IsGodAMathematician - Revision history

209.183.136.7: /* The Trust */ change "God does not play a dimes" to "God does not play dice"

2011-06-19T19:56:20Z

The Trust: change "God does not play a dimes" to "God does not play dice"

←Older revision		Revision as of 19:56, 19 June 2011
Line 48:		Line 48:
	Whenever we apply or verify our knowledge we can do it only inside boundaries of the known world. What is behind a horizon is unknown. Old Greeks would think twice before crossing their horizon. Not only the danger there may be n-times as big, you may even hit an [[wikipedia:Apeiron_(cosmology)\|Apeiron]] as [[Vopěnka]] nicely explains. We have no such fear. Rather we believe that the same laws that can be applied here can be applied behind horizon as well. No surprise we often face [[paradox]]es!		Whenever we apply or verify our knowledge we can do it only inside boundaries of the known world. What is behind a horizon is unknown. Old Greeks would think twice before crossing their horizon. Not only the danger there may be n-times as big, you may even hit an [[wikipedia:Apeiron_(cosmology)\|Apeiron]] as [[Vopěnka]] nicely explains. We have no such fear. Rather we believe that the same laws that can be applied here can be applied behind horizon as well. No surprise we often face [[paradox]]es!

-	We have learned that we cannot apply Newton's physics to something fast. We know we cannot apply it to things too small. Greeks would give up can admit that they cannot estimate what is behind the horizon (of something too distant or something too small). What is our response? We still believe that everywhere in the cosmos the same physic laws can be applied. We still believe we can explain them once all. Why? Yes, the enormous success of science in last few centuries might give us some trust. But deeper below that is the old good [[Renaissance]] trust to the biggest guarantor. The [[wikipedia:Jesus\|Christian God]] is good, loves scientists and ''does not play ~~a dimes~~'', or does it?	+	We have learned that we cannot apply Newton's physics to something fast. We know we cannot apply it to things too small. Greeks would give up can admit that they cannot estimate what is behind the horizon (of something too distant or something too small). What is our response? We still believe that everywhere in the cosmos the same physic laws can be applied. We still believe we can explain them once all. Why? Yes, the enormous success of science in last few centuries might give us some trust. But deeper below that is the old good [[Renaissance]] trust to the biggest guarantor. The [[wikipedia:Jesus\|Christian God]] is good, loves scientists and ''does not play dice'', or does it?

	== Conclusion ==		== Conclusion ==

94.113.131.113 at 16:07, 10 June 2011

2011-06-10T16:07:04Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 16:07, 10 June 2011
Line 3:		Line 3:
	The philosophical parts of [[TheAPIBook]] were heavily influenced by [[The Key Stone of European Knowledge]] by Petr [[Vopěnka]]. I really mean inspired. The whole "key stone" book has more than 800 pages and thus [[TheAPIBook]] (of about 400) could cover just a tiny pieces. I'd like to recommend [[The Key Stone of European Knowledge]] to everyone as its reading is worth it, but alas, the book is written in Czech and has not been translated to English.		The philosophical parts of [[TheAPIBook]] were heavily influenced by [[The Key Stone of European Knowledge]] by Petr [[Vopěnka]]. I really mean inspired. The whole "key stone" book has more than 800 pages and thus [[TheAPIBook]] (of about 400) could cover just a tiny pieces. I'd like to recommend [[The Key Stone of European Knowledge]] to everyone as its reading is worth it, but alas, the book is written in Czech and has not been translated to English.

-	This week I finished reading of "[[IsGodAMathematician]]?" and I think I can recommend it as a good enough substitute for ~~the~~ [[The Key Stone of European Knowledge]]. It has slightly different focus, it is shorter, it covers wider range of topics, yet I believe the way this book describes the [[beauty]] of Ancient Greek's geometry matches the feel I've got when reading "the keystone" book.	+	This week I finished reading of "[[IsGodAMathematician]]?" and I think I can recommend it as a good enough substitute for [[The Key Stone of European Knowledge]]. It has slightly different focus, it is shorter, it covers wider range of topics, yet I believe the way this book describes the [[beauty]] of Ancient Greek's geometry matches the feel I've got when reading "the keystone" book.

