of beer and tequila then it has my vote.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by harvestein
    Im sorry everyone, but you are forgetting that the Dean has said everything ends in meaningless. What a brilliant insight that is. We have no option but to all give up the search for truth, stop discussions, close the forum and all sit quietly in the dark until we expire.
    If this involves drinking large quantities of beer and tequila then it has my vote.
    I understand the beer. But Isn't tequila an odd choice for a Scotsman ? What about the beverage that derives its name from your country ? (Not to disparage tequila, or anything else that might dull the pain resulting from an attempt to make sense of the writings of Colin Leslie Dean).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    What a brilliant insight that is. We have no option but to all give up the search for truth
    take your pick
    all have major problems
    truth much talked much claimed
    yet no one can agree on just what it is
    Yeah, and everyone knows that. There's no need for Colin Leslie Dean to tell us so. Does he have something to say that we don't already know?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by harvestein
    Im sorry everyone, but you are forgetting that the Dean has said everything ends in meaningless. What a brilliant insight that is. We have no option but to all give up the search for truth, stop discussions, close the forum and all sit quietly in the dark until we expire.
    If this involves drinking large quantities of beer and tequila then it has my vote.
    I understand the beer. But Isn't tequila an odd choice for a Scotsman ? What about the beverage that derives its name from your country ? (Not to disparage tequila, or anything else that might dull the pain resulting from an attempt to make sense of the writings of Colin Leslie Dean).
    You know ophi, he has a point. The Scotsman drinking a Mexican beverage over his own and noble Scotch?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    I've gotta say... when you get a good quality tequila, it sips like a scotch... sometimes even a cognac... usually a nice high-end anejo (aged) tequila.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    I understand the beer. But Isn't tequila an odd choice for a Scotsman ?
    When I was younger I had a quantity of Scotch that disagreed with me. Some defect in quality control I imagine. I have been unable to face it since. Tequila, on the other hand, generally in the form of Margaritas, has decided medicinal benefits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    Yeah, and everyone knows that. There's no need for Colin Leslie Dean to tell us so. Does he have something to say that we don't already know?
    as dean points out maths science every product of human thought ends in meaninglessness-thats why he is threat to world security according to NATO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    I understand the beer. But Isn't tequila an odd choice for a Scotsman ?
    When I was younger I had a quantity of Scotch that disagreed with me. Some defect in quality control I imagine. I have been unable to face it since. Tequila, on the other hand, generally in the form of Margaritas, has decided medicinal benefits.
    I perhaps see the problem.

    I note the words "younger" and "quantity".

    From those words, and having once been younger myself, I infer that the problem may have been with "quantity" rather than with "Scotch". Having poured more than one fraternity brother into his bed after too large a "quantity", the base substance being more or less irrelevant given a significant ethanol content, I recognize the phenomenon.

    I fear that you may be depriving yourself due to an unfortunate incident unrelated to the specific packaging of ethanol. On the other hand, Margaritas are good too, so long as the "quantity" is within one's own personal bounds.

    Much contact with the OP might be adequate reason to liberalize those bounds. I understand. Unfortunately it is morning here and much too early for a Scotch and soda.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Ophi may have a diagnosable conditioned taste aversion.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taste_aversion


    Speaking of aversions... the only thing which should go with a scotch is a glass to hold it. Keep it neat, friend. Soda is a waste of space and flavor dispersant. :-D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    I note the words "younger" and "quantity".
    Every word in every post is carefully selected for maximum impact on its target audience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by inow


    Speaking of aversions... the only thing which should go with a scotch is a glass to hold it. Keep it neat, friend. Soda is a waste of space and flavor dispersant. :-D
    Now you are describing good sour mash bourbon.

    We seem to have departed from the subject of the OP, but the revision is more interesting and makes more sense. It certainly is no farther from serious mathematics either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    It certainly is no farther from serious mathematics either.
    as dean has shown serious mathematics ends in meaninglessness
    that is why he is a threat to world security according to NATO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Why are so many people on this planet so fucking retarded?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    Why are so many people on this planet so fucking retarded?

    is Bunch retared
    “None of them [paradoxes] has been resolved by thinking the way mathematicians thought until the end of the nineteenth century. To get around them requires some reformulation of mathematics. Most reformulations except for axiomatic set theory, results in the loss of mathematical ideas and results that have proven to be extremely useful. Axiomatic set theory explicitly eliminates the known paradoxes, but cannot be shown to be consistent. Therefore, other paradoxes can occur at any time [i.e. the Skolem paradox].”
    is Wick retarded



