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
Question 16: Is Set 666 Enough To Foil Any Model Of Explanation?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on December 19, 2004 05:45:44 UTC

"In the case of the both universes, set A is known only to God and the demon." This is most definitely not consistent with my definition of A! Set A is the information to be explained; in the picture you present you define A as something not available to you and an explanation of information not available to you is a meaningless concept. In my definition, A is what is to be explained; A is the collection of elements being passed to you by "God" in one case and "the demon" in the other. A is the set of elements from which B is taken. From the perspective of my definitions, your division into two cases is entirely spurious. The existence or non-existence of either "God" or "the demon" has absolutely no bearing on the problem at hand.

My understanding of A is that it is the explandum. However, in the GU universe the explandum is what it is, while in the DU universe the explandum (same as in the GU universe) is filtered into another explandum (set 666). The difference between the GU universe and the DU universe is that set B' is based on set A in the GU universe, but it cannot be based on set A in the DU universe simply because we know (having God's eye perspective, in this instance) that set B is actually based on set 666 while in the DU universe. Nothing in set B in the DU universe is from set A (the original explandum).

Every element of B is an element of A by definition! "B is a set, defined to be an unordered finite collection of elements of A"

But, we already agreed that a demon lies about set A in the DU universe, so it is not possible for set B to have any element of A since the demon lies about each and every element of A, leaving the poor saps in the DU universe with only set 666 by which to construct set B.

Your question 15 is totally equivalent to presuming an explanation of "Dante's Inferno" is something to be reasonably obtained from reading "Little House on the Prairie"... I absolutely agree that an explanation not based on the information to be explained is not a valid explanation by anyone's interpretation of the definition of an explanation. And I do not propose to include such a thing as a valid member of the set of things called explanations.

So, it seems that we can agree that IF the DU universe has a set A, but it is converted to set 666 prior to the explainee constructing set B, then set B is not a valid explanation, that is, your model fails to an explanation if such a demon universe (DU) exists! So, let's cover this issue of contention much more closely:

Question 16: Can set A (the explandum) be changed to set 666 without the explainee's knowledge such that they are explaining set 666 (which they might label set A), but in fact makes their set B (and your model) totally invalid? In other words, the demon can totally dupe the explainee such that a model of explanation is impossible in such a DU universe, would you agree?

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