unifying theory of life?

[bojan]

Originally Posted by sally1jack

As someone who is interested to learn more about science i find the way some people are sometimes treated by regular contributors makes it less likley for new or less knowledgeable ( about science) people to engage in debate on scientific topics .
phil

I know, sometimes blood pressure goes through the roof. I myself felt that from time to time from some of us here...
But, this is mostly the consequence of pure exasperation, as mentioned earlier by Marc..
You explain things once, twice... and you clearly see that the other side doesn't budge a bit and doesn't engage in discussion, and this is not always because of misunderstanding but sometimes because of refusal to accept the argument (or to provide the evidence that supports their view) ... At this point, some people will explode.
From my part, I am sorry if I caused inconvenience to anyone.. but if I did, it was warranted - (I think) I never placed a blow at the first occasion, and when I did, it was after several attempts to explain better my points. I think the same applies to other contributors here as well.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Octane

Craig,

You are quickly alienating yourself with your aggressive language.

People with opinions other than your own will simply stop responding or replying to you.

Maybe that's the scientist and sceptic in you, but, if one person finds it aggressive, I am sure others do, too. Perhaps that's the least of your concerns, but, it might go against the grain of this community, in general, despite this section being your playground.

I enjoy reading your posts but you're about to lose me as audience due to the aggression that's been on display in this thread. Perhaps you need to get over it, too? We are /all/ human beings. We /all/ have opinions. We /all/ have faults. We /all/ deserve respect. The way that Brian has been treated by yourself, Bert and bojan, for some opinions he has openly shared on an Internet forum, one would think he ate babies. If Joe keeps responding, he's going to be deemed a babyeater, too. Even Alex/Jarvamundo wasn't treated this way, despite his continuous protestations and lack of engaging in dialogue.

Can we continue with the quest for knowledge without the aggression and show a little compassion, or, at the very least, some tolerance?

If I'm way off base, then, I extend my apologies. I, for one, know that life is too short (despite it being the longest thing we endure) to be engaged in quibbles.

H

H;

I have had this from you before, and I know you also know it.

You seem to never make any contributions to this Forum, and I never see you in these trenches. You seem very adept at jumping in, just when a big point is to be made. I made a mistake once before by backing off .. and it was a mistake on my part. Not this time. Please understand, I respect you, and I see you in many, many ways, even extending to being a living example of 'the voice of the conscience" of the IIS community, comprising many folk, for whom I also have much respect.

In this case, you see aggression where there is none. There is pure defense, (and a damned solid one, at that). I have no idea of whether you possess the perspectives needed to understand the issues at stake here, and to see how those issues extend wherever matters of rationality and science are at stake.

You are an expert in fields in which I have little or no skills. I have the utmost respect for you in these areas, and I have much to learn from talents such as those in which you are a master. If I was to dabble in your areas and tell you how to think about it, how would you react ? I've actually seen this occur .. (and, as I recall, it resulted in someone being rapidly ejected from IIS. Perhaps the same may happen on this issue, to me. It is not my desire, but if it has to happen that way, then so be it).

I respect all human beings and their beliefs. I have stated this numerous times. I'll state it again. I have the utmost respect for people's beliefs. They are free to believe whatever they wish. I have demonstrated this on many, many occasions. I don't often see others demonstrating the same degree of respect outside their areas of expertise.

These matters in this Forum, science in general, and rational thinking have zero to do with beliefs and opinions. What we are attempting to develop here, cannot proceed efficiently, without these being left at the door before entering.

Beliefs and opinions can be kept completely separate from the discipline of rational thought and science processes. I have also stated this many, many times. I have huge respect for those who venture to step beyond the boundaries of belief and opinions, as it requires great discipline and a ton of courage.

You read much into the words and styles I have chosen. You practice leveraging other's emotions and feelings for which I too, have the utmost respect. Please pay me some of the same respect by not attempting to shape my persona in the image of your world, as I make no attempts to do that to you, in your world.

If I am to be crucified for something of value, let it be for what this forum represents … not for what others believe it represents, or what I personally might appear to represent through the filters of others' own belief systems. I will state it again, I respect other folk for their beliefs and opinions .. which is another way of saying I respect all other human beings .. this also includes Brian and Joe, with absolutely no qualifications. They will always be my friends at the end of the day, and will be treated as such. They can make their own choices about how they see me. All I ask, is to have an unimpeded channel for explaining where I'm coming from.

