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

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Aurino Souza on March 28, 2002 21:19:04 UTC

Hi Dick

I have expressed many times my position that everyone is free to define things as they please, so I really see no point in complaining about your definition of reality. What one says based on a definition is what matters, not the definition itself.

However, I'm still curious as to what that has to do with preparing oneself to solve a problem. Are you saying you are justified in assuming that every problem can be expressed in a rational way? I suppose not, I suppose you actually mean that only those problems you have to think about can be expressed in a rational way. Am I correct? There's still a whole lot of problems out there which cannot be solved rationally, and for which we rely on intuition or commonsense.

Still, your paper seems to deal with a very specific rational problem, not a generic one. The problem, in my understanding, concerns the probability of observing a particular pattern given a finite sample. I would hardly call that a generic problem, but perhaps I'm going too far ahead. I'll wait and see what others have to say.

Have fun,


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 1994-2024 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