H,R.Gruemm supposes to be a physicist of great learning but is
so far stuck in his netherworld of mathematics that he fails
to see the fact that the notion of truth outrunning provability
applies just as equally to real life as it does to mathematics.
His stock response to reasonableness is to assert absurdity.
It is likely that there is sufficient empirical evidence to show
that H,R.Gruemm does not know what reality is at all.
From: "TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net>
Subject: Re: Darwin Admitted Evolution Not OK - OK??
Date: Thursday, 4 March 2004 12:59 PM
H,R.Gruemm wrote:
"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:<mkDI5fEivK9104E15DF8bQWtilsEWZNH@justdeliciousfood.com>...
H,R.Gruemm wrote:
So why do you keep confusing your personal beliefs with objectively
established and generally recognized truth, if you claim familiarity
with the term "truth" ?
It seems, oh great and godless physicist, you missed this bit:
I assert my knowledge of God as a fact, unquestionably established.
There are people who assert their knowledge that they are a
reincarnation of Napoleon as a fact, unquestionably established.
The burden of proof, oh great and godless physicist, is yours
on the grounds that you need to show that the assertion is
not an unprovable truth.
Please show that my assertion that you owe me 1 million Euros, payable
in 2 days, is not an unprovable truth.
You can't go trying to get out of your problem like that by applying
the same assertion, oh great and godless physicist.
Please refer to incompleteness theorems and the Epimenides
paradox. Thank you. Goodbye.
Quoting technical terms in your sentences does not imply that you
actually understand them.
Whereas repeating the very same assertion to try and avoid dealing
with the problem of the original assertion explicitly shows that you
actually don't understand the assertion at all.
Oh Gödel, Gödel, what nonsense is spoken in thy name!
And that's an argument, is it, oh great and godless physicist?
You may note your inherent failure to observe the principle
of audiatur et altera pars by not establishing any underlying
assumptions before flying full force into blind assertion.
You know, I will have to define a new paradox here. I will call
it the Gruemm Paradox. I will have to ponder upon it but the
paradox revolves around the notion of how such a brilliant mind,
so full of the wonders of physics, can be so totally empty.
.
