Back to Home

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
Sorry That I Am Fast

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on September 20, 2002 17:37:10 UTC

Dick,

I like quick pace action.

***H: 6. It is possible to label all 'things' with a number if we can identify those 'things' for discussion. 'Dead horses' are excluded. D: I still prefer "6. It is possible to label all of these "things" with numbers". First, why should "dead horses" be excluded. You have apparently misunderstood my reference. My reference was to the issues you keep bringing up which I already understand***

I used the 'dead horse' when discussing 'things' that do not have identity (or at least identities that allow numbers to be labelled to 'them'). Such a 'dead horse' is not something that your version of (6) properly handles. We should exclude 'dead horses' since you said we cannot even discuss them. Okay, we won't discuss them, but let's not include them in (6) then.

***And second, the statement you make limits the analysis to whoever is referred to by "we". That limit is not required by my perspective. If this "thing" has ever been referred to or can ever be referred to then a number can be attached to it. Reference itself is completely equivalent to "attaching a number".***

Okay, let me modify (6) accordingly:

(6) It is possible to label all 'things' with a number if that "thing" has been referred to or can ever be referred to. 'Dead horses' are those 'things' that fail that criteria, and are therefore excluded.

***The "things" I am referring to either actually exist as part of "Ultimate Reality" or can be thought to exist (a rather open category), I am merely moving the problem of "language" into an abstract form so that we can avoid the problems inherent in its use (problems you seem to have a clear concept of).***

And, I agree. Let's separate those 'things' which cannot ever be identified from (6), so that we know that they are not somehow including them as part of your model. Why does it seem that you are trying to preclude the possibility of unidentifiables as existing? Leave them (i.e., their possibility) out of (6) and let's get on with your other points. If you insist on eliminating the possibility of there being unidentifiable 'things', then I think that you are just trying to pull a fast one. If that is the case, then you should join the others at the G&S forum who are trying to pull fast ones (e.g., creationists). No fast ones please.

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