Back to Home

God & Science 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 | God and Science | Post
Login

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

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on September 28, 2001 19:28:58 UTC

Aurino:

May I quote Dick:

"given the fact that we absolutely do not know what it is."

That is not a logically valid statement. That is inductive, speculative, and self-contradictory and dogmatic. It involves being really sure that the reality is that you can not know reality. A contradiction.

Impossible, not 'abstract thinking' but 'exclusive
thinking' (jettisoning some reality so as to play an abstract logical game, then mistakenly equivocating that 'logic of partial-reality' with actual reality).

In actual reality, you always know something (even if just: that the set 'reality' has the reality of existing).

Do you agree that Dick has made a glaring error?

Quoting: "Can I conceive of a method or a procedure for modeling something given that I do not know anything about what I am modeling?"

Here it is: do you agree? (Having corrected his error "given that I do not know ANYTHING" (You know something- that it exists)

I quote my work:

"35. Is this right?: Dick takes the 'totally unknown data' and notes it has been transformed by a 'totally unknown process' much as if you found yourself in a swarm of bees in a big sphere in outer space and you knew that your movement is coded into your perception of the other bees' movements. So your unknown movement has performed an unknown transformation on the other movements.

36. He makes some basic definitions; that is he chooses some arbritrary rest-positions to differentiate the other data from. Like stating that you'll regard a few bees as being at rest or in a fixed relation; and see how all the other data must behave or not behave because of the very fact of your chosen resting-places or fixed-relations (i.e. definitions or pattern conservations).

37. He looks at the logic and symmetry of the sums of partial differentiations. Because he is dealing with relationships of combinations and uncertainties I guess that's why quantum mechanics falls out."

Quoting Dick:

"If one cannot understand the problem, one cannot solve it! Central to the whole issue is the idea that what I was dealing with was totally abstract and undefined."

Do you agree that that statement is logically self-contradictory? By claiming something is "undefined", he has defined it! He has also presumed it exists, a very substantial bit of defining.

"Harv never responded to that post!": but Dick never responded to my critique (under the "R1" topic) of his apparantly dogmatic claims.
"Abstract thinking" does not permit the fallacy of equivocation.

Also; once I showed that every thought in his thesis is mappable as "making a commparison C between at least two patterns A and B", he avoided answering all logical challenges by me to his thinking.

Perhaps someone could comment on the "music of reality" post above? Please show me my mistakes, if you think there are any.

-dolphin

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 1994-2018 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