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
I Don't Think So!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on December 20, 2001 17:11:36 UTC


I notice the complete absense of any remark concerning my comment, "Describe to me any concept of physical reality which does not include some discription of the behavior of some objects in a three dimensional space? (Make that a concept which is accepted by at least three respected scientists!)"

I get the distinct impression that your intention is to avoid agreement to anything.

>>>Then we disagree on the definition of what an object is.>The proposal is your proposal that we start with agreeing that reality can be represented as a collection of objects in three dimensional space. If such a proposal doesn't hold any meaning, then it is gibberish. You don't wish your proposals be treated as gibberish, correct?>It seems ... requires 12 dimensions).

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