OT: Let's Take the Religion out of Christmas

[Paul Burke]

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

And this is the first time I've heard Santa's elves described as
"slaves".

Have you heard of the dyslexic elf who was one of Satan's little helpers?

Paul Burke

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:36:14 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Liberal wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:32:44 +0000, Clarence_A wrote:
"Keith Williams" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
They are
*not* free to choose (state) legislative apportionment in any
manner
they see fit.

Actually the may since the US Constitution clearly gives only the
states the right to define the process of their elections!

Clarence, you appear to be misinformed.

No Constitution "gives" anybody any rights. All rights are inherent.

No they are not. No one has any "rights" at all. A right given is a
right taken.


Let me say that again, in case you didn't get it:

All rights are inherent. You are born with them. You have them
because you are a live human. Constitutions do not "give" you your
rights. You have them automatically.

Let me that again, in case you didn't get it:

We exist in this universe subject to a Darwinain process. Thats it. End
of story.

There is no point, plan, reason, purpose, justice, rights, for any of
us. We just are.

Then, by your own logic, the very concept of "rights" that can or can't be
"granted", is meaningless.

And I still want to see some kind of independently verifiable "proof" of
your assertions, other than a circular argument, which boils down to,
"It's that way because I said so."

Kevin, if you really, truly believe, in the deepest core of your being,
that you have no will at all, then I can do nothing but weep for your
infinite loss.

Love,
Rich

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:36:14 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Liberal wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:32:44 +0000, Clarence_A wrote:
"Keith Williams" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
They are
*not* free to choose (state) legislative apportionment in any
manner
they see fit.

Actually the may since the US Constitution clearly gives only the
states the right to define the process of their elections!

Clarence, you appear to be misinformed.

No Constitution "gives" anybody any rights. All rights are inherent.

No they are not. No one has any "rights" at all. A right given is a
right taken.


Let me say that again, in case you didn't get it:

All rights are inherent. You are born with them. You have them
because you are a live human. Constitutions do not "give" you your
rights. You have them automatically.

Let me that again, in case you didn't get it:

We exist in this universe subject to a Darwinain process. Thats it.
End of story.

There is no point, plan, reason, purpose, justice, rights, for any of
us. We just are.

Then, by your own logic, the very concept of "rights" that can or
can't be "granted", is meaningless.

And I still want to see some kind of independently verifiable "proof"
of your assertions, other than a circular argument, which boils down
to, "It's that way because I said so."

Its not about "proof" its about evidence in support of a proposition.
The evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming.

Continuing to claim that the logic is circular does not make it any more
so. Indeed, all you do is continually ignore the evidence then simply
*claim* it hasn't been presented.

Kevin, if you really, truly believe, in the deepest core of your
being, that you have no will at all, then I can do nothing but weep
for your infinite loss.

Please do, as you have no choice in the matter.

Quite frankly Rich, your a fruitcake.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kryten]

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c46Dd.54412$Z7.46883@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

Kevin, if you really, truly believe, in the deepest core of your
being, that you have no will at all, then I can do nothing but weep
for your infinite loss.

Please do, as you have no choice in the matter.

Quite frankly Rich, you're a fruitcake.

You'd noticed that too eh?


There's always one. And often more.


I suppose they find it easier to babble from a computer instead of wandering
the streets muttering into their beer can, or snoring in the public
library...

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:55:44 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Liberal
<eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote:

In any case, IT DID NOT _CREATE_ THEM!!!!!!!!!!!! It merely verbalized and
delineated a few of the most, for lack of a better term, "important" of
the rights that you have naturally, as in, does a bear have the right to
shit in the woods?

Do you?

I doubt it. Not nowadays and certainly not without a licence from the
local Council. You need a licence for *everything* in Britain these
days, it seems. :-(
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:56:55 GMT, Pig Bladder
<pigbladder@neodruid.net> wrote:

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:36:14 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Liberal wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:32:44 +0000, Clarence_A wrote:
"Keith Williams" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
They are
*not* free to choose (state) legislative apportionment in any
manner
they see fit.

Actually the may since the US Constitution clearly gives only the
states the right to define the process of their elections!

Clarence, you appear to be misinformed.

No Constitution "gives" anybody any rights. All rights are inherent.

No they are not. No one has any "rights" at all. A right given is a
right taken.

Is the "right to keep and bear arms" one of these inaleinable rights,
incidentally??
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 06:12:10 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net

I was thinking kidney pie and bread pudding and all that stuff they eat
that you're supposed to throw away.

It's 'steak and kidney pie' and yes, you can get it in quite a few
places, mostly rather up-market. Ditto bread pudding. And bread-and-
butter pudding, which is quite different.

