Law of the excluded middle: "whover who is not with me is against me." "Whoever is not against us is for us." Inclusive Middle, no? Entropy proves God [think about it] and you're "scattered" if you're not with Christ, like Michael. Excluded, in other words. I'm talking about Truth, which I'm using in the Roycean sense of Troth, or loyalty. I had a logical proof of God, using De Morgans and the difference between a vase, which can have many colours; and a road, which is smooth or rough, but I've forgotten it. It takes more than proof for atheists. They'd need a St. Paul like conversion; not impossible but impractical for the Bertrand Russells of this world. Strange in someone who reduced everything to feeling; he talked himself out of God despite proofs of all kinds being avaliable.
+bin don Russell must have loved octopii, who wear their emotions on their skins. [we, too, blush when embarrased]. Octopus is the species that disproves evolution theory, or makes it even more unworkable, shall we say, being full of novel genes. Novel genes haven't evolved. But we don't want to get into "mutation dunnit", do we? It palpably didn't do it, or genetic drift, which is why I say entropy proves a creator. Maybe that's just implication, winding down 'means' we were wound up. We started out with 100% working DNA and are now down to about 1%; but still, humans only, on the Golden Mean, according to Perez. I may talk about Michael's philosophy later, if I 'feel' capable.
+bin don I'm only on his early work, but this sounds Popperian: "Reflection should make us admit that a verificationist theory of meaning is a better bet than a thoroughgoing realistic one, and, probably, a falsificationist theory a better bet still." My contention is that modern theories, instead of using an Occam Razor towards a Khunian 'paradigm shift', as, say, Einstein did; are UNTOUCHABLE, UNBREAKABLE, like Eliot Ness and Bruce Willis. They've entrenched into a Lakatosian hardcore; they will not budge from a 'mutation dunnit' or multiverse, despite lack of evidence on the first, and pure unprovable speculation on the second. We've moved to Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle's belief in fairies. In terms of meaning, unicorns [evolution] don't exist, but are possible. Unborn Martians screaming to be born [multiverses] are both non-existant and non-sense. Finally, I'm kind of wondering if the unborn child has rights of Dasein? Would Michael say that sentence has meaning or sense? Or, indeed, is worth fighting for? Would be easy to get prescriptive, wouldn't it?
+bin don Anyone who really wants to follow Dummett's position on maths, on his 'manifestation requirement', should read E. Bishop, whose position is similar. Pourciau argues that both Crowe and Dauben see Kuhnian revolutions as logically impossible, because to them any shift in conceptions of mathematics must be cumulative. Pourciau views such cumulativity as a necessary consequence of the classical (i.e. LEM-circumscribed) paradigm, suggesting that a Kuhnian revolution in mathematics would in fact be impossible, without first extirpating LEM. This is where Michael is at. It's the discrete-- smooth continuum arguement. Classic mathematicians want their cake and eat it. I blame it on ZERO. Even Badiou wants one-- many and yet the null set as king. [what would we expect different from a Marxist; or indeed, Buddhist?] I can't argue that faeiry hasn't give us complex numbers, binary, and 2-dimensional thinking in a higher-dimensional world. We're close to "it must be white because it isn't black," ignoring the spectrum between. It was by using the spectrum I could prove God logically, for what it's worth. God is real and maths isn't. Up yours, Plato!
"Mutation is observed..." I nearly choked on my cornflakes, if I ate cornflakes. Mutation, beneficial mutation, is impossible. That's due to at least 7 types of pleiotropy; and Duons. Add to that that Perez says we haven't strayed from the Golden Mean, despite filling up with junk. The junk could have taken on secondary cis- roles, of course. If we're the only creatures on the Golden Mean that means we're unique, as we always knew we were. The excluded middle reference was a joke to introduce Christ. Michael was a strong Catholic, I believe. We are talking about Michael, aren't we? Not Russell's cosmic teapot. The onus is on me to prove God, if I needed proof, (rather than faith) I grant you that. Is the Intelligent Designer irreduciably complex? My point was we started out complex, ready-made, with 100% working genes. That's testable, in a way evolution theory isn't. We've been falling apart or degrading ever since. That's entropy at work. Or ageing, if you like, at the species level. Entropy can be understood as a measure of molecular disorder within a macroscopic system. Show me any creature that's complexified without needing extra energy requirements; without weakening, ultimately to extinction.That's the way of all flesh.
By the way, it's up to evolutionists to explain how a creature that supposedly diverged 600 mya, the sponge, can still have 70% the same genes as humans? Or 87% in the case of the much-studied zebrafish. Or how something crawled onto land, when the coelacanth, a proposed missing link, is still happily swimming in the seas after 450 million years. That's evolutionists' Russell's Teapot.
