Happy Halloween

Astronomy Discussion Forums

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Getting Closer

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on November 4, 2002 02:45:30 UTC

Dick,

I'm gonna skip replying to the 'debate about the debate' since I'd rather keep moving forward on our discussion.

What I noticed is another attempt to re-insert the word 'probability' (this time with a different meaning). Fortunately, I have received your definition of the term, so I'm ready for ya this time:

***"I have no problem applying one label because that is certainly [something that can be done by Dick]; however, (...) you seem to believe that there is no other [something that can be done by Dick]. If one is to take the position that what they believe to be true is the only [something that can be done by Dick] then there is no point to thinking at all."***

Ah, notice how your response utterly fails to handle the objection once we substitued what you mean by 'probability' back into the text? If this labelling of components of 'Ultimate Reality' is something that 'can be' done by you, then do it. How is that done Dick? How do you know how to label more than 'Ultimate Reality' other than what we've already defined it as 'all that exists' or '24'? This is not something that 'can be' done by you. You must either re-define what you mean by 'probability' (or 'probable') or you must accept that one label (e.g., '24') is all that 'can be' done by you.

***"The error in your statement [that we cannot quantify descriptions of 'Ultimate Reality'] falls to the phrase "we must understand the properties of '24'". Why must we understand anything before we can refer to it? My point is that we cannot understand anything unless we can first refer to it! Think about it once! Can't you comprehend that the constraint you are placing on your thoughts is that you cannot think about anything you do not understand? That constraint is ridiculous on the face of it. It implies you cannot think! The issue of my presentation is that I wish to think about things I do not understand... The absolute first step is to make sure I have a way of handling references which I do not understand."

You must understand what properties a thing has before you can refer to that thing. Do you agree or not? For example, if an Italian asked for you to find a 'matita' on the desk, you wouldn't know what they were referring to unless you had a rough understanding of the properties of a 'matita'. If the Italian clarified himself by saying "I'm sorry, I cannot think o of the English word. I need a writing instrument that is long and narrow having lead". You might respond, "you mean a pencil?" and they respond "Ah, yes, pencil, that's the word I was looking for, do you have a pencil?".

If you cannot refer to what an Italian means by 'matita', then you are stuck with just the word itself. It means nothing to you other than what the word sounds like as it is spoken, or how it looks written down. But, you can forget knowing more about the description of the object that was spoken in Italian. Likewise, when you speak of 'Ultimate Reality', adding description to that term is useless since you cannot show what the 'components of Ultimate Reality' mean when you don't even know if 'components' has any meaning whatsoever. Even talking about 'components' is incorrect since you are taking your experience of the world as you see it (that includes mathematics) and trying to use this as a means to label the world that is not known to be experienced.

***If you could follow the treatment, you would see that my analysis is valid in either case!***

Here is our chief disagreement. In order for a description of '24' (or, if you prefer, 'Ultimate Reality', 'everything that exists', etc) to be valid, we must understand the properties of '24', but this is what I'm saying that we cannot know. The only way we can know the properties of '24' is by basing that reasoning on human logic. However, there is no way to know that the properties of '24' are in line with human logic.



***If you could follow the treatment, you would see that my analysis is valid in either case!***

Here is our chief disagreement. In order for a description of '24' (or, if you prefer, 'Ultimate Reality', 'everything that exists', etc) to be valid, we must understand the properties of '24', but this is what I'm saying that we cannot know. The only way we can know the properties of '24' is by basing that reasoning on human logic. However, there is no way to know that the properties of '24' are in line with human logic.

***D: I am not seeking to quantify 'Ultimate Reality' at all. That is a complete figment in your imagination. What I am doing is proposing a totally unconstrained method of quantifying descriptions of 'Ultimate Reality'. H: What are the primitives of your method? What are your axioms? Whatever they are, they may (A) or may not be (B) true of the properties of '24'. If they are true (A), well, then all is good and well. If not true (B) of '24' (or not applicable to '24'), then your method doesn't work at all. D: Harv, I assure you that my method is as valid for '24' as it is for any other description of 'Ultimate Reality'.***

How can you assure me that your method is valid? To assure me it is valid you have to convince me that 'Ultimate Reality' works based on the laws of human classical logic? However, even many logicians are not convinced that classical logic work beyond practical matters.

***With regard to that issue, suppose I wished to talk about that part of 'Ultimate Reality' which is green? Are you trying to tell me there is no part of 'Ultimate Reality' which has the characteristic "green"? Or are you contending that the color "green" plays no part in 'Ultimate Reality'? Maybe you should go talk to Aurino about that!***

Green might be something that works for humans. When we analyze the issue, we find that 'green' varies based on human interpretations. For example, is the color 'frosty lime' green, or is it another color? What 'icy blue', is it part of green, part of blue, part of white? Is color something that even exists? That is, doesn't the photon have different wave frequencies and aren't some people color blind, etc? In the end, these issues throw serious doubt on the view that 'green' is part of 'Ultimate Reality'. If (7) is based on this kind of thinking, then you need to re-think your approach.

***What I am doing is proposing a totally unconstrained method of quantifying descriptions of 'Ultimate Reality'.***

If (B) [your axioms are not true for 'Ultimate Reality'], then you haven't quantified anything about 'Ultimate Reality'. Since we cannot know if (A) [axioms are true for 'Ultimate Reality'] is true or (B) is true, there is no way to assume (7) as true since it requires (A) to be true. If (A) is false, then so is (7).

Warm regards, Harv

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins