Hi Harv,

I finally got down to this post. As I have said before, I read everything, and being gone for 5 days makes it a lot of work to catch up. Particularly in view of the fact that, by convention, forums are in reverse chronological order (newest is at the top of the page). What we really need is to have everything in proper order with a cookie which brings us back to where we were when we were last here. Also, I really wish you could be a little more concise in your posts instead of trying to cover everything in one post.

***** Harv:
Sorry for my wording(?), but what I meant to say was that because you are using apriori definitions and analytic reasoning, you are in effect saying that your model is correct (i.e., assuming the math is correct). Am I understanding you correctly?
*****

Correct is not a word I would use to describe the model. I would instead say that it is complete in that it covers all possibilities of interest: i.e., there exists no collection of information which can not be cast into that model. Now the word "correct" could be applied to my deductions and it is entirely possible that I have made an error but you have not even begun to approach that issue.

***** Harv:
That's fine, because that's just what I say about reality - it is incommunicable and at best only approximated in human language.
*****

And we shall never discuss the incommunicable portion (if any such thing does exist) so why worry about it?

***** Harv:
If the part of reality that is non-conceptualizable has lost your interest, then you are in effect saying that you are not concerned with all of reality, just a subset of it that is communicable, is that right?
*****

If it is not communicable, then just how the hell do you expect me to know about it? According to you "something" exists but you can not say anything about it. Then you deride me because my concept of reality ignores your delusions!

***** Harv:
If so, then you should change your paper from "reality is a set of numbers" to "a certain subset of reality is representable by a set of numbers".
*****

I have no awareness of anything being left out and you have agreed that you can communicate nothing with regard to anything left out so as far as I am concerned nothing is left out. Now I admit that is an opinion, but I am certainly not going to worry about explaining anything about which I can not obtain any information!

***** Harv:
That would look much better.
*****

To you Harv! To me it looks like you want to add complete blather to the mix!

***** Harv:
You did by saying that reality is a set of numbers. That's a constraint whether you like it or not.
*****

Yeh, it's a constraint! It is constrained to something which we can communicate to one another, to others, and to our children. Things which can be published in libraries. I am going to be dead someday Harv, and anything which I cannot communicate will die with me so I am certainly not going to take that issue seriously!

***** Harv:
Okay, your model has constraints but it is a model of reality, and if you cannot properly identify reality, then it is a model misconstrued.
*****

You say this only because the model is far beyond your comprehension!

***** Harv:
but proof of the explanation is out of the question.
*****

Proof of the explanation is not of issue at all. The proof concerns the issue that there exists no communicable information which cannot be cast into the model. Proof of the explanation is a meaningless concept. All we can ask of any explanation is that the explanation be without contradiction.

***** Harv:
We are all in this position and that is why foundationalism is now almost universally rejected.
*****

That's nice Harv! You need not look at what I propose because you know I could not have found anything useful! Or do I misunderstand your cavil?

***** Harv:
Forget trying to prove something from a definition of reality. Such arguments prove nothing.
*****

Are you saying that nothing can ever be deduced from a clear definition? That's a rather strong position to take isn't it?

***** Harv:
Dick, you are assuming mathematics. If the math is wrong about reality then your deductions are wrong about reality. It is quite simple, it is impossible to know, but we can have what we believe to be a 'rational' perspective of what is 'out there'.
*****

Why do you keep repeating yourself? If mathematics is wrong, just exactly what difference does it make? If that is the case then I guess you are right: about the only thing one can do is stick their head in the mud so to speak!

***** Harv:
***Dick: If logic is invalid then we are kind of wasting our time aren't we? I think I will just pretend that rational logic is valid reasoning as it seems I have nothing to lose if it isn't! If you would rather stand out in the dark, be my guest.***

At last a little humility when it comes to saying something about reality. Whatever you come up with in a logical manner, is only a tentative statement about reality based on certain assumptions. Reality may be far different than that and we cannot say it isn't. I'm glad you are willing to concede this possibility.
*****

Good god Harv, don't you think at all? That was a joke! You want to seriously consider explaining something under the assumption logic is invalid? Just exactly what do you plan to say under such an assumption?

The rest of your comments I just dismiss as not being worth the time to discuss.

Try to think just a little -- Dick