I Think Therefore I Am - rebuttal
in [Math]
|
Prev: tanx=x
Next: Laurent series question
From: Raymond Yohros on 18 Mar 2010 20:58 On Mar 13, 4:51 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> wrote: > "BillyGates" <Bill.Ga...(a)Microsoft.com> wrote in message > > news:hnh6pt$hl$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...> Androcles wrote: > >> "BillyGates" <Bill.Ga...(a)Microsoft.com> wrote in message > >>news:hnh2cb$fhs$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > >>> Do you really believe you can logically explain existance? > > >> Do you really believe you can spell "existence"? The real Bill Gates > >> can, he has a > >> spelling checker on his computer. > > > I'm not Bill Gates!! I'm Billy Gates, Bill Gates' little retarded brother! > > Why are you using your brother's email address? > Mr. Gates Senior and his wife must have been really retarded, calling > two of their sons "Billy". You need your medicine, Billy, nobody else > is quite that stupid. > youre vission of EM is whats really stupid.
From: Huang on 18 Mar 2010 21:46 On Mar 18, 12:19 am, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 17, 8:13 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > I don't think you do provide any useful tool for "solving problems" in > > > mathematics. Trivial problems for 5 year old children? Maybe, but > > > unlikely. Serious problems? No way. > > > > Have you used your methodology of triviliasation to solve any open > > > problems in math? I don't think so. > > > Nice reply and very witty, gave me some good laughs. But all joking > > aside > > I wasn't joking. If somebody's thoughts are useless, why should I read > them? > > > - there is a usefullness to all of this. There is a point to > > it. > > Really? Give me an example of how your thoughts on triviality > contribute to math research. > > > There are ways of modelling things which are perfectly valid > > alternatives to what is customary. That is my belief. > > Yes. There are infinitely many different ways to see things. But most > of them are useless. > > > And some of > > these approaches shed light on thigns in ways which can be understood > > in new ways, such as conservation. > > Some - do. Your posts - haven't so far. At least not to math. > > > I do believe that I have approached a deeper understanding of > > conservation than the average physicist, including Noether. > > If you want to talk to physicists - why do you post to sci.math? What > use do your posts give to mathematicians? > > > I may or > > may not be right, > > I am sure you are right: everything you say are trite banalities that > every adult knows by heart. > > > but I have seen things from a completely different > > angle. > > They may seem to be "from a completely different angle" to you. But to > adults, they are inane, trite and obvious. > > > And I'll be honest with you, I dont care at all if I am right > > or not. I just like to spar, and dig around, and if Im an idiot then > > so be it. > > You ar enot an idiot. But when you grow up, you will see that your > thoughts are obvious. > > > But my understanding of conservation - my vision of it - seems fairly > > intriguing. > > "Conservation" of what? I thought your posts here were about > Descarte's one-liner "I think therefore I am". Well, because my approach involves "indeterminate existence", the idea that there is a state in between existence and nonexistentce.......I have to be able to answer everyone who ever said anything about existence. Descarts, Ayn Rand, Heidegger, the Greeks, all of them. I have to be able to answer every view that is floating around out there regarding existence. So - that's why I threw Descartes under the bus. But when you really think about it - Descartes is no empiricist. Saying "I think therefore I am" is no different than saying "I have faith in God therefore he exists". Bertrand Russell is another one to look at here - he did alot of amazing things but his work on existence was incomplete IMO.
