## This pseudo-intellectual bullshit hurts me.

doggy pile this for great justice!

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

### This pseudo-intellectual bullshit hurts me.

"science/mathematics ends in meaninglessness

Magister colin leslie dean the only modern Renaissance man with 9 degrees including 4 masters: B,Sc, BA, B.Litt(Hons), MA, B.Litt(Hons), MA, MA (Psychoanalytic studies), Master of Psychoanalytic studies, Grad Cert (Literary studies) : who proved Godels theorems to be invalid

He is also Australia's leading erotic poet

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/book-genre/poetry/

and showed science/mathematics ends in meaninglessness

1)Mathematics/science ends in contradiction:an integer=a non-integer

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... ssible.pdf

2)Mathematics ends in contradiction:6 examples example 1 it is proven 1+1=1

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... MATICS.pdf

all very simple and clear

the facts are

1) it is proven an integer = a non-integer

1 is a finite number it stops

A finite decimal is one that stops, like 0.157

A non-finite decimal like 0.888... does not stop

A non-finite decimal like 0.999... does not stop

when a finite number 1 = a non-finite number 0.999.. then maths ends in contradiction

another way

1 is an integer a whole number

0.888... is a non-integer it is not a whole number

0.999... is a non-integer not a whole number

when a integer 1 =a non-integer 0.999... maths ends in contradiction

)1)Darwins book is called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection ....

but

this paper shows natural selection is not the origin of new species Natural selection is not the origin of new species

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... ection.pdf

"Natural selection does not generate new genes/species Natural selection adds no new genetic information as it only

deals with the passing on of genes/traits already present and it will be pointed out genetics cannot account for

the generation of new species/genes as it is claimed the generation of new genes [via mutation] is a random

process due to radiation, viruses, chemicals etc and genetic cannot account for these process happening as they

are out side the scope of genetics physics, chaos theory etc may give some explanation but genetics cant"

2) Biologist cant tell us what a species is -without contradiction thus evolution theory ie evolving species is nonsense

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... TS-DON.pdf

Biologists agree there is species hybridization

but that contradicts what a species is

3) biologist tell us they investigate life

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... cience.pdf

but

they cant tell us what life is-they can tell us what life does but cant tell us what life is they cant even give a

definition of life that is not nonsense"

https://www.reddit.com/r/PostPoMo/comme ... s_ends_in/

"A ROLLICKING ASSAULT ON SCIENCE'S INABILITY TO ANSWER LIFE'S MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS
Alex Tsakiris has interviewed many bestselling authors and dozens of world-class academics on his popular science podcast Skeptiko.com. In this book he shares with us what he's learned through his 200 plus interviews with some of the world’s leading consciousness researchers and thinkers. In doing so, he reveals what the best research is saying about “big picture” science questions and the limits of science in general. What's he's learned, in short, is that science-as-we-know-it is an emperor-with-no-clothes-on proposition. It mesmerizes us with flashy trinkets, while failing at its core mission of leading us toward self-discovery. Science is wrong about almost everything because science depends on our consciousness being an illusion―and it’s not!

"Alex Tsakiris has articulated in this feisty work what many of us in the academy have felt but have not quite had the courage to say. Alex writes as our conscience here, as he calls us all to balk against the silly and self-contradictory script that is reductive materialism. Such a balking, Alex reminds us, does not make us creationists or anti-science, as the skeptics would have us believe. It makes us conscious beings who refuse this bizarre pact of unconsciousness, meaninglessness, and depression." ― Jeffrey J. Kripal, J. Newton Rayzor Professor of Religion, Rice University and author of Authors of the Impossible

"In the best of American traditions, Tsakiris is a plain-talking Everyman who speaks truth to power. Only, in this case, power is a scientific paradigm that has Ivy League academics and New York media intellectuals completely in its thrall. Are materialists right? Not if you follow the data. Tsakiris brings some giants to their knees, here, simply by asking smart, tough questions that no one has thought to ask. Fascinating stuff." ― Patricia Pearson, author of Opening Heaven's Door

"Tsakiris has distilled the essence of his podcast Skeptiko into a book as direct as his show-and equally necessary. If you want evidence that consciousness is not an illusion, that we are more than biological robots, this book is a great place to start." ― Steve Volk, writer-at-large for Philadelphia Magazine and author of Fringe-ology"

https://www.amazon.com/Science-Wrong-Ab ... 1938398319

I'm cringing inside. god help me

Mr. Skeptic

Name: Owen Terry
Posts: 146

Country: USA
Print view this post

### Re: This pseudo-intellectual bullshit hurts me.

Colin Leslie Dean does not even have his own Wikipedia article, so who is interested in what he is up to?

