|
Sorry I'm short of time:
Quoting Dick: "Can I conceive of a method or a procedure for modeling something given that I do not know anything about what I am modeling?"
Aurino, Aurino, Aurino: surely you understand my comment: that Dick is contradicting himself here?
He must know SOMETHING about what he is modelling; namely that it Exists in the first place! Or he couldn't even start. If he is going to conserve "Existence" by the law of non-contradiction; not surprising if his findings reduce to the fact, among other things, that physics obeys the law of non-contradiction.
Quoting you: "Knowledge cannot come from knowledge, it must necessarily come from something else. As it happens, and I'm not sure Dick would agree with my interpretation, is that the something else which knowledge comes from is logic plus a set of meaningless, arbitrary definitions."
"Meaning" is an agreement or transaction. It doesn't matter if it is arbritary; so long as it is honest and is conserved.
Consider: that 'something else' is : knowledge is relationships between patterns; that 'something else' is: other relationships between patterns. It is all founded in the relationship of EXISTENCE.
The meaning is in the knowing the difference between different kinds of relationships and how the relate. The foundation is a relationship with the Creator Himself (something telepathic newborn babies are very much aware of).
Quoting: "You can question the validity of logic, and you can question the validity of making arbitrary definitions, but you cannot do that without using logic and without coming up with arbitrary definitions. Sad, isn't it?"
Disagree; you can question by conserving "Existence"; by honest analysis; if you call that 'logic' that is not sad; doors keep opening when you are honest- all the way to the last door: I have glimpsed what lies beyond: beyond your wildest hopes and deepest dreams (the eye has not seen, nor the ear heard....) It's all founded in the Creator....
Sorry I had to rush this.
Peace....
-dolphin
|