I am passionate about helping others to separate their beliefs and opinions from the physical world. Only by doing this can anyone see the physical world as it is, in that naked, physical reality. How it is viewed, and the tools we use to view it, must have the same integrity preserved. (My use of the word 'integrity' is very specific here .. integrity means completeness and wholeness .. there is nothing emotional in the use of this word in this sense. A person is perfectly able to behave with integrity, and still exhibit all of the negative characteristics leading perhaps, to alienation from others .. but at least they are demonstrating freedom in making this choice, rather than being bound by a confining belief system).

This stand I make, has nothing to do with my own ego or disrespect for others. I have no such interests .. I will continue to abdandon these where it is demonstrated that this is what is motivating me … no matter the personal pain or consequences involved. I stand prepared for it.

I cannot state this clearly, and long enough.

Please do not attempt to portray me for anything other that what I have chosen to stand for …

Cheers & Rgds

[Brian W (Brian)]

Joe, that was and is my point.

Brian

[Octane (Humayun)]

I read your threads to learn from them, but, I have nothing to contribute because I am vapid.

My life is about making pretty pictures. If I learn something along the way, score.

My profuse apologies. I had no right to criticise. If you do something wrong, then it's up to a moderator to sort it out.

Cheers, Craig.

H

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Octane

I read your threads to learn from them, but, I have nothing to contribute because I am vapid.

My life is about making pretty pictures. If I learn something along the way, score.

My profuse apologies. I had no right to criticise. If you do something wrong, then it's up to a moderator to sort it out.

Cheers, Craig.

H

Good onya, H !

Love your photos .. and they are way more than just pretty pictures.

I wish I had a quantum-sized dollop of your talents.

Best Regards and Cheers.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by Brian W

Joe, that was and is my point.

Brian

Brian, we addressed your point(s) couple of times.
If it is still your point then you are not accepting the valid argumentation (for whatever reason) - which should be a part of scientific procedure....
We really can't do much beyond this....

[Brian W (Brian)]

Originally Posted by bojan

Brian, we addressed your point(s) couple of times.
If it is still your point then you are not accepting the valid argumentation (for whatever reason) - which should be a part of scientific procedure....
We really can't do much beyond this....

Indeed yourself and Craig have addressed my concerns a couple of times.

You are also correct that I am not accepting your argument.

To use your word I do not find your argument 'valid'.

I simply cannot accept that science is only about math and facts.

However even if it were only about math and facts, math has more than one paradox and a fact is only a fact until it is shown to be wrong. Which to me means, that some things just don't make sense and that some facts are just mistaken beliefs.

Now I could go on Bojan but we are probably never going to agree so lets rejoice in the 'fact' that we differ and that in our case 1+1 does indeed produce 2.

Brian

[joe_smith]

Thanks for the reply's its very interesting this subject to me

First let me say the views hear might be aggressive by some but this is human nature and cannot be avoided theist's and atheist's will always lock horns as the are at different ends of the scale. I respect any ones view no matter how they put it forth as it also tells what type of human character they have. The major trait that is the most important one. First let me say when I talk of faith its not in a theist or atheist view its using the word as just faith in a idea is right, and not in an entity based faith. Scientist's must have faith in their ideas to pursue them as not all the theory's can be proven Scientifically with its methods, Louie Paster and even Einstein must of had faith when starting their quest to greatness, as its all they could have to believe that their theory was correct and they had to find the evidence to prove it was true, and that faith and belief found in all humans was right. Yes they used the scientific method but it was based on an idea that started as an idea they believed in and had faith deep down they were on the right path to drive them forward.

Bojan, Craig and Bert you are using human emotions in your replies (yes, so am I) and this is the whole point I think you are missing you are classing your view of science as something separate from the human mind like its some kind of deity grater than the man doing the science. The scientific methods don't need faith or belief they are a set of rules one has to follow to prove a theory works. BUT the person doing the work, the person Interpreting the "See Deductive Reasoning, Inductive Reasoning, Theorem , Axiomatic Systems, Formal and Informal Proof, Proof theory, Mathematical Logic is totally different to those facts we have a conscious mind powered by an big self centred ego. This is the true power of science not the tools. Its people believing in ideas thought up by there conscious mind and having the faith in them to follow them.

Faith would have been if inflation is accepted by all.. this is clearly not the case, even the theory creators are still working on it's details and re-checking the thought process that gave rise to the theory.

