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
Dr. Stafford: Speed Is The Essence

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Alan on December 26, 2001 02:48:16 UTC

Thanks for your response.

Since trying to get what you are on about costs me a painful amount of money; please appreciate that (a) I'm not as dumb as you seem to think (b) there is an incentive for me to understand you FAST because I can not afford to be bankrupted by "beating about the bush" paying heavy computer-use fees as I go.

Try me:

Quoting: "You" is an inexplicable concept! Being inexplicable, a relationship with inexplicability does not constitute a definition and (14-16) make no sense."

So you are simply indulging in a theoretical exercise where "you" is relegated to the status of "undefined". Remember you AGREED with Oliver Sacks' idea "that humans are self-referent through and through".

I am not presuming that the events occur in any specific order. I am only stating that the interaction of one undefined event with the others will CREATE an order by default. The order remains undefined; because you could start with any undefined event interacting with the others. But you will get default patterns.

I am not presuming that "location" is defined. I just use "tagged by time" or "tagged by location" to demonstrate that "time" and "location" are but arbitrary labels for "by default" or "automatic" patterns that occur when you take one undefined event and compare the others against it.

Dick you say that 'I' is not part of reality as you have defined reality. You claim that "I" is beyond your ability to discuss.
Dick, are you denying that you exist?

Your "Stafford Reality" was invented by you, Dick. Not by a vacuum! If you want to leave "I" out of it; and only talk of "awareness" of "undefined events"; this suggests you are playing abstract mathematics. Where one undefined event takes the place one would normally give to "I"; and "awareness" is about how one event views the others.

For example, you may leave "I" out by talking of "how does a microbe see the world?". Or abstractly: how does a "?" see a lot of other "?"s, and are there any patterns that occur by default when partially differentiating a "reality" of "?"s from one of those "?"s.

"Exist" is not defined by some list I keep. "Exist" defines everything else, things just ARE. Definitions are just superpositions, labels, comparison of patterns, agreements, relationships. You do not define "exist".
"Exist" defines you.

"So decorated with presumed concepts that it can not even be discussed from a rational perspective" you say? About this: (24) I say: so being honest is a good idea. Note that all there
is, is all there is; so if you don't bump into what exists; and
pretend it isn't there; it might bump into you! (when you are not looking, or pretending it isn't there!) "
Are you saying that there are things that are not?
Are you saying that if you ignore what exists, it not even MIGHT bump into you?
Please tell me exactly what is non-rational and presumed here!

You should be interested in defining Stafford Reality as "a set of names" so that you make visible that "numbers" have a "naming" function.

"No more than an example of a result being a consequence of a definition" is what I meant when I referred to "physics equations" falling out. You mis-interpreted my words.

About proving something exists before it was observed. "It can not be done" you say. Strictly: you can NEVER prove something exists. (But you can know it directly.) Regarding a degree of proof: in a cross-reference way: you stand with your back to your house, but you may feel that since you can see the shadow of your house in front of you, you take it that your house didn't dissapear when you turned your back to it.

One view: You can only know directly something exists, or agree it does, or take it to exist by comparing and matching patterns, or combinations of these.

Ultimately a chain of explanations gets to the point of brute facts: things just ARE; you can't find anything more basic to prove with.

I disagree that it is a waste of time conversing with you. Please have guts! Don't be so scared! (I apologise if I misread you as being afraid). It costs me a fortune to talk to you; I like results, and fast! Give it a go!

-Alan

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 1994-2021 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