Dick,
Since you mentioned my name I'll take that opportunity to have more discussion with you (:
>>>As an aside, Harv seems to be blind to the fact that definitions, in general, change from generation to generation if not from conversation to conversation. A rational person must realize that definition exists only in the minds of communicating individuals and is a very hard thing to pin down. I am afraid I have given up on most all of the people on these forums: I have concluded Harv's thinking is straight out of the dark ages - the concept of abstract logic is totally outside his ken.>>In Harv's note to you he asks the question, "why should things move from not quantified, to quantified, to extremely quantified by math unless there is [mathematical] order to the universe?" Why? Because we have figured out a convenient way of cataloging reality.>>What is central to my presentation is that the quantification he refers to exists in a rational attack on the problem prior to any examination of reality: i.e., I move entirely from "not quantified" to "extremely quantified" before beginning any examination of reality. The position ends up being "the fact that these mathematical laws hold" has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with our model of reality. We must recognize that fact before we can make any rational examination of reality. |