I agree, but to follow a different path from the "accepted view" that person is having faith and a belief in their idea to pursue the new path in the fist place. Its a conscious mind doing it not a set of rules. He must follow the rules but is in no way part of them. our consciousness can give us an infinite number of ideas, dreams to follow and what it will even allow us to believe. We believe and have faith that we are on the right path but we cant prove it.

The fringe areas of any system are subject to possible causes lying outside that system. This in itself, is a mathematically proven theorem. The fringes also produce areas of 'greyness'. The topic being discussed was mathematics ! Would you seriously attempt to query the validity of a mathematically proven theorem ?

WHAT... are you saying human consciousness can be mathematically proven that the validity of mathematically proven theories on human consciousness to prove future events as fact!!! man, submit it and be the most famous scientist in the history of mankind. Explain how the speed of light is mathematically proven, but science has beaten it and gone faster? if so why do we still have the mathematically proven theorem that nothing is faster than the speed of light? maths is good up to a point but can be truly accepted as the cold hard truth. Just like my example of the speed of light scientific methods have proven this to be false, Einstein was wrong and his theory has been Disproven with the scientific method. If this is true why do we still use the theory that nothing is faster the light??

Get over it, and get on with it. If you believe in the fringes, you are simply being manipulated by the media .. and then you are using it to demonstrate for us how huge your own ego is. Frankly I'm not interested in exploring that. That is for you to 'enjoy' .. just make sure you use a scientific approach in that exploration though. If you don't, you'll end up permanently deluded ! At the moment, I'll assume its only temporary, as in your particular case, I sense we are dwelling on the fringes … yet again

That is a view from a atheists view point not a scientific view point science has to be agnostic it cant have a totally theist view or a total atheist view as its imposable to prove one or the other so by the scientific method its still on the table until proven by the facts one way or the other. you can have your personal views on the subject but you cant use science tools to prove one way or the other if a theists view is wrong. Because using the data they have then the same atheists view is also wrong using the same data. look at the theory of the Biocentric Universe this theory will challenge all current scientific views on the universe if found to be true its ground breaking because it includes human consciousness the very thing current science dose not include in their list of trick of the trade.

How may IIS personalities including Joe, (but certainly not limited to Joe), are entirely manipulated by the media and its icons/deities ?

wrong I use science as my guide I just have a neutral view on things not yet proven. I don't hold a atheist view or theist view i'm in the middle with an open mind to the views. I haven't joined the war as its based on hate not facts, look at some of the replies by well educated people they come over like 3rd grade bully's imposing their world view on others, not facts or data to prove they are right in the first place. I have faith that the Biocentric Universe theory might prove once and for all the truth or very close to it to finally come up with an answer.

This stand I make, has nothing to do with my own ego or disrespect for others. I have no such interests .. I will continue to abdandon these where it is demonstrated that this is what is motivating me … no matter the personal pain or consequences involved. I stand prepared for it.

I cannot state this clearly, and long enough.

Please do not attempt to portray me for anything other that what I have chosen to stand for …

Don't abandon your views or how strongly you believe in them but don't make it a war and force your view as the only true view and same goes for the theists as well. until its fully looked in to and all theories past and future are look into then all views have to be looked at, if you believe in the theories or not.

My profuse apologies. I had no right to criticise

no need to apologise we all need criticism it keeps us honest. No personal view can be wrong or right as it our own personal view made from our beliefs, knowledge, and ego. The most important part to remember, its not the other persons views that's important, Its the way we treat those views that makes us great.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by Brian W

To use your word I do not find your argument 'valid'.
I simply cannot accept that science is only about math and facts.

Brian,
This is exactly where our little problem is.
You can't just not accept... (well, obviously you can and so you do, this is a free country after all.. ). But in any meaningful discussion you should be able to argue why my (or any other) argument is not valid and you should be able to offer the reasonable alternative.. Otherwise we are discussing art, poetry... things like that - no need for math here :-)

Originally Posted by joe_smith

The scientific methods don't need faith or belief they are a set of rules one has to follow to prove a theory works. BUT the person doing the work, the person Interpreting the "See Deductive Reasoning, Inductive Reasoning, Theorem , Axiomatic Systems, Formal and Informal Proof, Proof theory, Mathematical Logic is totally different to those facts we have a conscious mind powered by an big self centred ego. This is the true power of science not the tools.