I remember at one place, our neighbors were a very nice English couple who
had immigrated some years before - Matt & Dorothy Garvey. We used to kid
them about reminding us of Andy & Florrie Capp. Anyway, Dorothy and my
Mom were sitting in the kitchen, and she was explaining about kidneys,
"you have to soak them to get the <dramatic pause> pee <dramatic pause>
taste out of them..."

I did see some fish & chips in some documentary, that look like the way
fish & chips are _supposed_ to be done - almost quarters of potato, and
huge, 2" chunks of really substantial-looking white fish, dripping in
oil. Served in a cone of old newspaper. Yum! (although it did look like
it needed salt.)

Newspaper wrapping isn't allowed now. And you add your own salt, and
vinegar if you want.

Do you know how the fish is cooked? I never used to use lemon on fish,
because the first time I saw somebody put lemon on fish, I asked, "why are
you putting lemon on your fish?" They said, "It gets rid of that fishy
taste." I asked, puzzled, "If you don't like the taste of fish, then why
are you having fish?"

But it turned out that that's not it at all. Lemon on fish is more like
ketchup on a burger or mustard on a hot dog or soy sauce on fried rice. It
just makes it taste _better_. So now, I'm curious to try some baked or
fried fish with a little vinegar. It sounds kinda tasty - I do like a few
drops of oil and vinegar on my salad.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:32:44 +0000, Clarence_A wrote:

"Keith Williams" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
They are
*not* free to choose (state) legislative apportionment in any
manner
they see fit.

Actually the may since the US Constitution clearly gives only the
states the right to define the process of their elections!

Clarence, you appear to be misinformed.

No Constitution "gives" anybody any rights. All rights are inherent.

Let me say that again, in case you didn't get it:

All rights are inherent. You are born with them. You have them because you
are a live human. Constitutions do not "give" you your rights. You have
them automatically.

What a constitution does is set up a governmental structure, and in our
case, puts strict limits on the government's power to infringe those
rights. Or is supposed to, but they're chipping away at that as fast as
they can get away with it, as is the wont of the ruling elite.

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Dan <danNOSPAMsteely2001@yahoo.com

wrote (in <wjzBd.164204$8G4.10925@tornado.tampabay.rr.com&gt about 'OT:
Let's Take the Religion out of Christmas', on Sat, 1 Jan 2005:
it as a reminder of the sort of crap political system you get stuck
with when you make political changes by armed revolution, rather than
peaceful evolution. The Soviet Union is another such horrible example,
and France yet another ....

What would have happened if the fathers had not started the American
Revolution? Would mother England finally grow tired and give us independence
at some point? Maybe not with all our natural resources.

Exercise your imagination. Imagine George III being convinced that the

colonists demands should be granted. How would history have evolved in
the presence of the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and North America'?

Maybe you could sell the idea to Hollywood. (;-)
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Clarence_A]

"John Woodgate" wrote

wrongaddress@att.net wrote

You don't like pizza, Big Macs, 16 oz steaks, Californian
wine?
I like it, but most of that stuff is off my diet.
Do you have any Colonel Sander"s Kentucky Fried Chicken places?

Yes, quite a number.

How about "El Polo Loco Chicken" ? I like the black beans.
Can I get an order of black beans to take out?
How about Subway Sandwiches? Can I get a Veggie Delite?

I'm not sure about those. For us, a 'Subway sandwich' would be a
'Tube
sandwich' and would be half an hour coming due to signal failure
at
Piccadilly Circus. (;-)

You must have some Burger Kings, how's the Chili?

I haven't been to a Burger King for about a year, but the chili
was good
the last time I had it.

By George!
America has invaded and captured England!
Without firing a shot! &gt

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 07:49:28 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:36:14 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Liberal wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:32:44 +0000, Clarence_A wrote:
"Keith Williams" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
They are
*not* free to choose (state) legislative apportionment in any
manner
they see fit.

Actually the may since the US Constitution clearly gives only the
states the right to define the process of their elections!

Clarence, you appear to be misinformed.

No Constitution "gives" anybody any rights. All rights are inherent.

No they are not. No one has any "rights" at all. A right given is a
right taken.


Let me say that again, in case you didn't get it:

All rights are inherent. You are born with them. You have them
because you are a live human. Constitutions do not "give" you your
rights. You have them automatically.

Let me that again, in case you didn't get it:

We exist in this universe subject to a Darwinain process. Thats it.
End of story.

There is no point, plan, reason, purpose, justice, rights, for any of
us. We just are.

Then, by your own logic, the very concept of "rights" that can or
can't be "granted", is meaningless.

