You have completely missed the point! You didn't even begin to follow what I was saying. "Your mental model of the universe is not well thought out!": i.e., you already had it before you even considered the issue of rational thought. I have solved the problem of "setting up a rational model of any possible set of data".

You either show me a finite set of data which cannot be analized via the model I have constructed or you show me an explicit error in my deductions! What I have presented is a "tautology" -- if you accept my definition of reality (reality is a set of numbers)then everything I present is a consequence of the definition of reality and has no bearing whatsoever on any real observations.

Another way that statement can be taken is that I am aware of no experiment ever made by anyone which tells us anything about the rules of the universe. Our mental image is no more than an convient method of organizing random information.
All these great discoveries of science are just consequences of their definitions the whole thing is circular reasoning!!!

• I have a question about an assumption - richard - January 11, 2001 - 16:59 UTC
  • Re: I have a question about an assumption - doctordick - January 11, 2001 - 19:00 UTC
  • Re: I have a question about an assumption - doctordick - January 11, 2001 - 19:10 UTC
• What is the source of the data sets? - jim_b - January 12, 2001 - 06:29 UTC
  • Re: What is the source of the data sets? - doctordick - January 12, 2001 - 17:31 UTC
    • Keep working on it - jim_b - January 13, 2001 - 06:56 UTC