I disagree with the above...

You are talking about what is driving the scientist to do what they do (belief in their own ideas, "eureka" moments... joy of being right, joy when you learn something new and totally unexpected.. ) and this is all OK.. but it is "behind the scene".... it is their motivation, and we, human beings, we need motivation to do something.

However theory is not a theory until it is proven to others in a scientific community that is valid.. and for THAT you need tools, properly used, and proper procedure followed, supported with mass of test results.

Actually in my opinion the only "faith thing" that really is important in scientific method is belief in validity and usefulness of scientific procedure. Otherwise noone would be able to prove anything to anyone.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Brian W

Indeed yourself and Craig have addressed my concerns a couple of times.

You are also correct that I am not accepting your argument.

To use your word I do not find your argument 'valid'.

I simply cannot accept that science is only about math and facts.

However even if it were only about math and facts, math has more than one paradox and a fact is only a fact until it is shown to be wrong. Which to me means, that some things just don't make sense and that some facts are just mistaken beliefs.

Sorry Brian;

I assert that you will never be able to understand the points made here unless you suspend your 'beliefs', so your comment comes as no surprise. (You also stand in integrity of your beliefs .. which is cool by me).

To fully 'experience' the paradoxes you mention, one has to open one's mind to the rationale leading to the paradox. As I have asserted elsewhere, one can only ever achieve these 'experiences' if one accumulates the knowledge leading up to it, which leads to the understanding. Criticism of what we haven't understood or experienced, is easy. Accumulating the understanding is not. This won't happen unless you attempt to suspend belief. All I have said here also applies to getting into your world, also. I'll take a punt and say that you share this perspective as passionately as you do. Yep .. we may be in violent agreement ??

Come to think of it, perhaps we should recommend that the Science Forum entry advisory words make reference to suspending belief and opinion before entry. How to word that, without creating the offence which appears to result, (ala my apparent, present IIS reputation) however, is a major issue. Perhaps a good request for the Faqs section.

Originally Posted by Brian W

Now I could go on Bojan but we are probably never going to agree so lets rejoice in the 'fact' that we differ and that in our case 1+1 does indeed produce 2.

Once again, I assert that agreement is not mandatory. Never has been.
Suspension of belief and opinion aids in understanding of what is being discussed in a Forum intended for Science discussions. If folk aren't willing to do this, then we just go around, and around, and around, …. (Just check out this thread, if you want a powerful example).

Cheers & Rgds

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by joe_smith

First let me say the views hear might be aggressive by some but this is human nature and cannot be avoided theist's and atheist's will always lock horns as the are at different ends of the scale.

This is not about religious beliefs ! I have no such beliefs in this place! I left 'em at the door. I urge you to do the same.

Originally Posted by joe_smith

First let me say when I talk of faith its not in a theist or atheist view its using the word as just faith in a idea is right, and not in an entity based faith.

It makes no difference whether its about a deity or not. Its about the belief you are right!
…Leave it at the door and you will learn. Bring it here and you will have problems !

Originally Posted by joe_smith

Scientist's must have faith in their ideas to pursue them as not all the theory's can be proven Scientifically with its methods, Louie Paster and even Einstein must of had faith when starting their quest to greatness, as its all they could have to believe that their theory was correct and they had to find the evidence to prove it was true, and that faith and belief found in all humans was right. Yes they used the scientific method but it was based on an idea that started as an idea they believed in and had faith deep down they were on the right path to drive them forward.

Not so. It wasn't until Karl Popper entered the scene that this rationale come into Science. He altered everything. Pasteur came way before Popper. Einstein's life was co-incident with Popper's. The wrangling of the two resulted in the airtightness of scientific method.

Originally Posted by joe_smith

Bojan, Craig and Bert you are using human emotions in your replies (yes, so am I) and this is the whole point I think you are missing you are classing your view of science as something separate from the human mind like its some kind of deity grater than the man doing the science. The scientific methods don't need faith or belief they are a set of rules one has to follow to prove a theory works. BUT the person doing the work, the person Interpreting the "See Deductive Reasoning, Inductive Reasoning, Theorem , Axiomatic Systems, Formal and Informal Proof, Proof theory, Mathematical Logic is totally different to those facts we have a conscious mind powered by an big self centred ego. This is the true power of science not the tools. Its people believing in ideas thought up by there conscious mind and having the faith in them to follow them.

