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

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 Alan on November 12, 2001 06:41:47 UTC


Very short of time but quickly:

Thanks for the detail. We agree that at least 1 existent is known directly. I wonder if Dick accepts that?

Reading you quote my words back at me; my words were rather unreasonable; there was no real evidence that you were following Dick; I was jumping on the bandwagon there as hadn't heard about my "differentiating physics itself" post. But I haven't posted a reply I wrote to you re: " Reply to Luis Hamburgh" either. Time issues.

Quote: "I think you agree with me, Alan, that there exists some direct knowledge of some of existence" we agree.

"I think Russell had the correct solution to the strange loop problem: simply disallow the mixing of different logical types in a single assertion."

Exactly: called a "category error".

Suppose you acknowledge one change exists (the verb 'happen' requires this if thought happens).

A change has two states; before, after (or this side, that side; etc.). Two states of something.
So already we have 3;
A, B, C: state A of C; state B of C.

Now: Suppose just one more existent; so now have the second one called L, M, N.

L state of N. M state of N.

Now look at the possibilites:

A state of C, B state of C A of N, B of N
L of N, M of N L of C, M of C
A of C, M of C A of N, M of N
B of C, M of C B of N, M of N
A of C, L of C A of N, L of N
B of C, L of C B of N, L of N

Notice symmetry groups in the above. This is the beginning of describing "Existence 'space'" one might suppose.
I could map out objects with four states; more 2-state objects; all the combinations and permutations.
I could map physics into this; obtain patterns you can not have, and paterns you may have. I suspect I could deduce all what Dick did theoretically- it's similar situation isn't it?

10-D strings, Schrodinger, Einstein's relativity, Quantum mechanics, etc.- all mappaple surely?
Plus can explain thought (comparing and matching patterns) the self (like yaw/pitch/roll- three rotations where two can equal the third, or all three cancel to give stationary object), Lorentz transformations; and lots of physics now not even dreamed of?

Who knows?



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 1994-2023 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