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
No Need To Apologize

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on October 25, 2001 20:17:22 UTC

Hi Dick,

>>>I have no way of knowing what meaning these words already have. As opposed to the rest of you, who seem to have some secret way of *knowing* things (Alan seems to be the closest to that source in that he understood everything before he was born), I have nothing to go by but my experiences.>I am reduced to guessing what these words mean. Neither the dictionary nor my readings solve the problem as both are expressed in words and I am still left to guess. I have done the best I can; I have tried to come up with concepts which are consistent with the apparent usage I have experienced but I certainly could be very wrong. All I am saying is that when it comes down to *fact* , I do not *know* what any of these words mean.>H: You have accepted mathematics because of the self-consistency proofs contained therein, which is proofs of the causal links between theorems. How can you say that cause of any kind is an imagination when you need mathematics to make your statement? H: Ok, reduce my comment to referring to physical reality. As I said in my presentation, I am not the brightest guy in the world, I leave defense of mathematics to others much more competent than myself. They tell me it is right and I have yet to find an error in their pronouncements. If mathematics is wrong than certainly I am wrong; I will not argue that!>Ok, fine! But you must remember one thing! R1 is now a set of numbers (an abstract representation of my experiences, communications, information or what ever you wish to call it). All that has been, all it will be and all it can be. If any information at all exists outside R1, than my mathematical arguments fail!>I have no problem at all calling it R1 if you wish. Believe me, that was not my complaint. My issue was the fact that any definition of anything must be put off until a complete check of all experiences can be brought to bear. The issue that R1 is the abstract concept of all possible knowledge. That can not be known in the particular and can only be conceived of as an abstract concept (an unknown to be solved for).

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