On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 14:34:30 -0600, Virgil <email@example.com> wrote:
>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 16:32:18 GMT, Patricia Shanahan <email@example.com> >> wrote: >> >> >Lester Zick wrote: >> >> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:54:29 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >> >> > >> >>> Zick claims to have things follow from nothing at all, and then presents >> >>> no evidence. >> >>> >> >>> I do not find his lack of evidence persuasive. >> >> >> >> As previously noted, which you are unwilling or unable to evaluate. >> >> Not my problem. >> > >> >It is your problem if, and only if, you wish to convince other people of >> >your views. If you don't care whether anyone else agrees with you, it is >> >not your problem. >> >> I'm not sure agreement is really an issue where absolute truth is >> concerned. > >As we only have Zick's word for it that there is any such as >unconditional "absolute truth", if he wishes others to agree, he needs >to convince them.
Oh wouldn't you just love that, sport. Then you'd really have me at the tender mercy of your faith based math, syllogistic inference, and empirical assumptions of truth.
>>I merely maintain that contradiction is true of everything >> because contradiction cannot be contradicted since the contradiction >> of contradiction is self contradictory. > >Which statement is full of Zick's undemonstrated assumptions.
>> Now I realize this may seem like a very exotic line of reasoning but >> it is true and universally so regardless of whether people disagree or >> not. > >Now there is a huge and undemonstrable assumption.
Also sprach a true man of faith but not a man of true faith.
>>The problem is that without recognizing the universality of this >> principle people have no clue as to how to reason about what is true >> or how we recognize it and further mechanical principles consistent >> with it. > > >Zick may not, but others do. Others, at least the mathematicians among >them, allow that one can get nowhere without some basic assumptions.
They have to allow it because they have no other recourse than syllogistic inference and faith based assumptions of truth.
>> I don't mind trying to convince people but I'm much more interested in >> stating the principle itself accurately in succinct terms such that >> people can examine it and convince themselves. > >Why should anyone bother to try and convince himself of what Zick cannot >show is true?
Beats the hell outta me.
>> Ultimately one cannot >> "convince" people of what's universally true than they can that 1+1=2. > >AS "1+1 = 2" is only demonstrably true in certain axiom systems, one can >show that it is true relative to those systems, though it is often a >long grind to do so.
Yes, yes, "1+1=2" only in certain belief systems.
>Outside of those systems, "1+1 = 2" may be false, if it has a meaning at >all, or may simply have no meaning.
Assumptions of truth rarely have the same meaning in all faith based belief systems. This is not exactly news.
>> >However, USENET posting seems a rather futile activity if done without >> >any wish to convince. >> >> Not entirely. The main value of usenet posting is to expose ideas to >> criticism and refine them. The only instance I can remember convincing >> anyone of anything was when I convinced Bob Kolker there is no real >> number line. It took him a while but he was straightforward enough to >> acknowledge that there is no real number line in formal terms despite >> the whining and snivveling of quite a few mathematikers. > >Many mathematicians could cobble up an axiom system in which there IS a >"real number line". In fact, it can be done in NBG.
Not according to Bob Kolker. But feel free to try.
>> The real difficulty nowadays is whole hosts of momumentally stupid >> opinions are bruted about regarding modern mathematics and science in >> general and their significance. > >Zick being one of those bruters.
So now I'm a brute just because I'm opposed to faith based math?