Mark,

Now that Dick has responded I feel it is important to point out to you where he errs in his response to you (*smile*):

>>>Excuse me if I step in here for a moment. I have come to the conclusion that Harv cannot comprehend what I am doing. You Mark are much closer to the issue than Harv ever has been.>H: The reason that philosophers stray away from complete skepticism is that they are aware that complete skepticism is the very beast that skeptics try to point out. D: At the same time, any rational person must admit that the skeptic certainly has a very strong position. The consequence of this? As Harv admits, philosophers avoid the position.H: However, mathematics does not meet that criteria for a few reasons. D: As I said, from my perspective, if one chooses to throw out mathematics, then everything I have done is invalid; however, the move seems to me to be rather defeating to any attack on understanding anything. In my opinion, Harv is just grasping at straws to avoid thinking about my position.If you are to prove an error in my work, you have three choices! You may show an explicit error in my mathematics. You may come up with a collection of numbers which cannot be cast into my model. Or of course, you may deny the validity of mathematics. Harv apparently chooses the third as the first two are beyond his abilities.>Now, I being an ignorant person, was (and still am) astounded by the fact that most all of physics is true by definition (in my model). To quote myself (paragraph 3, Part IV, Chapter 2):

• Oh damm, defeated again!!! (nt) - doctordick - November 1, 2001 - 22:09 UTC
  • You mean, double drat - don't you? (*smile*) - harvey1 - November 1, 2001 - 23:51 UTC
  • Dare to be even more skeptical! - dolphin - November 2, 2001 - 10:57 UTC
    • Unsymmetric set of numbers - yanniru - November 2, 2001 - 15:27 UTC