And I still want to see some kind of independently verifiable "proof"
of your assertions, other than a circular argument, which boils down
to, "It's that way because I said so."

Its not about "proof" its about evidence in support of a proposition.
The evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming.

Hey, dingnuts, when did I ever say anything that might give you the idea
that I reject evolution?

I'm trying to rag on you for refusing to accept that EVERYTHING is
evolving, including the creator of everything.

Ah, screw it. I'm being baited.

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 09:32:21 +0000, Paul Burke wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

No - us foreigners just regard it as "horrible example day" and treat
it as a reminder of the sort of crap political system you get stuck
with when you make political changes by armed revolution, rather than
peaceful evolution. The Soviet Union is another such horrible example,
and France yet another ....

-------
Bil Sloman, Nijmegen


And of course Holland rebelled against the Spanish, and Switzerland
against the Austrians, and England executed Charles I, and Norway
rebelled against Sweden, and Sweden against Denmark, Ireland against
Britain, Greece against Turkey, Belgium against Holland...

No wonder the world's a mess. If only nobody ever took to armed
struggle, and let things evolve, we'd still be part of the Roman
empire... oh no, they rebelled against Tarquin the Prude...

If God hadn't created Lucifer and Ahriman from his own denials in the
first place, and put them in his place at the Godhead because all he
wanted to do was contemplate his navel, there wouldn't be any death or
destruction either. But he did, and there is, and he had an awakeniung a
few years ago, and realized that it's got so bad that he needs our help to
fix it.

http://www.godchannel.com

Love,
Rich

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Torkel Franzen wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> writes:

You need to understand the significance of Godel,
http://www.exploratorium.edu/complexity/CompLexicon/godel.html

One has to accept that some things are intrinsically unknowable, in
principle.

This may well be the case, but there is nothing in Godel's theorem
to support such an idea.

Of course there is, its what's Godels theorem is all about. Why don't
you get yourself an education before opening your mouth on things you
know absolutely nothing about.

The page you cite is a piece of blathering.

You mean, you are simply cluless to understand what is being said.

http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html

"Gödel showed that within a rigidly logical system such as Russell and
Whitehead had developed for arithmetic, propositions can be formulated
that are undecidable or undemonstrable within the axioms of the system.
That is, within the system, there exist certain clear-cut statements
that can neither be proved or disproved."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%F6del's_incompleteness_theorem

"In any consistent formalization of mathematics that is sufficiently
strong to axiomatize the natural numbers -- that is, sufficiently strong
to define the operations that collectively define the natural numbers --
one can construct a true (!) statement that can be neither proved nor
disproved within that system itself. "

http://www.chaos.org.uk/~eddy/math/Godel.html

"What Gödel proved was that any finitely-presentable logical system
which can support Peano's axioms can be obliged to address itself to a
question of form `this statement cannot be proven true', which I shall
refer to as Gödel's fork. A complete logical system can prove any
statement that it knows how to address, so it must be able to prove this
statement; whether it proves it true or false, it thereby proves it to
be also false and true; whence it is inconsistent. Thus no logical
system which can support Peano's axioms can be both complete and
consistent. "

Need I go on? Like, try googling "Kurt Godel".

Godel tells us that some things are simply not derivable from existing
axioms. i.e. some things are intrinsically unknowable, as indeed I
claimed. This is what "not derivable" means. Not knowable. Of course,
there is no way of knowing, in general, just what things are non
derivable, but the principle is absolutely fundamental. It tells us that
statments such as "the speed of light is an invariant" or shrodingers
equation may well be intrinsically never explainable in other terms.
Again, of course, godel cant tell us that in these cases that they can't
be derived from other ideas, but it tells us that we should not be
surprised in the slightest if we cant. We must be prepared to accept
that we have to take some things as being true, without proof. Of
course, one should never take anything as true without evidence, so
accepting improvable truths is quite seperate from faith.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Torkel Franzen wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> writes:

Yes it bloody well does. It states that "there exist statments, that
are true, but not provable".

For any T encompassing a certain amount of arithmetic there are
true arithmetical statements not provable in T. Trivially, these
statements are provable in other theories.

You simply dont understand the implication of Godels theorem.
Statments that cant be proved withing the system, *are* statements
that are intrinsically unknowable.

Nonsense.

No its not. You dont understand the issues.

There's nothing "intrinsic" about it.

Yes there is.

The commutativity of
addition is unprovable in Robinson arithmetic. Does this mean that it
is "intrinsically unknowable" that m+n=n+m for all natural numbers
n,m.?

Oh dear, you still miss the point, and you sniped the bits explaining
the point.

Of course, m+n=n+m is intrinsically not provable. It can only be
"proved" *relative* to something we simply declare is our basis. The
basis itself cant be absolutely proved, so therefore neither can any
derived results.

Listen up. We can *only* explain things in terms of what we *already*
*declare* to be known. There is no absolute truth, so absolutely
*everything* is absolutely unknowable from square 1. No ifs or buts
about it.

When we say we understand something, what we *really* mean is that we
can explain that something in terms of something that we arbitrarily
declare is King. The King, by definition, can't be explained further. If
it can, then it isnt King. Dah...

For example, to explain something in mechanics, say the navier-stokes
equation, we consider that we understand it if we can derive it from
basic Newtonian axioms, e.g. conservation of momentum. Conservation of
momentum is considered King and irreducible. It can't be understood in
terms of anything else. Why should it. We have to start *somewhere*.
Again, knowledge can only be explained *relative* to some other piece of
knowledge. There can't be absolute knowledge. Its all relative.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Torkel Franzen]

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> writes:

Of course, m+n=n+m is intrinsically not provable.

So that's your example of an intrinsically unknowable truth? Most
illuminating!

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Torkel Franzen <torkel@sm.luth.se>
wrote (in <vcbd5wd3vq8.fsf@beta19.sm.ltu.se&gt about 'OT: Let's Take the
Religion out of Christmas', on Mon, 10 Jan 2005:

John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> writes:

Yes, it illuminates that you do not understand higher mathematics. And
not very 'higher' at that. There are many arithmetics in which
commutation is not preserved.

A true but surely irrelevant observation. Or do you think that Kevin
Aylward's claim that there are "intrinsically unknowable truths"
reduces to the triviality that addition is not always commutative?

The illustration has to be fairly trivial in order for people who know

only elementary mathematics to even comprehend the statement. If KA had
chosen the matrix inequality B.A <> A.B, would that be comprehensible?

But the point is that whether the commutation rule in a particular
arithmetic is true or not is either itself an axiom or has to be
uniquely deduced from other axioms of the arithmetic. It has no
*absolute* or intrinsic 'truth'.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Torkel Franzen]

John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> writes:

If you have to ask, you aren't ever going to know.

Actually Godel's incompleteness theorem is completely irrelevant to
the trivial observation you read into Kevin Aylward's claim.

 

[Paul Burke]

wrongaddress@att.net wrote:

Well, if mass and energy have always existed, there must be an infinite
amount of time going forward and backwards. So how do we get to the
present from past infinity?

An infinate amount of time is needed to get from past infinity
to the present.

Yes, infinities are funny things and can't be constructed out of old
washing up liquid bottles and balsa wood. And if time ISN'T infinite,
what was going on before time? How do you talk about it- I mean, verbs
(words describing a change of state) have no application. And if we have
already had an infinite amount of time, everything that is possible
within the laws of physics, including events with infinitessimal quantum
probabilities, has already happened.

The answer for most people, of course, is God. Which is really another
way of saying "my brain hurts", because it only leads to the question of
how did God come about.

Paul Burke

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Torkel Franzen wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> writes:

Godel shows that statements can be true, but not derivable.

You need to include the parameter: "derivable in T". There is no
absolute concept of derivability in logic.

Oh dear.

Again, you simply dont understand the point.

Therefore
this inherently means that such statements are not understandable,
i.e. knowable.

Nonsense.

No it isn't. You mind is in a straight jacket.

For any theory T subject to the incompleteness theorem,
there are statements undecidable in T. This tells us nothing whatever
about how understandable or knowable these statements are.

Oh dear.. Look, if they are not understandable in what we initially
consider is the *universal* system, then they are not understandable.
Dah...Of course, we can simply invent a larger system and simply
postulate that the non-drivable statement is a new axiom of that larger
system, or even derive it from that larger system. So what. Its
irelevent. If there *already* exists a larger set where the statements
are derivable, then such statement are *already* derivable, and not
worth mentioning. Dah...

Godel tels us that in principle, given *any* complete system, even the
*largest* one, then there are statments that are true, but not
explianable. This is actually trivially obvious from what I said before.
Listen up dude, we can *ONLY* explain things in terms of what we
*already* know. At some point in the game we *must* simply declare
axioms to which all else is referred to, whence those axioms are
themselves irreducible. For example, try defining mass and force
independently of each other. Hint: It cant be done.


Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Torkel Franzen wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> writes:

Godel tels us that in principle, given *any* complete system, even
the *largest* one, then there are statments that are true, but not
explianable.

Actually Godel did not indulge in this kind of waffling, but was
quite rigorous in his thinking. I think you'll be much better off
putting forward your various musings without dragging Godel into it.

Aint it about time you actually spoke some content, rather than
continuously waffling yourself.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.