JaroslavTulach: /* The Trust */

2011-06-09T15:53:32Z

The Trust

←Older revision		Revision as of 15:53, 9 June 2011
Line 48:		Line 48:
	Whenever we apply or verify our knowledge we can do it only inside boundaries of the known world. What is behind a horizon is unknown. Old Greeks would think twice before crossing their horizon. Not only the danger there may be n-times as big, you may even hit an [[wikipedia:Apeiron_(cosmology)\|Apeiron]] as [[Vopěnka]] nicely explains. We have no such fear. Rather we believe that the same laws that can be applied here can be applied behind horizon as well. No surprise we often face [[paradox]]es!		Whenever we apply or verify our knowledge we can do it only inside boundaries of the known world. What is behind a horizon is unknown. Old Greeks would think twice before crossing their horizon. Not only the danger there may be n-times as big, you may even hit an [[wikipedia:Apeiron_(cosmology)\|Apeiron]] as [[Vopěnka]] nicely explains. We have no such fear. Rather we believe that the same laws that can be applied here can be applied behind horizon as well. No surprise we often face [[paradox]]es!

-	We have learned that we cannot apply Newton's physics to something fast. We know we cannot apply it to things too small. Greeks would give up can admit that they cannot estimate what is behind the horizon (of something too distant or something too small). What is our response? We still believe that everywhere in the cosmos the same physic laws can be applied. We still believe we can explain them once all. Why? Yes, the enormous success of science in last few centuries ~~may gave~~ us some trust. But deeper below that is the old good [[Renaissance]] trust to the biggest guarantor. The [[wikipedia:Jesus\|Christian God]] is good, loves scientists and ''does not play a dimes'', or does it?	+	We have learned that we cannot apply Newton's physics to something fast. We know we cannot apply it to things too small. Greeks would give up can admit that they cannot estimate what is behind the horizon (of something too distant or something too small). What is our response? We still believe that everywhere in the cosmos the same physic laws can be applied. We still believe we can explain them once all. Why? Yes, the enormous success of science in last few centuries might give us some trust. But deeper below that is the old good [[Renaissance]] trust to the biggest guarantor. The [[wikipedia:Jesus\|Christian God]] is good, loves scientists and ''does not play a dimes'', or does it?

	== Conclusion ==		== Conclusion ==

JaroslavTulach: /* Conclusion */

2011-06-09T15:52:31Z

Conclusion

←Older revision		Revision as of 15:52, 9 June 2011
Line 54:		Line 54:
	In spite, or maybe even because the ''flaws'' I listed above I believe it is worth to read the [[IsGodAMathematician]] book. I enjoyed it. The book gives a clear and wide overview of the history of the math. It describes important milestones on its evolution paths. If you want to ask additional questions that Petr [[Vopěnka]] answers in [[The Key Stone of European Knowledge]] and which I outlined above, you may treat the [[IsGodAMathematician]] book as a gentle introduction to the topic. Then you can either answer them yourself or learn Czech and read the original.		In spite, or maybe even because the ''flaws'' I listed above I believe it is worth to read the [[IsGodAMathematician]] book. I enjoyed it. The book gives a clear and wide overview of the history of the math. It describes important milestones on its evolution paths. If you want to ask additional questions that Petr [[Vopěnka]] answers in [[The Key Stone of European Knowledge]] and which I outlined above, you may treat the [[IsGodAMathematician]] book as a gentle introduction to the topic. Then you can either answer them yourself or learn Czech and read the original.

-	Even if you are programmer you may find [[IsGodAMathematician]] an interesting read. In spite the book ignores any achievements in computer science, it will give you excellent insight into [[rationalism]] and [[empiricism]] which you can later (after reading [[TheAPIBook]]) use to help your users to become [[clueless]]. Because your fellow developers don't care whether ''God plays dimes or not'', rather whether he [[Yet_Another_Design_Book%3F#Versioning\|versions the world properly]].	+	Even if you are programmer you may find [[IsGodAMathematician]] an interesting read. In spite the book ignores any achievements in computer science, it will give you excellent insight into [[rationalism]] and [[empiricism]] which you can later (after reading [[TheAPIBook]]) use to help your users to become [[clueless]]. Because your fellow developers don't care whether ''God (e.g you as author of the [[API]]) plays dimes or not'', rather whether he [[Yet_Another_Design_Book%3F#Versioning\|versions the world properly]].

