Re: Barrow not that stupid (was Re: Henin: her all-time rank)

Joe Ramirez wrote:
On May 16, 11:42 pm, Carey <carey_1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
stephenj wrote:
robin wrote:
On 16 May, 20:32, stephenj <s...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
stephenj wrote:
robin wrote:
On 15 May, 13:48, stephenj <s...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
hint: that's because you're no smarter than he is and thus very much
underqualified to make an assessment.
I'm sure, in you mind, these childish evasion tactics
lol. you reveal your dumbness by flattering yourself that you have
made arguments worth the trouble of 'evading'.
barrow is clearly more knowledgeable about math and science than
yourself, thus it's no surprise you can't come up with an argument
worth spending more than 5 dismissive seconds on.
sorry about that ...
I am glad that you are not bothering to hide the fact that you have
nothing intelligent or intelligible to say in response.
dude, since 'robin' posted gibberish, how can one respond intelligently?
Sigh. That fact that you seem incapable of understanding my rebuttal
to your position, does not qualify it as 'gibberish'.
it's the fact that your rebuttal (rofl!) is gibberish that qualifies it
as gibberish.
--
Barrow's quote, if accurate, is a non sequitur.
Robin's rebuttal seems entirely reasonable to me.
And Jaro's claim to superior intelligence seems.. unlikely.

OK, I've examined Barrow's paper ("Gödel and Physics") in which the
pseudo-syllogism quoted by Jaros originally appears. Salient points:

1. Barrow's paper focuses on physics (the most mathematical of
sciences), not science in general. Usually when he mentions "science,"
he is using it as a synonym for "physics." (The quotation from Barrow
that I posted previously makes it clear that he is a physics snob.)
Most of the time, however, he is more explicit, and specifically
discusses how Gödel affects *physics*.

2. The pseudo-syllogism is NOT Barrow's own conclusion about the
limits of science; it is merely his shorthand version of one possible
response to the impact of Gödel's theorem. "Gödel 's monumental
demonstration, that systems of mathematics have limits, gradually
infiltrated the way in which philosophers and scientists viewed the
world and our quest to understand it. Some commentators claimed that
it shows that all human investigations of the Universe must be
limited. Science is based on mathematics; mathematics cannot discover
all truths; therefore science cannot discover all truths. One of
Gödel's contemporaries, Hermann Weyl, described Gödel's discovery as
exercising 'a constant drain on the enthusiasm and determination with
which I pursued my research work'."

3. Barrow's own conclusion, after lengthy consideration, is
essentially the *opposite* of what the pseudo-syllogism states: "The
tentative conclusions we should draw from this discussion is [sic]
that, just because physics makes use of mathematics, it is by no means
required that Gödel places any limit upon the overall scope of
physics to understand the laws of Nature. The mathematics that Nature
makes use of may be smaller, and simpler than is needed for
undecidability to rear its head."

4. Jaros' claim that Barrow is "right" in the pseudo-syllogism is
laughable because the thing does not even represent Barrow's own
thinking.

Joe Ramirez

Looks like that was enjoyable. Well done!

I doubt that it alters anyone's opinion of Jaros here.

--
Cheers,

vc
.

Loading