My model always explains C (I give a specific finite procedure for generating that explanation). So there is nothing you can know which cannot be explained no matter what the demon attempts. The demon can not create a universe which cannot be explained. The whole story is in the interpretation of the meanings of the elements of C.

Dick, you've given the following contradictory statements of set C:

1) Webpage: Set C is defined to be a finite collection of an unordered finite collection of the elements of A

* Note: this is an ontological definition of set C in that whatever actually explains set A, set C contains a finite collection of those elements from set A

2)"Complete Misrepresentation Harv" Dec.21: Set C is "exactly what you are going to explain" which is "[set] A not as it is, but as to how it appears [which is called 'C' in my model]".

* Note: this is an epistemological definition of set C in that whatever explains set A, set C is defined as how set A appears to us.

Question 17: If your model (as stated above) "always explains C (I give a specific finite procedure for generating that explanation)", then is your model explaining elements of set A (as per definition #1), or is your model explaining mere appearances of set A (as per definition #2)? Can you resolve this discrepancy?

• No discrepancy exists! - doctordick - December 28, 2004 - 02:33 UTC
  • Straw man? - harvey1 - December 28, 2004 - 03:34 UTC
    • You are creating your own definitions! - doctordick - December 28, 2004 - 04:22 UTC
      • Not so - harvey1 - December 28, 2004 - 04:31 UTC
        • I presume from these responses - doctordick - December 28, 2004 - 16:53 UTC
          • No, but first I must understand your definitions - harvey1 - December 29, 2004 - 00:38 UTC
            • Honestly? I don't believe you Harv! - doctordick - December 29, 2004 - 01:46 UTC
              • Well, I am insulted... - harvey1 - December 29, 2004 - 01:56 UTC
                • Hah, you're insulted? Don't make me laugh! - doctordick - December 30, 2004 - 18:16 UTC
                  • A little defensive are we? - harvey1 - December 30, 2004 - 19:58 UTC