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 Don't Think So

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on October 18, 2002 15:19:30 UTC


***how can things of ultimate reality be representable? If ultimate means "nothing missing", you must interact directly with it, surely? Where does that leave "representation", but as non-ultimate by definition?***

What do you mean by representation? Do you mean human constructs that give us insight into the universe? If so, then they are just that - human constructs. If they are more than that, how would we know that? See my reply to Mike which you didn't respond to.

***Is "representation" approximation, or partial, or a little fuzzy, or not the same as the real thing?***

Is an artist's painting of Mt.Everest the same as Mt.Everest? A representation is just that, a representation.

***Ultimate representation of Michael Jordan is by Michael Jordan, living in communion with Existence (God), isn't it?***

As is common with you, you are getting hooked up on words and phrases. What do you mean 'communion with existence'? You don't commune with existence any more than you commune with thoughts. You have thoughts and something exists or it doesn't exist.

***We are not ignorant of ulimate reality. We interact directly with it every day. Like you interact with your computer. Just my word use "your computer" may be open to debate on definition precision and agreement.***

I am not saying we are ignorant of an ultimate reality, nor am I saying we don't directly interact with it. All I am saying is that we cannot identify what is ultimate reality and what is not since whatever we identify is open to further reductions. For example, let's say I identify an atom as constituting ultimate reality (e.g., akin to Demitrius' philosophy). The problem here is that atoms are already known to be constituted with nucleui and electrons. The nucleui are constituted with protons and neutrons. And protons and netrons are constituted by quarks. Hence, my original declaration that I knew atoms constitute ultimate reality was false. I did not know or experience ultimate reality, I simply identified a structure which is an approximation to what might ultimate (or simply an invented concept used for pragmatic purposes - eg, nuclear power).

Hence, any model reportedly of ultimate reality is fallible and liable to be completely false.


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 1994-2018 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