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
Point #1

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on December 19, 2001 07:31:12 UTC

Harv,

I do not understand your problem!

>>>I have to understand what you mean by the phrase "reality may be seen as". For example, here are few possible interpretations of this phrase: >1) If we consider our memories and on-going interaction with the world, we can represent memories and on-going action as a "collection of objects in a three dimensional space" and this can start as a basis for representing the world of experience (both personal and as a society). >2) If we consider our knowledge of the world, the only means by which we can interact with the world is through our senses, however there is no way to know if our senses are accurate representations or not. So, the most we can say of the world is that it is a "collection of objects in a three dimensional space" and whatever we can say of the world must first start with this simple appraisal.>3) If we consider the many theories available by which to understand the sense impressions that come to us, one very appealing theoretical approach is to divide the world into a "collection of objects in a three dimensional space" and using this theoretical approach might hold some benefits and possibly some disadvantages, but let's try it this way and see where this model takes us. >4) If we consider the myriad ways by which we can account for the way to describe the world, a method must be chosen so that our basic approach is altogether consistent. For example, there is personal experience that only I can have of the world, there is the shared experience of my entire family, community, nation, and there is perhaps a human perspective. Outside of this, there might even be a God's eye perspective (i.e., objective experience) which we don't know if we can possess but there is no way to know if that experience is possible. Therefore, as a way to apply our experiences in a consistent manner, I suggest that we represent the world mathematically into a "collection of objects in a three dimensional space" and limit this representation to the only the I perspective. That is, we cannot represent shared experiences because we must communicate those experiences which necessarily complicates any manner to apply a consistent methodology in representing reality. We also cannot know an objective reality, so inthe end, this model is about the I perspective as it pertains to a "collection of objects in a three dimensional space". >etc... etc... >By clarifying exactly what context, perspective, basis, etc I can better understand your basic thesis.

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