Harv,

The problem with your analysis is that you leave out a large number of steps between (2) and (C).
***** Harv:
The problem with your analogy in terms of Dick's paper is that I am not committing this logical fallacy. Let me break it down for you:

(1) Dick's paper is based on analytic reasoning and apriori definitions
(2) Dick's paper comes to conclusions about the relationship of his definitions that look like the laws of physics
(C) The laws of physics are true by definition (i.e., definitions of (1))

(C) is not true because:
*****
(3) If you use my model, a large percentage of the laws of physics are true by definition.
(4) Any model may be translated into my model!
(5) The "laws of physics" predicted by my model must exist in any model.

And finally, if you read my paper, (C) should be written:
(C) It is probable that "the laws of physics" (predicted by my model) are also true by definition in their model. In order to prove otherwise, they need to show that their definitions are sufficiently different from mine to justify the position that they are not.

And I am afraid physicists have never taken the issue of definition seriously enough to think the problem out. They all think they know exactly what they are talking about!

Sorry about that Harv, but you are confused -- Dick

• Maybe so, maybe not - harvey1 - April 3, 2002 - 18:30 UTC