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
Thank You Harv

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on March 28, 2002 11:38:06 UTC

Run out of time...
respond later.

" It seems that Dick assumes that he already knows how to solve a problem before he even tries to solve the problem. " Sure does seem like that to me.

His core assumption is his own logical consistency. Judgement by others still has to reach him through his own judgement of their judgement.

There may be a double circularity: "induction" is itself a concept that requires "time"!

Pattern matching (which perhaps Dr. Dick calls "definition") is automatically outside time or space.

This is why there may be a very close parallel to something I did and what he did: by focusing on "definition" itself; on "pattern matching"; you actually remove the issue of induction as induction is a time-based issue.

Deduction requires time too; a more basic concept than either induction or deduction is "definition", or "pattern matching".

Thanks for helping me to realise this as I wrote!

I knew deeply that "musical chairs", "join the dots", "know the difference" is the solution.

Dr. Dick's uncertain, possibly changing, could be here, or there, or then, or now, or big, or small, or complex, or simple is: "musical chairs"!

"Join the dots" is pattern matching; definition!

"Know the difference" is the key: don't confuse your definitions (matches) with the things you are matching (defining).

Dr. Dick might claim he is not solving a problem or even a meta-problem but is just talking about (I might as well use his words here) the consequences of defining reality.

Defining. Matching. Joining the dots. The consequences of joining the dots.

I think actually he nonetheless IS solving a problem; but is effectively doing so from a "dimension" outside of induction/ deduction yet still using them both? Effectively is he saying: "time?" "induction?" "deduction?" these come from definition itself, from pattern matching, from joining the dots?

Start outside of these with "definition" and you find these? Maybe he is doing meta-philosophy?
The body of his work may be deductive/ inductive; but the "life" of it sort-of resides in a higher "dimension"?

Apart from the above, you have otherwise blown my piece and Dr. Dick's thesis sky-high!

Does the above save any of either?

Best regards,


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