The power comes from striving for integrity. This is the 'discipline of Science' of which we speak so often. We are human beings each wrangling with our own weaknesses. I refuse to give in to them. To abandon the quest is to fall out of integrity. To choose not to even undertake the quest, is to exclude oneself from the pursuit of Science. (And Science Forums).

Originally Posted by joe_smith

I agree, but to follow a different path from the "accepted view" that person is having faith and a belief in their idea to pursue the new path in the fist place. Its a conscious mind doing it not a set of rules. He must follow the rules but is in no way part of them. our consciousness can give us an infinite number of ideas, dreams to follow and what it will even allow us to believe. We believe and have faith that we are on the right path but we cant prove it.

And you never will. But mathematics proves things all the time ! Remember .. you have made that choice … no one else did !

Originally Posted by joe_smith

WHAT... are you saying human consciousness can be mathematically proven that the validity of mathematically proven theories on human consciousness to prove future events as fact!!!

Not at all. You said that. Not me, man !

Originally Posted by joe_smith

man, submit it and be the most famous scientist in the history of mankind. Explain how the speed of light is mathematically proven, but science has beaten it and gone faster? if so why do we still have the mathematically proven theorem that nothing is faster than the speed of light? maths is good up to a point but can be truly accepted as the cold hard truth. Just like my example of the speed of light scientific methods have proven this to be false, Einstein was wrong and his theory has been Disproven with the scientific method. If this is true why do we still use the theory that nothing is faster the light??

You still don't understand the difference between scientific method and mathematical certainty. And you never will until you check your beliefs at the door. Just because you choose to not undertake the quest for understanding does not give you the right to speak from an authority position, of that which you choose to not understand. Nor speak from this position in a Science Forum !

Originally Posted by joe_smith

That is a view from a atheists view point not a scientific view point science has to be agnostic it cant have a totally theist view or a total atheist view as its imposable to prove one or the other so by the scientific method its still on the table until proven by the facts one way or the other. you can have your personal views on the subject but you cant use science tools to prove one way or the other if a theists view is wrong. Because using the data they have then the same atheists view is also wrong using the same data. look at the theory of the Biocentric Universe this theory will challenge all current scientific views on the universe if found to be true its ground breaking because it includes human consciousness the very thing current science dose not include in their list of trick of the trade.

Theories are never proven true. You said that. And it is based on a complete misunderstanding because you chose to not park your beliefs before you came here. Science does not even attempt to prove truths .. never has, never will

Joe, I hope we remain respectful of eachother. This is not about personalities. This is about business ! Science Forum business !

I'm worn out .. this thread needs locking ..!!

Moderators, Please, pretty please … Thread Lock Request ??

Cheers

[Brian W (Brian)]

[QUOTE=bojan;707438]Brian,
This is exactly where our little problem is.
You can't just not accept... (well, obviously you can and so you do, this is a free country after all.. ). But in any meaningful discussion you should be able to argue why my (or any other) argument is not valid and you should be able to offer the reasonable alternative.. Otherwise we are discussing art, poetry... things like that - no need for math here :-)

Ok Bojan let me try...

Your argument is that science is a standardized process by which one arrives at facts and that belief is irrelevant because everything is based upon facts which are provable by mathematical procedures.

Obviously I need to show where the a scientific fact has been shown to be wrong.

Ok... it was a fact accepted by the leading scientists of the day that all heavenly bodies must move in perfect circles because the circle was the perfect shape.

Some very smart people went to a great deal of trouble using the best math around to prove that position and to make a model of the universe that fit into that basic (for the time) scientific fact.

As we all know they were wrong, their fact was not a fact even though they had math galore to back it up.

They believed that they had a fact but they didn't. Who can say that the same thing will not happen to sciences present day facts somewhere down the road.

Now let me address the science of math. Admitting up front that I am not an expert I still feel that I am on safe ground making the following statement.

physics is looking for a unified theory because the math that works so well when dealing with big stuff just doesn't work when dealing with the tiny stuff.

Now to me this means that one needs one type of math here and another type of math there. To perhaps coin a phrase is this not 'situational mathematics? which would give one situational facts? which brings us to my belief that at the core everything is based upon belief.

Even you have stated that one must have belief in the system.

So perhaps I am wrong but I do believe that I have repudiated your statement that there is no 'belief' in science and that facts are facts are facts. However even if I haven't you have.
Brian

[Brian W (Brian)]

Joe, I hope we remain respectful of eachother. This is not about personalities. This is about business ! Science Forum business !

