Has any one read these anti-mathematics and anti-science books?

Question

THese books argue that all mathematics and science are meaningless becuase they collapse into self contradiction THe mystery is how they work when logically they are meaningless or self contradictory I found these books on a yahoo answers. I downloaded some -they are free . they argur that maths and science are full of paraoxes that make them locgically meaningless
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/gamahucher_press_catalogue.htm

Answer 1

Of coarse, all facts are based on axioms, and axioms are assumptions with absolutely no proof. For that reason, nothing can be proven. Yes, there is a lot of self-contradiction but that doesn't make science meaningless. On the contrary, the quest is to iron out the contradictions.

melouofs, why do you assume it will be a religious group? This could be a bona-fide scientist trying to point out that we could totally re-write all of physics and maths by selecting a different set of axioms and the new laws would be just as factual as the current laws. That being said, for general relativity the axioms WERE re-written (i.e. non-euclidean geometry) although the axioms were written by the ancient greeks, not by Einstein.

Anyway, I am quite satisfied that the axioms we use which lead to the theories I have learned satisfy the purposes for which they were written. The computer I am using was designed and built upon those axioms, and it works perfectly fine.

Sure, logically physics and maths is meaningless, but this isn't a phylosophy forum.

Answer 2

These arguments prove only the meaninglessness of that philosophy itself. It's an example of the application of a classical tool of logic, reduction to absurdity. Follow a premise to its logical conclusion. If that conclusion is absurd, the premise is probably wrong.

Some say that what I observe and call reality is not reality, but instead is purely a fictional creation of my mind. Indeed, I can't prove or disprove that. But if it's true, who created my mind and gave it this fantastic capability?

True meaning is that God created the universe and everything in it, and that there is absolute truth. If you refuse to even consider this as fact, then you are ruling out the answer even before you ask the question, and your results are likely to be meaningless and absurd.

Answer 3

have not examine the books, yet agree that maths and technological information might want to be self-contradictory and paradoxical. Maths and technological information seek for reality, yet are human-built fashions of nature. The fashions are a techniques from ideal, yet for describing an excellent type of phenomena, they artwork nicely adequate for us to position self belief in, and all of us comprehend the bounds of their applicability. A style doesn't could artwork in all circumstances to be significant - we basically could understand what those circumstances are. for this reason we oftentimes guard more effective than one style for describing an identical phenomenon (e.g. Newton's equations of action vs relativity - even although we've commonplace for one hundred years that Newton's equations are "incorrect" and performance had a more effective precise style attainable, we proceed to apply them interior their scope because they're a lot more convenient and in sensible words supply us an identical answer).

Answer 4

I can argue that the Jolly Green Giant is Adolf Hitler. You can argue just about anything but that doesn't mean that you are right. They don't have to believe in science or math, but if I need an emergency appendectomy I'm hoping my doctor studied it and believes it too! The willfully ignorant will bring on their own doom.

Answer 5

How have you got the nerve to type theories about how physics is self-contradictory and meaningless on a computer????????????

Answer 6

I never heard of them, but who is the author, some religious group?

Answer 7

sounds like rather meaningless drivel