From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 19 Mar 2010 06:21 On Mar 18, 6:46 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 18, 12:19 am, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." > > > > <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 17, 8:13 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > I don't think you do provide any useful tool for "solving problems" in > > > > mathematics. Trivial problems for 5 year old children? Maybe, but > > > > unlikely. Serious problems? No way. > > > > > Have you used your methodology of triviliasation to solve any open > > > > problems in math? I don't think so. > > > > Nice reply and very witty, gave me some good laughs. But all joking > > > aside > > > I wasn't joking. If somebody's thoughts are useless, why should I read > > them? > > > > - there is a usefullness to all of this. There is a point to > > > it. > > > Really? Give me an example of how your thoughts on triviality > > contribute to math research. > > > > There are ways of modelling things which are perfectly valid > > > alternatives to what is customary. That is my belief. > > > Yes. There are infinitely many different ways to see things. But most > > of them are useless. > > > > And some of > > > these approaches shed light on thigns in ways which can be understood > > > in new ways, such as conservation. > > > Some - do. Your posts - haven't so far. At least not to math. > > > > I do believe that I have approached a deeper understanding of > > > conservation than the average physicist, including Noether. > > > If you want to talk to physicists - why do you post to sci.math? What > > use do your posts give to mathematicians? > > > > I may or > > > may not be right, > > > I am sure you are right: everything you say are trite banalities that > > every adult knows by heart. > > > > but I have seen things from a completely different > > > angle. > > > They may seem to be "from a completely different angle" to you. But to > > adults, they are inane, trite and obvious. > > > > And I'll be honest with you, I dont care at all if I am right > > > or not. I just like to spar, and dig around, and if Im an idiot then > > > so be it. > > > You ar enot an idiot. But when you grow up, you will see that your > > thoughts are obvious. > > > > But my understanding of conservation - my vision of it - seems fairly > > > intriguing. > > > "Conservation" of what? I thought your posts here were about > > Descarte's one-liner "I think therefore I am". > > Well, because my approach involves "indeterminate existence", the idea > that there is a state in between existence and nonexistentce.......I > have to be able to answer everyone who ever said anything about > existence. Descarts, Ayn Rand, Heidegger, the Greeks, all of them. But don't feel any pressure on yourself though. Take solace in the fact that "Descarts, Ayn Rand, Heidegger, the Greeks, all of them" know answers to philosophical questions 10000000 better than you ever will. So, they are not waiting for your "discoveries". > I > have to be able to answer every view that is floating around out there > regarding existence. You are a very sane man, Huang. However, previously you told us that your specialisation is triviality. So, your plan is not "to answer every view that is floating around out there regarding existence" but to answer every banal view that is floating around out there regarding triviality, right? > So - that's why I threw Descartes under the bus. Don't worry: he doesn't care. > But when you really > think about it - Descartes is no empiricist. Saying "I think therefore > I am" is no different than saying "I have faith in God therefore he > exists". Maybe. Who cares. To, Descartes is useful not for his one-line remarks or his religious views, but for his mathematics. > Bertrand Russell is another one to look at here - he did alot of > amazing things but his work on existence was incomplete IMO. Same with Bertrand Russell. I value him for his contribution to mathematics not philosophy. That's what I said from the beginning: your inane and trite banality about triviality belongs to sci.philosophy, not to sci.math or sci.physics.
From: Huang on 19 Mar 2010 07:20 > > > "Conservation" of what? I thought your posts here were about > > > Descarte's one-liner "I think therefore I am". > > > Well, because my approach involves "indeterminate existence", the idea > > that there is a state in between existence and nonexistentce.......I > > have to be able to answer everyone who ever said anything about > > existence. Descarts, Ayn Rand, Heidegger, the Greeks, all of them. > > But don't feel any pressure on yourself though. Take solace in the > fact that "Descarts, Ayn Rand, Heidegger, the Greeks, all of them" > know answers to philosophical questions 10000000 better than you ever > will. So, they are not waiting for your "discoveries". So, if someone says "I have faith in God, therefore I exist"....a person such as yourself would accept this as valid science and just go on your merry way. Is that about right ? Because that's exactly what Descartes did - he said "I think therefore bla bla bla", and clearly the process of thinking proves precisely nothing. Your inability to recognize this is even more humorous to me than your snide remarks, really. There is no way to prove whether Descartes even had a thought at all - as he claims - nor can we even be sure that he even existed himself. How do we know that he's not just a cartoon that someone invented. Maybe we could go dig up his grave and do a DNA test, but you will never be able to prove that his skull once housed even a single thought - as his may have been very much like yours. > > I > > have to be able to answer every view that is floating around out there > > regarding existence. > > You are a very sane man, Huang. > > However, previously