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

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on January 8, 2005 17:24:13 UTC


You are making it very hard for me not to impugn your intelligence!

"The next question then is, can Joe's explanation be modeled by this model. "

Why is this necessary?

Well, if Joe's explanation cannot be modeled than certainly the statement that any explanation can be modeled is false! And since what Joe is explaining is totally open there isn't much of a constraint as to what that explanation is. If you are suggesting that my comment about wanting a "valid" explanation is the destructive element of the proof that all explanations can be modeled, you are really grabbing at straws. Who in their right mind would want to model an invalid explanation anyway?

"All we have to do is find an algorithm which yields exactly the same expectations yielded by Joe's explanation. "

There is no way why everyone's expectations need to be the same. Perhaps what you are modeling are the expectations of nature which are expected to be constant.

The expectations yielded by Joe's explanation are in no way implied to be the same as anyone else's. All I am saying is that, if he has a method of coming up with these expectations, a method exists and the algorithm which corresponds to his method can be used in the model. I get the distinct impression that you are grabbing at straws to avoid thinking about what I am saying. If that is the case, all you have to do is tell me you don't want to think about it, that's ok. The world is full of people who don't want to think.

"Since I have made no constraints on A, B and C (other than those internal relationships which I presume you understand) it follows that my model can represent any explanation of anything. "

My god, your constraint is fantastic. No way will everybody have the same explanation for most anything. Here is the edge for you.

Boy you sure have latched onto that "all expectations are the same" idea. There are an infinite number of algorithms out there. Give me the set of expectations your explanation of something implies for some specific set of circumstances, and it is a trivial problem to design an algorithm which will reproduce those expectations in detail. Call the algorithm "Wanda's expectations" and just lay out a table! The method is, go to the table, find the circumstance and read off Wanda's expectations. (And they do not have to be the same as anyone else's.)

My opinion is that whaT YOU HAVE FOUND APPLIES TO ALL SITUATIONS WHERE EXPECTATIONS ARE ALWAYS THE SAME. That goes for nature and things like quantum mechanics. Humans have free will to use any old explanation they want.

I guess you have your opinion and have no intention allowing thought to influence it. Are you sure this isn't Harv under another fake name?

Have fun Dick

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 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