    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...h_science4.pdf
    In regard to the paradoxes and contradictions of quantum theory Wick state the orthodox view when he says “here my opinion of the orthodox quantum mechanics, like Bohr, comes down to the meaning of words. “Classical” and “complementarity”, insult and commendation, are euphemisms; the belief concealed is that Nature has been found in a contradiction. But quantum physicists are not simpletons. In their hearts they know such a claim is philosophically unacceptable and would be rejected in other sciences.”
    Wick notes “ I believe orthodox quantum theorists [slates] reason, consciously or unconsciously, something like this. The microscopic world exhibits paradoxes or contradictions and this fact is reflected in the best theory describing it.
    A. Wick, The Infamous Boundary, Birkhauser, Berlin, 1995, p.184
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    Edam what is your point? What is the meaning of the meaning of this meaningless?
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Why are so many people on this planet so fucking retarded?
    Insufficient time for natural selection to work on a series of deleterious mutations. Genetics shall triumph.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    Edam what is your point? What is the meaning of the meaning of this meaningless?
    the point is
    colin leslie dean is a threat to world security according to NATO
    go ask NATO why preaching anti science is a threat to world security

    Insufficient time for natural selection to work on a series of deleterious mutations. Genetics shall triumph.
    wrong natural selection only pasess on genes already present-it does not create new genes

    genetics cannot account for new species
    as
    new species are due a random chance happening chaos theory might but genetics not
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    wow... You really are retarded. You can read an entire post, pick out one word, and decide the post is intricately related to the one post... Retarded...
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    new species are due a random chance happening chaos theory might but genetics not
    Wow.

    In a single sentence you have managed to show lack of understanding of (at least) two disciplines.

    Try a search on "natural selection" or you might actually read On the Origin of Species.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    My apologies to all for letting my exasperation come through in the previous post. Probably better to simply ignore this sort of thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    Try a search on "natural selection" or you might actually read On the Origin of Species.
    fact is
    natural selection only passess on genes already present- it does not create new genes
    new species are said to arise by random mutation of genes
    genetics cannot account for new species
    as
    new species are due a random chance happening chaos theory might but genetics not




    Why are so many people on this planet so fucking retarded?



    is Bunch retared
    Quote:
    “None of them [paradoxes] has been resolved by thinking the way mathematicians thought until the end of the nineteenth century. To get around them requires some reformulation of mathematics. Most reformulations except for axiomatic set theory, results in the loss of mathematical ideas and results that have proven to be extremely useful. Axiomatic set theory explicitly eliminates the known paradoxes, but cannot be shown to be consistent. Therefore, other paradoxes can occur at any time [i.e. the Skolem paradox].”


    is Wick retarded



    Quote:

    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com...h_science4.pdf
    Quote:
    In regard to the paradoxes and contradictions of quantum theory Wick state the orthodox view when he says “here my opinion of the orthodox quantum mechanics, like Bohr, comes down to the meaning of words. “Classical” and “complementarity”, insult and commendation, are euphemisms; the belief concealed is that Nature has been found in a contradiction. But quantum physicists are not simpletons. In their hearts they know such a claim is philosophically unacceptable and would be rejected in other sciences.”
    Wick notes “ I believe orthodox quantum theorists [slates] reason, consciously or unconsciously, something like this. The microscopic world exhibits paradoxes or contradictions and this fact is reflected in the best theory describing it.”
    A. Wick, The Infamous Boundary, Birkhauser, Berlin, 1995, p.184
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    colin leslie dean is a threat to world security according to NATO
    Oh yeah I heard that somewhere. Oh wait, it was in this thread, about ten times!
    edam your contribution has been entertaining, but I think you have had your fifteen minutes here.
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by harvestein
    but I think you have had your fifteen minutes here.
    Fifteen minutes too many. It's a shame he didn't invest some of that time in educating himself.
    I'm fairly sure edam is Colin Leslie Dean. There can't be two such idiots alive simultaneously can there?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by harvestein
    but I think you have had your fifteen minutes here.
    Fifteen minutes too many. It's a shame he didn't invest some of that time in educating himself.
    I'm fairly sure edam is Colin Leslie Dean. There can't be two such idiots alive simultaneously can there?
    Every truly idiotic "idealist" like CLD has at least one follower who will go to the grave claiming that their great master is the only authority for every bit of knowledge in the universe. So, yes, there most certainly can be, and very likely is through the evidence of this forumite troll, two or more such idiots alive simultaneously.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I'm fairly sure edam is Colin Leslie Dean. There can't be two such idiots alive simultaneously can there?
    I put that question to edam directly and he declined to respond.

    I think it is possible that they are different people, and am giving edam the benefit of the doubt and am making that assumption. I never cease to be amazed at the supply of such folks, and at the attraction they seem to have towards interenet forums. I think it is because they have a strong desire to publish, but obviously cannot in any venue that is controlled by a sane editor or a peer review process. So you see them in internet forums and in books published by vanity presses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •