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
I Disagree, Dr. Dick!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on October 18, 2002 10:35:57 UTC

I disagree, Dr. Dick.

Quoting:

"The view of "reality" I present consists of a random presentation of random information (in essence, no rules what-so-ever)."

Randomness is a myth.

As I showed in another post (and my analysis digs deep into your corner-stone of "adding unknown data"), your whole paper hinges heavily on "complementarity"; it is saturated with implicit rules! Whenever you "add "unknown data" to "make something unique": your sets and your added data are required to be complementary in very specific ways. I proved this and I doubt you can refute it!

And I also showed that your sets were internally known to each other by your process (to be uniquely associated with something is surely to "know" it?)


Quoting: "In such a picture, consistency doesn't even have meaning. The consistency is in the explanation of the information, not in the information."

"Information", to exist at all; can not be contradictory (self-anihilating). Or it would not exist. However, a PERSPECTIVE on information may be only partial, and potentially be dismantled when other clarifying information comes to hand.

Quoting: "This picture cannot be force fit into anyone's model; not so long as they believe that reality has "rules"."

Who said "rality" has any rules other than to exist is to exist?

Quote: "No one, save myself, has ever attempted to examine the consequences of such a reality (as to do so is to invite ridicule). Chapter one is an attempt to show that such a picture is not ridiculous. The rest of the paper is an opening attempt to predict the consequences of such a picture of reality. Thus, unless they can follow the math, the rest of the paper is totally beside the point. "

You might be claiming that: when a scientist talks of scientific reality he uses definitions based on the past to predict the "future". And that the laws of physics are inherent in the re-assignment of these definitions, within the allowed-for "future" possibilities of inter-dependence and partial differentiation of those definitions. Such that the scientists belief of actually predicting the future may be an illusion exposed by you as a statistical conjuring trick?

You might not be correct though (the "fallacy of equivocation" haunts your work?)

Quoting:

"For the most part, I have no hope of ever really reaching anyone."

All you need to do is have a sustained conversation in good faith with other people who are interested in doing likewise.

Quoting:

"My thoughts are far to alien to even be considered by others."

They do consider your thoughts; please consider their considerations!

Regards,

dolphin

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