Amazing
Excellent interview
Law of the excluded middle: "whover who is not with me is against me."
"Whoever is not against us is for us." Inclusive Middle, no?
Entropy proves God [think about it] and you're "scattered" if you're not with Christ, like Michael. Excluded, in other words. I'm talking about Truth, which I'm using in the Roycean sense of Troth, or loyalty.
I had a logical proof of God, using De Morgans and the difference between a vase, which can have many colours; and a road, which is smooth or rough, but I've forgotten it. It takes more than proof for atheists. They'd need a St. Paul like conversion; not impossible but impractical for the Bertrand Russells of this world. Strange in someone who reduced everything to feeling; he talked himself out of God despite proofs of all kinds being avaliable.
+bin don Russell must have loved octopii, who wear their emotions on their skins. [we, too, blush when embarrased]. Octopus is the species that disproves evolution theory, or makes it even more unworkable, shall we say, being full of novel genes. Novel genes haven't evolved. But we don't want to get into "mutation dunnit", do we? It palpably didn't do it, or genetic drift, which is why I say entropy proves a creator. Maybe that's just implication, winding down 'means' we were wound up. We started out with 100% working DNA and are now down to about 1%; but still, humans only, on the Golden Mean, according to Perez.
I may talk about Michael's philosophy later, if I 'feel' capable.
+bin don I'm only on his early work, but this sounds Popperian:
"Reflection should make us admit that a verificationist theory of meaning is a better bet than a thoroughgoing realistic one, and, probably, a falsificationist theory a better bet still."
My contention is that modern theories, instead of using an Occam Razor towards a Khunian 'paradigm shift', as, say, Einstein did; are UNTOUCHABLE, UNBREAKABLE, like Eliot Ness and Bruce Willis. They've entrenched into a Lakatosian hardcore; they will not budge from a 'mutation dunnit' or multiverse, despite lack of evidence on the first, and pure unprovable speculation on the second. We've moved to Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle's belief in fairies.
In terms of meaning, unicorns [evolution] don't exist, but are possible. Unborn Martians screaming to be born [multiverses] are both non-existant and non-sense. Finally, I'm kind of wondering if the unborn child has rights of Dasein? Would Michael say that sentence has meaning or sense? Or, indeed, is worth fighting for? Would be easy to get prescriptive, wouldn't it?
+bin don Anyone who really wants to follow Dummett's position on maths, on his 'manifestation requirement', should read E. Bishop, whose position is similar.
Pourciau argues that both Crowe and Dauben see Kuhnian revolutions as logically impossible, because
to them any shift in conceptions of mathematics must be cumulative. Pourciau views such cumulativity as a necessary consequence of the classical (i.e. LEM-circumscribed) paradigm, suggesting that a Kuhnian revolution in mathematics would in fact be impossible, without first extirpating LEM. This is where Michael is at. It's the discrete-- smooth continuum arguement. Classic mathematicians want their cake and eat it. I blame it on ZERO. Even Badiou wants one-- many and yet the null set as king. [what would we expect different from a Marxist; or indeed, Buddhist?]
I can't argue that faeiry hasn't give us complex numbers, binary, and 2-dimensional thinking in a higher-dimensional world. We're close to "it must be white because it isn't black," ignoring the spectrum between. It was by using the spectrum I could prove God logically, for what it's worth. God is real and maths isn't. Up yours, Plato!
"Mutation is observed..." I nearly choked on my cornflakes, if I ate cornflakes. Mutation, beneficial mutation, is impossible. That's due to at least 7 types of pleiotropy; and Duons. Add to that that Perez says we haven't strayed from the Golden Mean, despite filling up with junk. The junk could have taken on secondary cis- roles, of course. If we're the only creatures on the Golden Mean that means we're unique, as we always knew we were.
The excluded middle reference was a joke to introduce Christ. Michael was a strong Catholic, I believe. We are talking about Michael, aren't we? Not Russell's cosmic teapot. The onus is on me to prove God, if I needed proof, (rather than faith) I grant you that. Is the Intelligent Designer irreduciably complex? My point was we started out complex, ready-made, with 100% working genes. That's testable, in a way evolution theory isn't. We've been falling apart or degrading ever since. That's entropy at work. Or ageing, if you like, at the species level. Entropy can be understood as a measure of molecular disorder within a macroscopic system. Show me any creature that's complexified without needing extra energy requirements; without weakening, ultimately to extinction.That's the way of all flesh.
By the way, it's up to evolutionists to explain how a creature that supposedly diverged 600 mya, the sponge, can still have 70% the same genes as humans? Or 87% in the case of the much-studied zebrafish. Or how something crawled onto land, when the coelacanth, a proposed missing link, is still happily swimming in the seas after 450 million years. That's evolutionists' Russell's Teapot.