|
Hi Dick,
20. >>>I have read what you said and find that I differ with you quite a bit. The difference begins as very small but grows quite wide as the attack diverges from my intention.>I will comment on each of the steps in the outline of your argument. I think you will find that our positions diverge quite rapidly.>[Paul:] 6. Now, to begin my argument, the common starting point for all three of the endeavors I mentioned, -- your paper, mathematical theory, and my writing of this post -- is that one thinker intends to convey an idea to another thinker.
[Dick:] I believe this is the true source of our miscommunication. This is not a common starting point. My starting point is a collection of undefined information without understanding of any kind; whereas, your starting point is that you have some idea you wish to convey. These are totally different problems. You have assumed the problem I have posed has been solved correctly by your subconscious. >>My starting point is a collection of undefined information without understanding of any kind>whereas, your starting point is that you have some idea you wish to convey.>These are totally different problems.>>You must also assume it is possible the statement is in error.>A trivial adjustment perhaps but, if one wishes to avoid assumption, this must be included as an assumption. Here I make a dig at Yanniru. What I am saying is that the only way to avoid assumption is to assume all possibilities are possible. >>[Paul:] 7) Let 'existence' be defined as reality (as you define it) in union with any incommunicable concepts.
[Dick:] At this point in the discussion, I (in my work) have defined but one concept "Reality". Why are we defining another concept? It only serves to complicate issues (as far as I can tell, the two concepts you are trying to talk about are totally equivalent: reality is information - which exists). >[Paul:] 8) Your development shows that reality must obey your equation (1.28), but other parts of existence need not obey (1.28) and may thus be exempt from the laws of physics.
[Dick:] My development shows that any information I have to work with may be cast in a form such that those "laws of physics" which I deduce must be obeyed. The obedience is entirely tied to my definitions and has nothing at all to do with the character of the information. >[Paul:] 9) The subconscious is a likely candidate for being part of this non-real existence.
[Dick:] Now here you are putting forth an undefined (from my perspective) term "subconscious". The existence of this term in your discussion implies you are working with a mental model (clearly not the one I have constructed because mine includes no such definition). I will presume the mental model you are working with is the one created by your subconscious. |
