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 IV

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Paul R. Martin on September 10, 2001 00:17:57 UTC

Hi Dick,

132. >>>Sorry about my slowness to respond. I just wanted to make sure I don't say anything to lead you towards a misunderstanding.>I don't think I have any real argument with you as to what you say>but I do believe there are some unsaid things which you are assuming.>Ref 108: Just as an aside, my formalism stands even if there exists no other person.>Such a state is entirely consistent with my analysis; you could indeed be a complete figment of my imagination.>That issue [,of solipsism,] has not been approached in my analysis but it is clearly a possibility which is included in my attack.>Only actual examination of reality can clarify the question.>What is significant here is that my deductions precede any actual analysis of reality: they constitute nothing except an organization of my thoughts as to how I will proceed to examine reality.>So it is that we have not agreed on 1)>>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.>Ref 116: please see "More on the abstract concept of Reality" under "To Harv on Truth".>On Ref 119, I hold that if that is indeed the case, [that you have in your head a concept of reality which cannot be represented as a set of numbers,] you certainly cannot communicate the concept to me!>I can not see that anything which you *know* which I cannot come to know can be useful to me. Ditto, Ref 120.Ref's 124, 125, 126, & 127. Maybe so>but we can't talk about it rationally!Ref 129 and 130. I would put my awareness in the category of unexplainable but I would not put my subconscious in that category.>>I am of the opinion that the source of the schism you refer to [131] is a subtle consequence of an aspect of reality completely ignored by science.>If you can step back for a moment from the mental image of reality your subconscious has created for you, I think you might begin to comprehend the circumstance. That is, step back from your intuition, your emotional feelings of what is true and what is false: i.e., your central concept of reality itself.>Instead, think about what you know as abstract information molded and massaged by your subconscious, an unbelievably powerful data modeling machine.>>I have shown explicitly (including a specific method for constructing such a model) that absolutely any internally consistent collection of information may be modeled in such a way that we can guarantee most all of physics is absolutely valid.>consider the following fundamental problem embedded in any attempt for two people to communicate. When the problem is looked at from an abstract perspective, the aware individuals are both separated from reality by their senses (which are part and parcel of their respective models) but the fundamental communication takes place in reality (essentially out of direct reach of our analysis).>Thus one is lead to the conclusion that the two people trying to communicate may have totally different models of reality (models which you can not even begin to conceive of because you *believe* the model presented by your subconscious is the only possible model).>What I am getting at is that when you hear my descriptions of my mental model, those descriptions themselves are expressed by your subconscious in its model.>If both models were 100% internally consistent, there would be no problems (the situation consistes of nothing more than two valid representations of reality); however, that is not the situation confronting us. Our subconscious has created a mental model which any rational person must admit has to contain errors. Both subconscious mental models (yours and mine) were created to explain the *real* information we are aware of. They both surely have areas of internal consistency and areas of inconsistency.

Once you realize that it is entirely possible that the respective mental models bear no resemblance to one another at all, you have to recognize that the mapping performed by our subconscious translation could easily be mapping areas of consistency in one to areas of inconsistency in the other and vise-versa.>Thus I come to the conclusion that the schism you refer to should be an expected consequence of a lack of a complete internally consistent set of concepts to work with.

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 1994-2020 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