|
Hi Dick,
***That is the beginning of our difficulties. I have never said a word about how I got to where I am or whether or not that position can be justified. All I have really said is that it's a very powerful position none the less. By focusing on that issue, you miss almost the entirety of what I am saying.***
I won't stick on it long, just long enough to make a valid point. Whatever your knowledge of something is based, on you are giving that knowledge a higher value in your model. But, in your case it matters a great deal that you are using inductive reasoning as your source of confidence. The reason is that you discount inductive reasoning in your model's formulation (e.g., discounting our actual sense impressions and what they tell us of the world), and that is a no-no since that model is ultimately based on inductive reasoning.
***All I need do is enumerate the concepts. If you insist the number of concepts required are infinite, then certainly they cannot be communicated and we are wasting our time in any attempt to set down a rational explanation of reality.***
It might not be me who insists. Reality may insist that it is so. What I'm saying is that it is a possibility that you discount, but there is no reason to discount the possibility of anything when you talk in terms of proof. When talking in terms of proof, only logical contradiction (i.e., improper rules of mathematical or logical inference) are allowed to be discounted. Even here, we cannot constrain reality to our rules of inference. Our logic may only be a human approximation of our observations.
***By the way, how did "the Universe" get in here anyway? In the current presentation, I have not defined any such thing. Nevertheless, I am not conceptualizing anything. I am discussing "all possible conceptualizations". Or are you simply dogmatically stating that there exists no acceptable conceptualization of the Universe? If that is the case, I would like to hear your arguments.***
Whatever concept of the Universe we offer, simply could be wrong. How do you keep that from happening? You can't force the Universe to be something that it is not.
***Harv, what you are discussing here is not a false definition at all!! If you want to define "bachelors" as "married single people", that is fine and dandy. The issue is that your definition is inconsistent with some of your other definitions and, in order to maintain consistency, you will have to change those. What you are discussing is "inconsistent" definitions. And I agree, "inconsistent" definitions are to be avoided at all costs. But the only way to be sure you do that is to be very careful. (As per my position that the current "definitions" of time used by science are inconsistent with their common usage!)***
You forgot, I defined a 'false definition' as an inherently inconsistent definition that is unworkable.
***How did this collection of people get to be a "set of numbers"? You seem to "know" something about reality which is beyond me. Please explain how you intend to define "people".***
If reality is a set of numbers, then we can say that the collection of people are a set of numbers (one number per person having the collection of numbers in their heads).
***Or is it that you think that it is impossible that any explanation of reality could ever be conceived which did not include the concept "people". If that is true, please show me your proof***
Just the opposite. My definition of reality is not related to people. It is simply 'all that is'.
Warm regards, Harv |
