General Forum Message Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
 Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...The Space and Astronomy Agora Question 17: Can You Resolve This Discrepancy With Set C? Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response ToPosted by Harvey on December 27, 2004 05:34:22 UTC

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?

 Web www.astronomy.net