He does get a mention in a Wikipedia article about the decadent movement, though.
Australia Like in America few prominent writers or artists in Australia were connected with the Decadent movement. The only Australian decadent poet Colin Leslie Dean has struggled to find an audience; this is perhaps because according to some Australian critics, i.e. C.J. Dennis Australia is a country of wowser and culturally detest the art forms of the fin de siècle. Colin Leslie Dean poems are very emotional they challenge conventional notions of decorum by using and abusing such tropes and figures as metaphor, hyperbole, paradox, anaphora, hyperbaton, hypotaxis and parataxis, paronomasia, and oxymoron. Deans poems produce copia and variety and cultivates concordia discors and antithesis – Dean uses these strategies to produce allegory and conceit. Deans work has been described as

"Paraphrasing Baudelaire “When you think of what [Australian] poetry was before [Dean ] appeared and what a rejuvenation it [will undergo] since his arrival when you imagine how significant it would have been if he had not appeared how many deep and mysterious feelings which have been put into words would have remained unexpressed how many intelligent minds he...[will being into]...it is impossible not to consider him as one of those rare and providential minds who in the domain of [poetry] bring about the salvation of us all...”(“Victor Hugo Selected poems Brooks haxton Penguin Books 2002 p.xv) with his groundbreaking poems who knows which new Ko ‘Lin or kohl'in al-deen

Grammar and content-wise that's an atrociously badly written comment, but I don't care. From what I can tell it's about a nobody, and my curiosity about him is already exhausted.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera

God created the universe
God just exists

Hermit

Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4792
Age: 68

Print view this post

### Re: This pseudo-intellectual bullshit hurts me.

This Alex Tsarkiris fellow sounds dishonest as hell.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alex_Tsakiris
A most evolved electron.

Animavore

Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44880
Age: 43

Print view this post

### Re: This pseudo-intellectual bullshit hurts me.

Just looking at the biological stuff: he's completely fucking clueless, as in abjectly ignorant. That's probably because he's a poet, not a scientist.

The first paragraph looks entirely made up by him about himself while wagging himself off. Sounds like some people we know here too.

Basically, he's full of shit... but do we need to 'debunk' it? He's not here to defend his position.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/

Spearthrower

Posts: 29426
Age: 45

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

### Re: This pseudo-intellectual bullshit hurts me.

He basically doesn't exist outside his own website, and most posts about him seem to have been written by him.

If I had to guess, I'd wager that he's the fictional product of some undergraduates with a typically undergraduate sense of humour (for example the bit about him disproving Goedel's Theorem above - huge fucking giveaway to my mind). Essentially performance art to troll wankers into treating it as real - much like Sokal did - but far less skilful.

OlivierK

Posts: 9863
Age: 55

Print view this post

### Re: This pseudo-intellectual bullshit hurts me.

I find the psychology of people who feel the need to collect qualifications really interesting. I know someone who basically collects qualifications and then never seems to work in the fields that he studied. All he ever talked about was his CV. But it's almost like they're compensating for something.

I'm With Stupid

Posts: 9654
Age: 37

Country: Malaysia
Print view this post

### Re: This pseudo-intellectual bullshit hurts me.

Hi I will be rational

I will show what I found on the net

First Dean shows 1=0.999.. which is a contradiction in maths

what does this notation mean-you see it but the result conflicts with your education so mind still refuses to see

0.888...

and

0.999....

and while you are at it

integer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer

"An integer (from the Latin integer meaning "whole")[note 1] is a number that can be written without a fractional component. For example, 21, 4, 0, and −2048 are integers, while 9.75, 5+1/2, and √2 are not.

The set of integers consists of zero (0), the positive natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...), also called whole numbers or counting numbers"

1 is an integer

0.888.. is not an integer

0.999.. is not an integer

thus when an integer 1= a non-integer 0.999.. maths ends in contradiction

Now that seems very clear to me-being rational

Second Biology is not a science

bear in mind we are told by science

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

"Biology is the science concerned with the study of life."

but

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

"There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life"

so basically

without science knowing what life is

then dead and alive have no meaning

biology science dont even know what life is-how ironic they study life but dont know what life is

that is why biology is not a science

Now that seems very clear to me-being rational

Thirdly Godels theorems

1) Gödel’s 1st theorem

a) “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250)

note
"... there is an arithmetical statement that is true..."