	== Buy ==		== Buy ==

193.9.13.136: /* The Trust */

2011-06-09T08:36:32Z

The Trust

←Older revision		Revision as of 08:36, 9 June 2011
Line 48:		Line 48:
	Whenever we apply or verify our knowledge we can do it only inside boundaries of the known world. What is behind a horizon is unknown. Old Greeks would think twice before crossing their horizon. Not only the danger there may be n-times as big, you may even hit an [[wikipedia:Apeiron_(cosmology)\|Apeiron]] as [[Vopěnka]] nicely explains. We have no such fear. Rather we believe that the same laws that can be applied here can be applied behind horizon as well. No surprise we often face [[paradox]]es!		Whenever we apply or verify our knowledge we can do it only inside boundaries of the known world. What is behind a horizon is unknown. Old Greeks would think twice before crossing their horizon. Not only the danger there may be n-times as big, you may even hit an [[wikipedia:Apeiron_(cosmology)\|Apeiron]] as [[Vopěnka]] nicely explains. We have no such fear. Rather we believe that the same laws that can be applied here can be applied behind horizon as well. No surprise we often face [[paradox]]es!

-	We have ~~leaned~~ that we cannot apply Newton's physics to something fast. We know we cannot apply it to things too small. Greeks would give up can admit that they cannot estimate what is behind the horizon (of something too distant or something too small). What is our response? We still believe that everywhere in the cosmos the same physic laws can be applied. We still believe we can explain them once all. Why? Yes, the enormous success of science in last few centuries may gave us some trust. But deeper below that is the old good [[Renaissance]] trust to the biggest guarantor. The [[wikipedia:Jesus\|Christian God]] is good, loves scientists and ''does not play a dimes'', or does it?	+	We have learned that we cannot apply Newton's physics to something fast. We know we cannot apply it to things too small. Greeks would give up can admit that they cannot estimate what is behind the horizon (of something too distant or something too small). What is our response? We still believe that everywhere in the cosmos the same physic laws can be applied. We still believe we can explain them once all. Why? Yes, the enormous success of science in last few centuries may gave us some trust. But deeper below that is the old good [[Renaissance]] trust to the biggest guarantor. The [[wikipedia:Jesus\|Christian God]] is good, loves scientists and ''does not play a dimes'', or does it?

	== Conclusion ==		== Conclusion ==

JaroslavTulach: /* Conclusion */

2011-06-07T20:08:04Z

Conclusion

←Older revision		Revision as of 20:08, 7 June 2011
Line 52:		Line 52:
	== Conclusion ==		== Conclusion ==

-	In spite, or maybe even because the ''flaws'' I listed above I believe it is worth to read the [[IsGodAMathematician]] book. I enjoyed it. The book gives a clear and wide overview of the history of the math. It describes important milestones on its evolution paths. If you want to ask additional questions that Petr [[Vopěnka]] answers in [[The Key Stone of European Knowledge]] and which I outlined above, you may treat the [[IsGodAMathematician]] book as a gentle introduction to the topic. Then you can either answer them yourself or learn Czech read the original.	+	In spite, or maybe even because the ''flaws'' I listed above I believe it is worth to read the [[IsGodAMathematician]] book. I enjoyed it. The book gives a clear and wide overview of the history of the math. It describes important milestones on its evolution paths. If you want to ask additional questions that Petr [[Vopěnka]] answers in [[The Key Stone of European Knowledge]] and which I outlined above, you may treat the [[IsGodAMathematician]] book as a gentle introduction to the topic. Then you can either answer them yourself or learn Czech and read the original.

	Even if you are programmer you may find [[IsGodAMathematician]] an interesting read. In spite the book ignores any achievements in computer science, it will give you excellent insight into [[rationalism]] and [[empiricism]] which you can later (after reading [[TheAPIBook]]) use to help your users to become [[clueless]]. Because your fellow developers don't care whether ''God plays dimes or not'', rather whether he [[Yet_Another_Design_Book%3F#Versioning\|versions the world properly]].		Even if you are programmer you may find [[IsGodAMathematician]] an interesting read. In spite the book ignores any achievements in computer science, it will give you excellent insight into [[rationalism]] and [[empiricism]] which you can later (after reading [[TheAPIBook]]) use to help your users to become [[clueless]]. Because your fellow developers don't care whether ''God plays dimes or not'', rather whether he [[Yet_Another_Design_Book%3F#Versioning\|versions the world properly]].

JaroslavTulach: /* Conclusion */

2011-06-07T20:07:46Z

Conclusion

←Older revision		Revision as of 20:07, 7 June 2011
Line 52:		Line 52:
	== Conclusion ==		== Conclusion ==

-	In spite, or maybe even because the ''flaws'' I listed above I believe it is worth to read the [[IsGodAMathematician]] book. I enjoyed it. The book gives a clear and wide overview of the history of the math. It describes important milestones on its evolution paths. If you want to ask additional questions that Petr [[Vopěnka]] answers in [[The Key Stone of European Knowledge]] and which I outlined above, you may treat the [[IsGodAMathematician]] as a gentle introduction to the topic. Then you can either answer them yourself or learn Czech read the original.	+	In spite, or maybe even because the ''flaws'' I listed above I believe it is worth to read the [[IsGodAMathematician]] book. I enjoyed it. The book gives a clear and wide overview of the history of the math. It describes important milestones on its evolution paths. If you want to ask additional questions that Petr [[Vopěnka]] answers in [[The Key Stone of European Knowledge]] and which I outlined above, you may treat the [[IsGodAMathematician]] book as a gentle introduction to the topic. Then you can either answer them yourself or learn Czech read the original.

	Even if you are programmer you may find [[IsGodAMathematician]] an interesting read. In spite the book ignores any achievements in computer science, it will give you excellent insight into [[rationalism]] and [[empiricism]] which you can later (after reading [[TheAPIBook]]) use to help your users to become [[clueless]]. Because your fellow developers don't care whether ''God plays dimes or not'', rather whether he [[Yet_Another_Design_Book%3F#Versioning\|versions the world properly]].		Even if you are programmer you may find [[IsGodAMathematician]] an interesting read. In spite the book ignores any achievements in computer science, it will give you excellent insight into [[rationalism]] and [[empiricism]] which you can later (after reading [[TheAPIBook]]) use to help your users to become [[clueless]]. Because your fellow developers don't care whether ''God plays dimes or not'', rather whether he [[Yet_Another_Design_Book%3F#Versioning\|versions the world properly]].

JaroslavTulach: /* Conclusion */

2011-06-07T20:07:25Z

Conclusion

←Older revision		Revision as of 20:07, 7 June 2011
Line 52:		Line 52:
	== Conclusion ==		== Conclusion ==

-	In spite, or maybe even because the ''flaws'' I listed above I believe it is worth to read the [[IsGodAMathematician]] book. I enjoyed it. The book gives a clear and wide overview of the history of the math. It describes important milestones on its evolution paths. If you want to ask ~~question~~ Petr [[Vopěnka]] answers in [[The Key Stone of European Knowledge]] and which I outlined above, you may treat the [[IsGodAMathematician]] as a gentle introduction to the topic. Then you can either answer them yourself or learn Czech read the original.	+	In spite, or maybe even because the ''flaws'' I listed above I believe it is worth to read the [[IsGodAMathematician]] book. I enjoyed it. The book gives a clear and wide overview of the history of the math. It describes important milestones on its evolution paths. If you want to ask additional questions that Petr [[Vopěnka]] answers in [[The Key Stone of European Knowledge]] and which I outlined above, you may treat the [[IsGodAMathematician]] as a gentle introduction to the topic. Then you can either answer them yourself or learn Czech read the original.

	Even if you are programmer you may find [[IsGodAMathematician]] an interesting read. In spite the book ignores any achievements in computer science, it will give you excellent insight into [[rationalism]] and [[empiricism]] which you can later (after reading [[TheAPIBook]]) use to help your users to become [[clueless]]. Because your fellow developers don't care whether ''God plays dimes or not'', rather whether he [[Yet_Another_Design_Book%3F#Versioning\|versions the world properly]].		Even if you are programmer you may find [[IsGodAMathematician]] an interesting read. In spite the book ignores any achievements in computer science, it will give you excellent insight into [[rationalism]] and [[empiricism]] which you can later (after reading [[TheAPIBook]]) use to help your users to become [[clueless]]. Because your fellow developers don't care whether ''God plays dimes or not'', rather whether he [[Yet_Another_Design_Book%3F#Versioning\|versions the world properly]].

JaroslavTulach: /* The Trust */

2011-06-07T20:06:34Z

The Trust

←Older revision		Revision as of 20:06, 7 June 2011
Line 48:		Line 48:
	Whenever we apply or verify our knowledge we can do it only inside boundaries of the known world. What is behind a horizon is unknown. Old Greeks would think twice before crossing their horizon. Not only the danger there may be n-times as big, you may even hit an [[wikipedia:Apeiron_(cosmology)\|Apeiron]] as [[Vopěnka]] nicely explains. We have no such fear. Rather we believe that the same laws that can be applied here can be applied behind horizon as well. No surprise we often face [[paradox]]es!		Whenever we apply or verify our knowledge we can do it only inside boundaries of the known world. What is behind a horizon is unknown. Old Greeks would think twice before crossing their horizon. Not only the danger there may be n-times as big, you may even hit an [[wikipedia:Apeiron_(cosmology)\|Apeiron]] as [[Vopěnka]] nicely explains. We have no such fear. Rather we believe that the same laws that can be applied here can be applied behind horizon as well. No surprise we often face [[paradox]]es!

-	We have leaned that we cannot apply Newton's physics to something fast. We know we cannot apply it to things too small. Greeks would give up can admit that they cannot estimate what is behind the horizon (of something too distant or something too small). What is our response? We still believe that everywhere in the cosmos the same physic laws can be applied. We still believe we can explain them once all. Why? Yes, the enormous success of science in last few centuries may ~~give~~ us some trust. But deeper below that is the old good [[Renaissance]] trust to the biggest guarantor. The [[wikipedia:Jesus\|Christian God]] is good, loves scientists and ''does not play a dimes'', or does it?	+	We have leaned that we cannot apply Newton's physics to something fast. We know we cannot apply it to things too small. Greeks would give up can admit that they cannot estimate what is behind the horizon (of something too distant or something too small). What is our response? We still believe that everywhere in the cosmos the same physic laws can be applied. We still believe we can explain them once all. Why? Yes, the enormous success of science in last few centuries may gave us some trust. But deeper below that is the old good [[Renaissance]] trust to the biggest guarantor. The [[wikipedia:Jesus\|Christian God]] is good, loves scientists and ''does not play a dimes'', or does it?

	== Conclusion ==		== Conclusion ==

JaroslavTulach: /* The Trust */

2011-06-07T20:05:58Z

The Trust

←Older revision		Revision as of 20:05, 7 June 2011
Line 48:		Line 48:
	Whenever we apply or verify our knowledge we can do it only inside boundaries of the known world. What is behind a horizon is unknown. Old Greeks would think twice before crossing their horizon. Not only the danger there may be n-times as big, you may even hit an [[wikipedia:Apeiron_(cosmology)\|Apeiron]] as [[Vopěnka]] nicely explains. We have no such fear. Rather we believe that the same laws that can be applied here can be applied behind horizon as well. No surprise we often face [[paradox]]es!		Whenever we apply or verify our knowledge we can do it only inside boundaries of the known world. What is behind a horizon is unknown. Old Greeks would think twice before crossing their horizon. Not only the danger there may be n-times as big, you may even hit an [[wikipedia:Apeiron_(cosmology)\|Apeiron]] as [[Vopěnka]] nicely explains. We have no such fear. Rather we believe that the same laws that can be applied here can be applied behind horizon as well. No surprise we often face [[paradox]]es!

-	We have leaned that we cannot apply Newton's physics to something fast. We know we cannot apply it to things too small. Greeks would give up can admit that they cannot estimate what is behind the horizon. What is our response? We still believe that everywhere in the cosmos the same physic laws can be applied. We still believe we can explain them once all. Why? Yes, the enormous success of science in last few centuries may give us some trust. But deeper below that is the old good [[Renaissance]] trust to the biggest guarantor. The [[wikipedia:Jesus\|Christian God]] is good, loves scientists and ''does not play a dimes'', or does it?	+	We have leaned that we cannot apply Newton's physics to something fast. We know we cannot apply it to things too small. Greeks would give up can admit that they cannot estimate what is behind the horizon (of something too distant or something too small). What is our response? We still believe that everywhere in the cosmos the same physic laws can be applied. We still believe we can explain them once all. Why? Yes, the enormous success of science in last few centuries may give us some trust. But deeper below that is the old good [[Renaissance]] trust to the biggest guarantor. The [[wikipedia:Jesus\|Christian God]] is good, loves scientists and ''does not play a dimes'', or does it?

	== Conclusion ==		== Conclusion ==