I'm worn out .. this thread needs locking ..!!

Moderators, Please, pretty please … Thread Lock Request ??

Cheers[/QUOTE]

Craig, when it was just a superstitious, delusional, brain dead, ignorant fool you were dealing with everything was just fine but now that there are others who feel that you may not be 100% correct you are worn out and want the moderator to lock this thread!

That hardly seems fair.

Brian

[[1ponders] (Paul)]

This thread has just been bought to the attention of the moderators, please keep it respectful and on topic.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Brian W

Joe, I hope we remain respectful of eachother. This is not about personalities. This is about business ! Science Forum business !

I'm worn out .. this thread needs locking ..!!

Moderators, Please, pretty please … Thread Lock Request ??

Cheers

Originally Posted by Brian W

Craig, when it was just a superstitious, delusional, brain dead, ignorant fool you were dealing with everything was just fine but now that there are others who feel that you may not be 100% correct you are worn out and want the moderator to lock this thread!

That hardly seems fair.

Brian

Brian;
I never said anything about someone being 'brain dead' or being 'an ignorant fool'. I think you may find that was someone else.

Where would you like to take this thread from here, Brian ?

Your stance is purely religious.

This is the Science Forum.

Discussing religion is against the IIS TOCs.

We have been fortunate to get away with this thread for as long as we have.

I leave the matter in the hands of the mods, for their consideration.

Cheers
PS: I've had enough ! I'm outta here ! Cheers.

[Brian W (Brian)]

[QUOTE=CraigS;707468]Brian;
-I never said anything about someone being 'brain dead' or being 'an ignorant fool'. I think you may find that was someone else.

that's true... but religious, superstitious and with garbage for opinions does come from you.

-Where would you like to take this thread from here, Brian ?

this thread is not now and never has been in my control. Where it goes is up to the people involved in it. I personally like the question of what is science and how does one do it. I also like the question about consciousness.

Your stance is purely religious.

I ask the questions 'how', 'why', 'can it be shown' and you declare that my stance is purely religious. Ok what would be some good scientific type questions?

A small aside for the Moderator(s) if I have wandered off topic you have my apologies as you also have them if I have been disrespectful.
Brian

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Brian W

Yes. More clearly, in context of what actually transpired this time, (and explanation of my present assertion of 'religious'), as opposed to your views of what transpired …

Religious:
I assert you are driven by belief. Religion is about belief. Science proceeds by abandoning belief. You are unwilling to abandon your beliefs. You are not being scientific. I infer you are being religious.

Superstition:

Originally Posted by Brian W

(1) If someone in the village was approaching death Raven would come and warn me. This warning came in the form of a flock of Ravens approaching me in flight with one particular Raven that stood out.

.. Speaks for itself…

Garbage:

Originally Posted by Brian W

My point is simply that you {bojan} and all scientists accept a very large and esoteric body of knowledge as true.

This acceptance means you believe they are true, you don't in the hard sense of the word -know- they are true because you have never taken the time to actually work through it all.

All I am pointing out is that science is a bit more than just hard facts mam, just the hard facts.

Brian

You were (..and still are), attempting to put words into what Bojan wrote, and into what "all scientists accept".

My response to this was:

Originally Posted by CraigS

Garbage ! … sorry Brian, but pure garbage !

.. words describing my feelings about your beliefs about the extent and time others put into 'working through it all', and how they interpret the results of this. You made a huge generalisation, and a massively sweeping statement.

For example, you have no idea of my background, nor the time I have put into anything.

My words were re-iterated by Bojan ..

Originally Posted by Bojan

Yep, garbage.

Originally Posted by CraigS

See Deductive Reasoning, Inductive Reasoning, Theorem , Axiomatic Systems, Formal and Informal Proof, Proof theory, Mathematical Logic … it all underpins why we don't need to invoke 'belief'.

Check it all out .. they're all on Wiki !!

Originally Posted by Brian W

I ask the questions 'how', 'why', 'can it be shown' and you declare that my stance is purely religious.

The 'how' and 'why' questions were answered in my post #40. I referred you to read the Wiki pages above.

Please refrain from attempting to put your interpretation into words I have written. My words do that job quite nicely.

Cheers

[[1ponders] (Paul)]

sorry folks time to close.