In other words there are true mathematical statements which cant be proven
But the fact is Godel cant tell us what makes a mathematical statement true thus his theorem is meaningless

If Godel said "effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic gibblies, there is an arithmetical statement that is gibbly"

but did not tell us what gibbly or gibblies are/meant you would have no trouble saying hey Godel your statement/ theorem is meaningless

same goes for true maths statement if he cant tell us what makes a maths statement true then his theorem is meaningless

"If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent and complete from
within itself, then it is inconsistent.”

Gödel is using a mathematical system
his theorem says a system cant be proven consistent

Godel must prove that a system cannot be proven to be consistent based upon the premise that the logic he uses must be consistent . If the logic he uses is not consistent then he cannot make a proof that is consistent. So he must assume that his logic is consistent so he can make a proof of the impossibility of proving a system to be consistent. But if his proof is true then he has proved that the logic he
uses to make the proof must be consistent, but his proof proves that
this cannot be done

Thus as far as I see being rational

dean does show mathematics science end in meaninglessness
Last edited by jane on Mar 09, 2020 4:03 am, edited 2 times in total.

jane
Banned Spammer

Posts: 17

Print view this post

### Re: This pseudo-intellectual bullshit hurts me.

Hi jane,

Given that we both know that you're spouting bullshit for some sort of kicks, can I ask a more interesting question?

What's in this for you? I don't get it. It's so ludicrously poor that literally everyone reading it will be wondering "Why on earth would anyone bother wasting their time signing up to a forum just to post this lame dreck?"

So, how about you tell us. It would surely be more interesting than continuing the charade.

OlivierK

Posts: 9863
Age: 55

Print view this post

### Re: This pseudo-intellectual bullshit hurts me.

Hi OlivierK

You start with dean proving an integer 1 = a non-integer 0.999.. thus maths ends in contraction

that seems very rational to me

what does this notation mean-you see it but the result conflicts with your education so mind still refuses to see

0.888...

and

0.999....

and while you are at it

integer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer

"An integer (from the Latin integer meaning "whole")[note 1] is a number that can be written without a fractional component. For example, 21, 4, 0, and −2048 are integers, while 9.75, 5+1/2, and √2 are not.

The set of integers consists of zero (0), the positive natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...), also called whole numbers or counting numbers"

1 is an integer

0.888.. is not an integer

0.999.. is not an integer

thus when an integer 1= a non-integer 0.999.. maths ends in contradiction

jane
Banned Spammer

Posts: 17

Print view this post

### Re: This pseudo-intellectual bullshit hurts me.

"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism

felltoearth

Posts: 14380
Age: 54

Print view this post

### Re: This pseudo-intellectual bullshit hurts me.

Hi felltoearth

while OlivierK is answering my point

on Godel

1) Gödel’s 1st theorem

a) “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250)

note
"... there is an arithmetical statement that is true..."

In other words there are true mathematical statements which cant be proven
But the fact is Godel cant tell us what makes a mathematical statement true thus his theorem is meaningless

If Godel said "effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic gibblies, there is an arithmetical statement that is gibbly"

but did not tell us what gibbly or gibblies are/meant you would have no trouble saying hey Godel your statement/ theorem is meaningless

same goes for true maths statement if he cant tell us what makes a maths statement true then his theorem is meaningless

jane
Banned Spammer

Posts: 17

Print view this post

### Re: This pseudo-intellectual bullshit hurts me.

Yes. http://www.rationalskepticism.org/mathematics/0-999-1-dammit-t62.html
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera

God created the universe
God just exists

Hermit

Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4792
Age: 68

Print view this post

### Re: This pseudo-intellectual bullshit hurts me.

Hi Hermit

all you have to do is address deans point-but I guess you just cant

when an integer 1= a non-integer 0.999.. maths ends in contradiction

what does this notation mean-you see it but the result conflicts with your education so mind still refuses to see

0.888...

and

0.999....

and while you are at it

integer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer

"An integer (from the Latin integer meaning "whole")[note 1] is a number that can be written without a fractional component. For example, 21, 4, 0, and −2048 are integers, while 9.75, 5+1/2, and √2 are not.

