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
Trudging Through Murky Waters

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on October 30, 2002 15:30:13 UTC

Hi Dick,

You might have had fun if you would have gone to the bar. I'm sure after having a few drinks you could have shared your 'model of reality' on a few of the younger ladies...

So, by 'can be' I understand you mean the following:

a) Something that you, in particular, can perform, and any one else if they have the proper analytical skills.

b) An immortal hypothetical 'you' could perform the task even more thoroughly.

But, herein is the problem. By 'Ultimate Reality' you mean that which actually 'exists'. You haven't shown me how you can label something that actually exists versus something that you think exists. However, as I've said on numerous occasions, what if 'Ultimate Reality' is not quantifiable? In that situation, the best you could do is label 'Ultimate Reality' with just a number and that's it.

Since you cannot know if 'Ultimate Reality' is quantifiable or not, the best you can do is label 'Ultimate Reality' by a number, and leave it at that. Anything more, would be an invalid assumption about something that you have no idea if you are even remotely correct.

***--#6 Ok, so I label everything with the number symbol 24! I can now refer to anything with the number 24! I have done what #6 says I can do! regarding #7, unless I just happen to know "Ultimate Reality" exactly, not all those "24's" above can be referring to "portions" of "Ultimate Reality" so the set that does must be unknown! Furthermore, if I don't tell you I labeled things that way, 24 itself is an unknown number from your perspective.***

That's right, you can label 'Ultimate Reality' by the number 24, but this is all that you can do. You cannot go further than that.

***If I were immortal, I could easily explicitly describe more ways of performing such a labeling then could be written down in a billion years.***

What difference would a billion years make? I don't see how a billion years would allow you to say more about 'Ultimate Reality' than that it is unknown and that you labelled it with the number 24.

***I think the real problem here is that you do not understand the purpose of my labeling. All I am saying in my listed points is that such a labeling can be performed. I am saying absolutely nothing about the procedure used to create those labels; and that is the important issue!***

The problem is with (7):

7. That portion of true "Ultimate Reality" on which any individuals beliefs are based can be referred to via an unknown set of unknown numbers (that set of numbers being the symbols of which map into the labels referred to in point (6)).

Since you don't know more about 'Ultimate Reality' other than it is all that exists and this is represented by the number 24, you cannot separate false beliefs from true beliefs based on any number labelling scheme. As far as we know, all human beliefs are both 24 and non-24 beliefs.

***I stated explicitly that I would accept any meaning to the word "thing" so long as anything (i.e., any - thing) which can be referred to is a member of that set. You just referred to "Ultimate Reality" therefore it is a member of the set of "things" referred to in my statements.***

You are assuming that 'Ultimate Reality' is quantifiable. This is an invalid assumption.

***We do not know it cannot be and that case must also be included in the analysis! That is the reason that I refer to the set of numbers as "unknown".***

You can't use numbers for an unquantifiable situation. If you use numbers for such a situation (even if you consider such numbers as 'unknown' references), you are making the mistake of quantifying something that is unquantifiable.

This mistaken assumption is based on the premise that all things are quantifiable. However, this is a mistaken assumption since we don't know if all things are quantifiable. You seem to be bent on shoot first and ask questions later. You don't care if the world is really quantifiable, you are going to quantify it anyway and treat it as though it were quantifiable. The problem is that all of your results are based on this faulty assumption.

***You seem to have a very strong compulsion to read more into what I am saying than I am actually saying.***

Anytime someone seeks to quantify something they don't know anything about makes me squeamish.

Warm regards, Harv

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 1994-2023 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