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

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on April 4, 2002 09:39:41 UTC


Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I seem to be an outlaw around here; you finally got me to fire a few shots (see "Hey, Just A Minute Dick And Aurino")(I hope I haven't been too rough).

Dr. Dick: "The constraint I place on myself is very simple: if my perspective is to remain entirely general (i.e., unconstrained) I can posit nothing which limits what which can be seen from that perspective. You clearly do not understand that constraint."

The maximum possible general perspective is what? That of Existence, surely?

"That statement is incorrect for two reasons: First, as I have defined "reality", "something B" is clearly not part of reality; it is rather a figment of my imagination. As such, it can be absolutely any collection of concepts conceivable. Secondly, to assume that "something B" vanishes, is to assume "reality" has no explanation; a rather pointless assumption if your intent is to explain reality!"

There are two types of explanation, imaginary ones and real fact-structures (or networks).

There is nothing to explain about reality in the sense that ultimately reality just IS; the REAL EXPLANATION IS NETWORK-REALITY.

Imaginary explanations may or may not correspond to actual reality-networks.

Well, it's good that you admit being in direct contact with reality.

"No Alan, you cannot answer any questions about reality without some interpretation of "something A": i.e., some ideas and/or concepts. Without such, you are utterly in the dark."

What if you answer with direct knowledge of reality, telepathically without words? (Your system is supposed to allow for ALL possibilities!)

I wrote: "How about addressing some issues in my "rest of reply to Dr. Dick" post?

Dr. Dick: "I thought we just agreed to disagree! Let us just say I do not understand much of what you say."

But I am disapointed, given the track record you have of deciphering Harv; I believe you could give me a better innings; you used to at Counterbalance. You wrote a good reply "Harv, You Might read this Too" to me. I wrote a reply to that where I showed the value of your reply. I find it dissapointing you give up so easily on me, the reasons seem logically inconsistent with the abilities you have shown at this forum.


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 1994-2022 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