Back to Home

General Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Misc. Topics | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Concerning Reality - Part II

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Paul R. Martin on August 12, 2001 03:15:45 UTC

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.

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 1994-2021 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