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
Dick X Dick, The Deeper Issues!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on April 18, 2002 16:45:46 UTC

Hi Aurino,

Sorry about the slowness of my response but I think you unknowingly raise some serious issues and I would like to be careful not to confuse the situation.

***** Aurino:
I'm of the same opinion, and that actually left me a bit disappointed. Can't a guy with an IQ that high do any better?

I think the "High IQ" thing is just a schtick! Yanniru, how is that word supposed to be spelled?

***** Aurino:
That said, I think focusing on his assumptions kind of misses his point. What I do get from his CTMU is that he's trying to demonstrate that if you do science the right way you must necessarily include the concept of God in your explanation of reality.

From that respect, I have to agree with you but I think it is rather foolish to personify the concept! I am of the sincere opinion that everything cannot be explained. No matter how deep an explanation goes, something is in effect being assumed. That is an intellectual dilemma and is indeed my definition of god: the Great Original Dilemma! That is by definition something not understood and anyone who claims to understand any aspect of it is lying for any valid rational explanation of any part of it immediately becomes part of "that which can be explained" and is thus no longer part of the Great Original Dilemma! In many respects this is GOG as presented by Paul. But to use your ignorance to lather it with supposed facts is pure unadulterated foolishness.

***** Aurino:
What Chris is saying is that you just can't avoid using the concept of 'mind' to explain the universe just as much as you can't avoid using 'mind' to explain yourself.

Yes, but my position is that you are talking about something which cannot be explained and trying to give it a meaningful explanation. I will get back to this issue a little later as I have something very serious to say about it.

***** Aurino:
Now one thing that Chris says which I find extremely interesting is that in his opinion there is no such thing as something which can't be explained.

I would like to point out the significance of the word "opinion" there; certainly he can not prove it! Also, as an aside, I would like to point out that, under my definition of God or Paul's definition of GOG, the proposed entity simply ceases to exist if everything can be explained (God vanishes); a possibility not actually denied by my perspective, just taken to be quite improbable!

***** Aurino:
According to him, if you know about it then an explanation necessarily exists.

This appears to be one of those fuzzy meaningless statements I would expect from Alan. To understand what it means, I have to know exactly what he means by "an explanation", exactly what he means by "exists" and, finally, exactly what he means by "know about it". In contrast to that, my presentation does not actually require you to know what is meant by much of anything.

***** Aurino:
It's quite similar, in my opinion, to your idea of communicable concepts - the only things that cannot be explained are the things we are not aware of. Those shouldn't bother anyone.

Yes, one could take that position, but I would rather not as it omits the possibility that I am aware of something I can neither explain nor communicate! At the moment, I would say that the fact that I am aware is a specific example of such a dilemma. When I use the word "aware" I mean something very specific; however, I can conceive of no way of communicating the fact that I am aware to anyone. That is, if I could communicate the issue, it would constitute proof to them that I am aware and I see no way to prove that! Another way to view the issue is to realize that my use of the word "aware" can not be taken to mean the same thing as what you mean when you use the word. That step (that we mean the same thing) is a major assumption. You make that assumption because you see so much in me that you see in yourself; i.e., you make the assumption we are similar. If your computer were to type out "I am aware!" you would probably not make the same assumption even if it were produced by an extremely sophisticated AI program.

***** Aurino:
You say everything that is not physics should be dealt with by our subconscious alone. I think most people would disagree with that, myself included. What I think is important is to keep things in context; that is, if it's not physics then you don't know if it's true, but that doesn't mean it's useless knowledge.

I did not mean to say it is useless knowledge. What I am saying is that it is fundamentally opinion and not fact and the fact that it is an opinion should be kept in mind at all times whenever such things are discussed. Physics is a very small part of what our minds have constructed to make sense of the Universe.

The fact that absolutely any set of numbers may be "explained" by the model I have constructed implies that absolutely any set of internally consistent concepts must contain a set of concepts which will map directly into physics. I am proposing that, given that fact, everyone should explicitly map their personal concepts into physics and math before beginning any attempt at communication (that is, make sure their concepts are totally consistent with physics). At least, once that is done, we know we can at least communicate those concepts and may be able to express any other concepts in a manner which is at least consistent with those.

Now, at this point, I know you misunderstood what I just said because I know you don't think the way I do so I will say exactly the same thing in another way.

To express exactly that same idea in a different manner: it should be clear that any picture of the world which contains any violations of the physics deducible from my fundamental equation is being presented via a misunderstood set of fundamental concepts (either the presenter is not presenting an internally consistent picture or the words he is using are not mapped into the same fundamental set of concepts I am working with). Understanding what someone means by a word (the tag on a concept) is difficult enough anyway. Let us first do our best to establish some basis of concepts about which we can agree. What I have shown is that absolutely any set of self consistent concepts can be viewed from the perspective that "physics" is true and universal. If anybody denies that, they are just not speaking the same language as you and I and communication is all but impossible.

***** Aurino:
Ironically, the point I think you stress most frequently is that nothing can be said with honest faith, except things which are true by definition. That makes conscious thinking either useless or purely tautological, doesn't it?

Yes, I would say that conscious thought is actually pretty useless most of the time (and I would also say that very few people use it very much anyway; most all of our thoughts arise directly from our subconscious). Vary rarely can conscious thought do much more than establish the validity of a single cross connection of concepts. Most of the time it is little more than an observer of the acts of our subconscious. However, on occasion it can yield some very useful absolute connections (consider the whole structure of modern science; what can be trusted is built on massive collections of very small details which have been consciously examined).

Does tautological imply useless? Do you think that just because I say most of physics is tautological that I hold physics to be useless? Quite the opposite; I am of the opinion that showing it to be tautological makes it a very powerful and dependable tool.

So, to cap it all off, what I am really saying is: remember, anything you think is true is just an opinion and could very well be wrong. If it violates physics, don't talk to me about it because I know we are not speaking the same language. If it is consistent with physics and seems logical (your subconscious puts it forth as true) then mention it. Perhaps I can connect it to something my subconscious has put forth and who knows, maybe some subtle absolute relationship between seemingly independent concepts can be made (but certainly don't expect any such thing). Probably the most beneficent thing either of us can really expect is an increase in facts to be handled by our subconscious and perhaps some additional insights not recognized before (a change in our subconscious opinions: i.e., we might learn something).

That is to say, let's have fun! Conscious thought about things is great fun, but really let us not expect to accomplish much with it. If you cannot live your life without thinking you understand it or you need to know the purpose of it all, then I feel sorry for you.

Secondly, any discussion where science (that is, any pretty well established scientific position; as per your judgement) is not 100% valid is not worth talking about because you and I clearly do not know what we are talking about: i.e., miscommunication is rampant and completely out of control!

My perspective and my opinion.

Worth exactly what you paid for it -- 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 1994-2024 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