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
You Are Off The Subject Harv!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on April 12, 2002 13:54:27 UTC

Hi Harv,

You have already made it very clear that you do not understand what I am saying in my paper. I will take complete responsibility for that. Writing in a mental vacuum is not easy and I have clearly not made a presentation which is easily understood. I am presently working from the position that my original presentation is totally beside the point. I am presenting my thoughts as simply and as honestly as I can. At this moment, they constitute a very simple statement:

I am trying to explain my thoughts concerning the abstract problem of trying to explain what I know. When I say "abstract" I mean that, whatever statements I make, they must be applicable to any possibility.

At the moment, I have proposed a model of this problem. That model consists of three components. All three components consist of communicable concepts (on the grounds that if they are not communicable, they can not be communicated anyway so why bother). That being the case, all three components may be represented by numbers attached to the associated concepts. This is done to maintain the total generality of the representation and avoid the possibility of being swayed by some currently held concept which may in the future be found unsupportable.

For convenience of reference, I have named these components. Something "A", which I will call reality, which consists of that which can be "known". Something "B", which I will call the explanation of reality, which consists of concepts conceived of by me (or others) to provide that explanation. Note that these components are not different pieces of some whole: they are different ways of specifying and viewing the information I am going to be working with.

Something "B" is divided into three parts. Those three parts consist of : one, that part which maps into reality (is isomorphic to "A") which I will call "knowable data" ; two, that part which does not, which I will call "unknowable data" (i.e., a pure figment of my imagination created to provide that explanation); and three, that part which constitutes the explanation of how something "A" is to come to be known, which I will call "my senses".

For a significant period of time, I have been trying to get you to admit that this is a rational starting point. See:

Again, I ask you if you can conceive of any communicable solution to explaining the universe which cannot be viewed from the perspective I have just presented: i.e., "something A" transformed by our "senses" into "something B". The actual material definitions (assignments of meanings to those presumed concepts) being left entirely open.

So far, every time I have asked you that question, you have avoided answering it by bringing up some issue totally off the subject.

Looking for a rational response -- Dick

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