Re: Cantor's Theory: Mathematical creationism
From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (spamtrap_at_library.lspace.org.invalid)
Date: 11/25/04
- Next message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Previous message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: Cantor's Theory: Mathematical creationism"
- In reply to: David Petry: "Cantor's Theory: Mathematical creationism"
- Next in thread: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Cantor's Theory: Mathematical creationism"
- Reply: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Cantor's Theory: Mathematical creationism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:51:07 -0500
In <25bac3c0.0411221209.4594f826@posting.google.com>, on 11/22/2004
at 12:09 PM, david_lawrence_petry@yahoo.com (David Petry) said:
>Cantor's theory (classical set theory) has the same relationship to
>the mathematical sciences as Creationism theory has to the physical
>sciences. They are similar in content and similar in origin. Cantor's
>theory is essentially a creation myth.
I see that you know nothing of Cantor's work.
>Furthermore, both have religious origins, and both try to hide their
>religious origins. Creationism comes from ancient Jewish religious
>teachings about the origin of the universe, and Cantor's theory of
>the infinite has its origins in Medieval Jewish religious/mystical
>teachings known as Kabbalah, wherein the world of the infinite is a
>higher level of existence.
I see that you know nothing of Qaballah.
>Both Cantor's theory and Creationism theory are pseudoscience. Both
>the Creationists and the Cantorians impose upon their disciples a
>world view in which people must modify their thinking to incorporate
>certain axioms handed down from higher authority, and they are then
>compelled to accept any "logical" conclusions derived from those
>axioms.
I see that you know nothing of Mathematics. There are many alternative
set theories, and even alternative logics.
>Anyone who dares to suggest that those axioms and the conclusions
>derived from those axioms don't pass reality checks, is demonized as
>an idiot, imbecile, crackpot, heretic, or some other kind of
>subhuman, and excluded from the community.
I see that you don't know anything about Usemet. Post drivel and
peo0ple will call you out on it.
>Both theories do interfere with scientific, technological and social
>progress.
Really, tonto. Please show an example of Cantor's work interfering
with progress.
>We now think of the brain as a computer, and the mind as the
>software running on the computer. Mathematics is a tool invented by
>the mind to help it understand the world in a precise, quantitative
>way.
You're a few centuries out of date. The origins of mathematics in
Geodesy and inventory control are quite removed from the most useful
parts of contemporary Mathematics. In fact, that view was Mathematics
was already obsolete when the Greeks were formalizing Geometry.
>Furthermore, due to the existence of computers which are clearly
>distinct from the human brain, we are forced to admit that there is
>something about the virtual world that has an objective existence.
Please tell that to the Physicists, who are quite divided on that
issue.
>>From a mathematical perspective, we can think of the computer as a
>microscope which helps us peer into a world of computation, and then
>mathematics itself is the science which studies the phenomena
>observed in that (virtual) world.
No. Computation is but a tiny part of Mathematics.
>We study mathematics because the phenomena observed in the world of
>computation can serve as a model for phenomena observed in the
>physical world.
>For those who accept this new world view, it is quite absurd to
>think that the mind, which lives in the world of computation, can
>"prove" the existence of a super-infinite world which has no
>connection to the phenomena observed in the world of computation.
You can't prove anything without starting with some assumptions. Set
Theory has better logical underpinnings than the world of computation,
which is generally ad hoc.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
- Next message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Previous message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: Cantor's Theory: Mathematical creationism"
- In reply to: David Petry: "Cantor's Theory: Mathematical creationism"
- Next in thread: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Cantor's Theory: Mathematical creationism"
- Reply: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Cantor's Theory: Mathematical creationism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|