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

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.


"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?)


"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.


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

They do consider your thoughts; please consider their considerations!



Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 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