From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The Philosophical problems of Creationism (Was: Try the Bible (Re: Calling Young-earth Creationists)
Date: 19 Aug 92 08:06:12 GMT
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA

In article <1992Aug18.115506@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren
Vonroeschlaub) writes:
|>In article <1992Aug17.212828.25905@dscomsf.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de
|>(Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
|>> In article <1992Aug15.025008.26950@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
|>> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
|>> |>>Ahh, but do we know it exactly?
|>> |>
|>> |>Pi in a Euclidean space can be defined in closed form and can be
|>> |>calculated
|>> |>to any specified precision in a finite period of time; I think that's
|>> |>sufficient to say that we know it exactly. 
|>> 
|>> Unfortunately not so. PI may be defined, however the definition rests on
|>> the definition of a calculus. PI is only defined to the same extent that
|>> the calculus is defined. In order to argue about whether the calculus is
|>> defined we have to resort to a calculus of the definedness of calculii,
|>> thus the objection is raised agin for the metacalculus. Ultimately every
|>> calculus is undefined, the most that can be said is that it is
|>> consistent with another calculus or with itself.
|>
|>  Just a guess here, but either you are a non-mathematician, or you are in
|>analysis. 

Don't try patronising people, they are quite likely to know more about the
argument than you do. USEnet is not an academic journal, most posters have the
courstesy to reduce complex and difficult problems to laymans terms. 


|> Us algebraeists have it a little easier: Pi is the ratio of the
|>circumfrence of the circle to its diameter.  There, now we know it exactly. 
|>I
|>couldn't write it down exactly, but big deal, I have it defined absolutely
|>precisely.

You algebraeists are way down the line. We are talking meta mathematics here. We
havent even defined what we mean by number yet. We are discussing the logical
reasoning systems used by Peano et al.


|>> [Note that the traditional tool used at this point, recursion is not
|>> avaliable since recursion itself might be suspect.]
|>
|>  Recursion fails because it only works for a finite number of steps. 
|>Example:
|>if n is finite, so is n+1.  By recursion infinity is finite.

From this you may conclude only that infinite recursion is invalid on some types
of mathematics. At the point where you define your mathematical structure you
cannot have recourse to this argument, you have made a volumes worth of pricipia
mathematica of assumptions about mathematics by using the number 1. 


|>> For practical purposes this is not a problem since it is the utility of
|>> a calculus that is important, not whether it is "true" in an absolute
|>> sense.
|>
|>  Ack!

You seem to think that there is some "absolute" definition of truth? 

The fact is that we can derive an infinity of models which are consistent with
instantaneous observation. They range from science to the Ultra paranoid "movie
set" scenario where the entire world is engaged in a massive conspiracy against
the individual who is in "truth" strapped int a virtual reality machine. Chosing
between them is merely a matter of aesthetics.

--

Phill Hallam-Baker