you told us that your specialisation is > triviality. So, your plan is not "to answer every view that is > floating around out there regarding existence" but to answer every > banal view that is floating around out there regarding triviality, > right? Trivialist and trifler are two different things. Guess which one you are. > > So - that's why I threw Descartes under the bus. > > Don't worry: he doesn't care. > > > But when you really > > think about it - Descartes is no empiricist. Saying "I think therefore > > I am" is no different than saying "I have faith in God therefore he > > exists". > > Maybe. Who cares. To, Descartes is useful not for his one-line remarks > or his religious views, but for his mathematics. > > > Bertrand Russell is another one to look at here - he did alot of > > amazing things but his work on existence was incomplete IMO. > > Same with Bertrand Russell. I value him for his contribution to > mathematics not philosophy. But he did contribute to both, and he was a very wise man. Apparently he did place some value on philosophy in order to spend any time on it. So, I guess that he would probably disagree with your views that all philosophy is simply "inane". It's too bad he's not here to tell you that in person. > That's what I said from the beginning: your inane and trite banality > about triviality belongs to sci.philosophy, not to sci.math or > sci.physics.- Hide quoted text - If you can think of a rebuttal that actually has some meat on it - that would be helpful. Otherwise may I suggest sci.whining, or sci.crybabies
From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 19 Mar 2010 22:08
On Mar 19, 4:20 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > "Conservation" of what? I thought your posts here were about > > > > Descarte's one-liner "I think therefore I am". > > > > Well, because my approach involves "indeterminate existence", the idea > > > that there is a state in between existence and nonexistentce.......I > > > have to be able to answer everyone who ever said anything about > > > existence. Descarts, Ayn Rand, Heidegger, the Greeks, all of them. > > > But don't feel any pressure on yourself though. Take solace in the > > fact that "Descarts, Ayn Rand, Heidegger, the Greeks, all of them" > > know answers to philosophical questions 10000000 better than you ever > > will. So, they are not waiting for your "discoveries". > > So, if someone says "I have faith in God, therefore I exist"....a > person such as yourself would accept this as valid science and just go > on your merry way. Is that about right ? > No. Most likely, I would do something: I would yawn and tell him that his rhetoric is inane. What else do you expect me to do? Kill him? Ask the police to arrest him? > Because that's exactly what Descartes did - he said "I think therefore > bla bla bla", and clearly the process of thinking proves precisely > nothing. Your inability to recognize this is even more humorous to me > than your snide remarks, really. Well, if Descartes said all this, maybe you should either beat him up or sue him in court. > There is no way to prove whether Descartes even had a thought at all - > as he claims - nor can we even be sure that he even existed himself. I can see how this tragedy can give you ulcers. > How do we know that he's not just a cartoon that someone invented. Maybe all historical figures are cartoons. Maybe you yourself are both a cartoon and a bot. So what? What's important about Descartes is not his existence/non- existence, but the foundations of calculus and analytic geometry that we all use today. > Maybe we could go dig up his grave and do a DNA test, Sure. You can do that if you want. Yawn. > but you will > never be able to prove that his skull once housed even a single > thought - as his may have been very much like yours. Why should I care? > > > I > > > have to be able to answer every view that is floating around out there > > > regarding existence. > > > You are a very sane man, Huang. > > > However, previously you told us that your specialisation is > > triviality. So, your plan is not "to answer every view that is > > floating around out there regarding existence" but to answer every > > banal view that is floating around out there regarding triviality, > > right? > > Trivialist and trifler are two different things. Guess which one you > are. I am a loser, who wastes his time arguing with inane idiots like yourself. > > > > So - that's why I threw Descartes under the bus. > > > Don't worry: he doesn't care. > > > > But when you really > > > think about it - Descartes is no empiricist. Saying "I think therefore > > > I am" is no different than saying "I have faith in God therefore he > > > exists". > > > Maybe. Who cares. To, Descartes is useful not for his one-line remarks > > or his religious views, but for his mathematics. > > > > Bertrand Russell is another one to look at here - he did alot of > > > amazing things but his work on existence was incomplete IMO. > > > Same with Bertrand Russell. I value him for his contribution to > > mathematics not philosophy. > > But he did contribute to both, and he was a very wise man. Apparently > he did place some value on philosophy in order to spend any time on > it. So, I guess that he would probably disagree with your views that > all philosophy is simply "inane". It's too bad he's not here to tell > you that in person. Are you convinced that Bertrand Russell existed? Maybe you should rob his grave too? > > That's what I said from the beginning: your inane and trite banality > > about triviality belongs to sci.philosophy, not to sci.math or > > sci.physics.- Hide quoted text - > > If you can think of a rebuttal that actually has some meat on it - > that would be helpful. Otherwise may I suggest sci.whining, or > sci.crybabies Thank you for your advice. |