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
Re-post Of "Start Of Reply To Dr.Dick"

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Alan on March 31, 2002 00:41:15 UTC


I've reposted this so it is closer to the remainder (posted above) of my reply to Dr. Dick's "Harv, You Might read This Too" post that was in response to my "Unknown Problem? What You Can Do To Prepare..." post.

Thank you, Dr. Dick,

(Thank you Harv. Very challenging. Takes a while to respond. To begin, with Dr. Dick's initial comments.....)

May I respond:

Quote: " This post is a perfect example of why I seldom respond to your posts. I really do not know how to deal with what you say as many of the things you say are right on the money while almost nothing you say is logically well defended and every once and a while you say things which I simply cannot understand."

Comments: I'm taken by surprise by your saying " many of the things you say are right on the money"; except that I am sure they are! I would have thought that would provide a foundation for progress.

Regarding: "while almost nothing you say is logically well defended "; please, be my guest, press me to logically defend them!

Regarding: "and every once and a while you say things which I simply cannot understand."; well, that is not so bad as I feared- just every once in a while! Again, be my guest; request that I explain them.
I am not afraid of being pushed over the cliff of logic; please do not hold back; push me!
You may be surprised what I find over that cliff!
So may I suggest how you could deal with my posts: acknowledge where you think that: I am "on the money" yet where I am not logically well defended and where further explanation is required! I invite people to rip apart what I say; the better they can do that the faster I can put something together a whole lot better and who knows what fast progress would be made! I do not wish to defend the indefensible; so just show me what is indefensible. Of course, I suppose I am not always wrong, I can be right too!

"" 'ow about this, Dr. Dick and Harv: Consider: along eez coming zees unknown problem, no? vot can I do about eet? O.K. serious: "" Now, seriously, that is an exact statement of the problem I have attacked!

Answer: So I got that right....

"" If it is really a problem, then we can take it that you are not going to have the answer simultaneous as you know the problem, right? " Why not? It seems you know something I don't know!"

Answer: The step I omitted specifying here is: I take it that the very DEFINITION of "problem" requires that there are 'unknowns' (I just had a curious thought, you are getting me here to write your paper your way; most educational!) . The reason I say you cannot have the problem arrive simultaneous with its solution is that this would create a superposition of logical contradiction. A "problem" by definition involves a puzzle, involves unknowns. The problem cannot arrive already solved and still be a problem. It is a violation of the definition of problem as I implicitly defined it.
In real life we do talk of "solved problems" without ditching the word "problem" just because they have been solved. So I could have been more correct by using that wider definition of "problem". This would mean that "along is coming this "problem that may or may not be already solved when I meet it".
So the "something I knew that you didn't know" was "my definition of "problem" as being logically incompatible with "answer not known on first meeting the problem initially". You didn't know my implicit definition of "problem". Now I see the need to widen the definition to include "ready-solved problems".

" From my perspective you are assuming a lot right here. In particular, you seem to think you understand time itself and that nothing which may happen in the future can possibly alter that understanding. That is not a trivial issue and is central to the idea that one must encompass all possibilities."

Actually, I have some very unusual perspectives on "time". Assuming a lot right here? I just admitted assuming a definition of "problem" that I now acknowledged could be widened.

Regarding: "you seem to think you understand time itself and that nothing which may happen in the future can possibly alter that understanding."
That is a valid and revealing comment ( progress can be made!) . I see your game here: you are trying to be very general and keep on board a very broad range of possibilities.

Well, you are tackling a gravely serious issue here! I used the word "simultaneous" (I realised at the time (!) that there was an issue here that I was not analysing). So you say the very idea of "problem simultaneous with solution" presumes some understanding of "time".

THAT is a knotty problem (ironically it is solvable with knot theory I suspect- see my stuff on the geometrical nature of the square knot?).
O.K., this feels want to make it uncertain as to whether or not one pattern is simultaneous with another? You want to generalise that much? At the end of this I show a fatal flaw in your system; so allow me now just to assert (as you assert your ASSUMPTION of your own logical consistency)(that's the 'flaw' in any claim you make that you are not making use of being a 'witness')(even if others judge your work- you must judge their judgements)(ultimately logical consistency is a responsibility that sits on your shoulders, you and Existence); as I was saying, allow me to just assert that I know simultaneity directly so far as "I" and "a pattern" are concerned.

If you think about it I suspect you shall find that you too are asserting you JUST KNOW
the experience of simultaneity directly- if you didn't- you could not experience logical consistency (which requires "simultaneity" that is MATCHING of two patterns - if you could not MATCH them, you could not MAKE THEM SIMULTANEOUS, and could not join them in logical consistency!)
O.K., let us say then that I do not need to understand "time itself" as you suggest; I can simply MAKE things "simulataneous" by MATCHING the patterns in my head. A match is a match, even if there's 10 years in between. SO now I can allow you to generalise: ANY amount of "time" (whatever that may be) can pass between me and the "problem"; I can MATCH me and the problem however whenever I do.

"and that nothing which may happen in the future can possibly alter that understanding."
O.K.; I can accomodate this generalising; so now I have to consider that the "problem" may be changing and an answer now might not be an answer the next moment. No wonder you keep adding unknown data all over the place!

So how to define an "instant" of solved-state? Again, we come back to "simultaneity" and MATCHED patterns; a match is a match- it is an outside time concept. A match is eternal; an eternal instant of here "problem" and there "answer; independent of time and space.

That's curious: what I call a "match" you call a "definition"! That is what "definition" does; it "matches".

Have to continue this response later- this computer place is closing ........


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