The set of integers consists of zero (0), the positive natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...), also called whole numbers or counting numbers"

1 is an integer

0.888.. is not an integer

0.999.. is not an integer

thus when an integer 1= a non-integer 0.999.. maths ends in contradiction

Last edited by jane on Mar 09, 2020 4:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

jane
Banned Spammer

Posts: 17

Print view this post

### Re: This pseudo-intellectual bullshit hurts me.

jane wrote:Hi felltoearth

while OlivierK is answering my point

on Godel

1) Gödel’s 1st theorem

a) “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250)

note
"... there is an arithmetical statement that is true..."

In other words there are true mathematical statements which cant be proven
But the fact is Godel cant tell us what makes a mathematical statement true thus his theorem is meaningless

If Godel said "effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic gibblies, there is an arithmetical statement that is gibbly"

but did not tell us what gibbly or gibblies are/meant you would have no trouble saying hey Godel your statement/ theorem is meaningless

same goes for true maths statement if he cant tell us what makes a maths statement true then his theorem is meaningless

I’m not a mathematician so no I can’t.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism

felltoearth

Posts: 14380
Age: 54

Print view this post

### Re: This pseudo-intellectual bullshit hurts me.

hi

you say

I’m not a mathematician so no I can’t.

come on its not hard

but I bet you would say if Godel was talking about gibblies

If Godel said "effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic gibblies, there is an arithmetical statement that is gibbly"

but did not tell us what gibbly or gibblies are/meant you would have no trouble saying hey Godel your statement/ theorem is meaningless

jane
Banned Spammer

Posts: 17

Print view this post

### Re: This pseudo-intellectual bullshit hurts me.

You all seem to like to rubbish dean
but none of you can really rebut him
how very rational
So I am off I cant be bothered

jane
Banned Spammer

Posts: 17

Print view this post

### Re: This pseudo-intellectual bullshit hurts me.

Bye!

Sorry that you decided to take the dull route.

Your house of cards argument that relies on incorrectly assuming that 0.999... is not an integer (even you point out that it equals 1 just one line later!) is trivially unsound.

So why don't you drop the facade, and talk about what's interesting to you about pushing lame hoax material like the fictional Dean's nonsense on people who can see straight through what you're doing? I'm curious, but in the same sort of way that I'm curious why people tag bus shelters.

OlivierK

Posts: 9863
Age: 55

Print view this post

### Re: This pseudo-intellectual bullshit hurts me.

jane wrote:Hi Hermit

all you have to do is address deans point

No, jane, I really don't. Debating whether there is a point at which 0.999.... equals 1 is one of very many items on my "List of Things One Doesn't Have to Do". I just checked. It's right between item 4710 (Debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin) and item 4712 (Take people who can't manage apostrophes seriously).

As you can imagine, this list is very, very long. Certainly much longer than my other list, which is titled "List of Things One Has to Do".
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera

God created the universe
God just exists

Hermit

Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4792
Age: 68

Print view this post

### Re: 0.999... = 1, dammit!

Colin leslie dean has shown when an integer 1= a non-integer 0.999.. maths ends in contradiction

All things are possible

or
https://www.scribd.com/document/324037705/All-Things-Are-Possible-philosophy

and

Mathematics ends in contradiction: 6 proofs

or

what does this notation mean-you see it but the result conflicts with your education so mind still refuses to see

0.888...

and

0.999....

and while you are at it

integer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer

"An integer (from the Latin integer meaning "whole")[note 1] is a number that can be written without a fractional component. For example, 21, 4, 0, and −2048 are integers, while 9.75, 5+1/2, and √2 are not.

The set of integers consists of zero (0), the positive natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...), also called whole numbers or counting numbers"

1 is an integer

0.888.. is not an integer

0.999.. is not an integer

thus when an integer 1= a non-integer 0.999.. maths ends in contradiction
Last edited by jane on Mar 09, 2020 9:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jane
Banned Spammer

Posts: 17

Print view this post

### Re: 0.999... = 1, dammit!

Chuck Norris has shown that sock-puppets routinely get banned.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.

Fenrir

Posts: 3623

Country: Australia
Print view this post

Next

### Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest