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
And Just What Are My Assumptions?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on March 4, 2002 21:53:49 UTC


You insist on misinterpreting what I am talking about. The "unsolvable problems" you speak of are entirely due to your misinterpretation of what I am saying.

*** H: Does Dick's method generate new knowledge of the world?****

No! It, in itself, does not! I have never said it did. What I have said is that my definitions of fundamental concepts are superior to the vague slap-hazard definitions used within the scientific community as my definitions make it self evident that those concepts yield relationships (the things scientists like to call "laws of physics") which are true by definition. I don't think you will find any modern scientist who will admit that classical mechanics is true by definition! None the less, that is very much a fact. The common scientific position is, for the most part, a pure exercise in self delusion!

****H: How does time exist prior to conscious beings?****

From my perspective, time is a creation of conscious beings, created purely as a mental mechanism to make sense of the information they are aware of. As such it certainly does not exist in the absence of awareness! Now, you may differ with me in your opinion but your opinion is utterly worthless unless you can demonstrate an error in my mental mechanism: i.e., conceive of a universe which cannot be analyzed through my proposed procedure (which, fundamentally, does not require the concept "time" as conceived of by the human race).

The existence of "time" is no more necessary to understanding what you know than the existence of heavenly spheres and epicycles is necessary to understand the motion of the planets.

***H: Epistemologically, this is all wrong in terms of substantiating a new means to acquire knowledge.***

Who said anything about a "new means to acquire knowledge". All I am saying is "look carefully at your definitions"; maybe you have already preordained the outcome of some of your experiments! Let's do a little homework!!!

***H: 'Where do the laws of math and physics come from'? It is not an answerable question (at least in 2002).***

Most of them are pure figments of your imagination! Only you don't think that could possibly be!! Because you simply refuse to think anything out!

***H: After all, if mathematics is an invention, then so is Dick's model. It doesn't exist, it is merely a clever human invention. ***

That's my opinion exactly! I think it is a might clever human invention! Considerably better than the one you guys are all walking around with!

***H: I'm talking about the epistemological trail. This is what impacts Dick's assumptions. ***

Since you have such a clear idea of what is going on, please explain to me what you think my assumptions are.


Sorry about this but it just seemed to me that everyone is missing the point.

Have fun -- Dick

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