jajije at SPAMcantv.net
Sat Mar 31 10:29:00 MST 2001
It is very sad to have to say this, but it is obvious that whoever wrote
that math piece knows very little about math or math history or math
philosophy. (if any of you want to understand these things better, you need
to read James R. Newman's "SIGMA: The World of Mathematics"
First, note that those paradoxes refered to have been discussed enough, had
already been discussed enough 1000 years ago, and are only appropriate
nowadays to introduce grammar school children to math history. Whoever
doesn't know this, doesn't know enough about math to write about it. Those
paradoxes were used by greeks to describe certain events, mainly because
THEY HAD NO NUMERICAL SYSTEM. Not digital, not hexagonal (still used today
in geometry and astronomy, and invented by Babylonians), not binary (the
ONLY system used by computers), not based on 16 (i.e. used today by your
printer to describe colors). And math is not so much about what system is
used to describe what is; math would be there whether humanity exists or
not. Yes, I am partly Platonic in this (ONLY in this).
Second, you are sadly mixing up physics and mathematics. The paradox
introduced is a problem in PHYSICS, not math, although a math tool
(calculus) is used to solve it.
I agree completely that TECHNOLOGY has all been created by warmongers, and
that afterwards, it is absorbed and become part of world culture. BUT, to be
saying what you said about math? or calculus? Shows much ignorance of
mathematics. It makes no sense, and is very bad for the cause, because
anyone with a math PhD will simply laugh their pants off. I showed the
message to my mother, a math professor who was active in Allende's Union
Popular in Chile, and who has taught me advanced mathematics since I was a
little girl, and she just said: "the main reason I left the cause was their
bad habit of distorting facts to try to make a point, without even
understanding what they're talking about." I have asked many others Chileans
here why they don't care for good causes anymore, and they often repeat the
same thing. Mother says she doesn't trust ANY political cause anymore
because they all do the same thing. And it's true. If we want to be better,
we need to stop that.
I have already begun a profound essay on this and on the health issue of
microbes; I will send them to the list as soon as possible, because it seems
the list really needs some writing on these topics based on facts, not
feelings. GOOD CAUSES OFTEN SUFFER BECAUSE OF THESE SORT OF WRITINGS. I DO
agree that the pharmaceutical firms are using the facts to hurt people, but
trying to say that those facts are false because they are beign used to hurt
people? That's ridiculous and childish, and it makes a good cause lose
support from intelligent people. Note that this is just the way the church
became corrupt, and still keeps it so: because leaders often mask facts and
introduce false ideas 'for the sake of the cause.' This comes fom ignorant
people who think they must do this, because they aren't intelligent enough
to find FACTS to support their cause (and the facts ARE there).
Newton also had epilepsy. He was an absolutely egocentric person (and he had
the right to be: NO ONE else in the world before or since him can claim half
the intelligence he had). No he didn't care much for peace, but he didn't
care about anything at all besides this: he wanted to prove that God
existed, because if God exists, then He must be a logical being; that is how
Newton began to look for logical laws in the universe, and found them just
as he thought he would, based on what the Bible says of God's logical being.
He then invented calculus because he needed it for what he was doing. More
on Newton later. BTW, did you know that Stephen Hawkins (the scientist in a
wheelchair) today occupies the same chair at Cambridge Newton once did?
I often pray that those with good intentions and the right cause will stop
using ridiculous arguments to support their cause, especially since there
are BETTER arguments that are true!
More information about the Marxism