Mike,

By the way, thank you for the decline in cross posting. It makes reading these things easier.

With regard to your comment (which I find quite to the point), see Aurino's post

http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/16511.shtml

and my response to that

http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/16521.shtml

From my perspective, the "search for truth" is actually the attempt to remove inconsistencies from that fictional explanation. If we ever do remove all of the inconsistencies, then your "fictional" explanation will become truly isomorphic to mine and the fact that we are most probably thinking with totally different concepts becomes completely immaterial. We can communicate anyway (in a manner). See my post which upset Aurino above.

http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/16501.shtml

"The existence of that problem [that we cannot prove our concepts are the same] is very significant and there exists no way of surmounting it. The only thing we can say is that, if the problem under discussion is completely isomorphic, then it doesn't make any difference if our concepts are violently different, the arguments will work just fine anyway. We may be talking about totally different things (no real communication to speak of) but we can still assist one another in solving our problems. (In fact, exactly that scenario has been used in comic movies many times!)"

In effect, what is in reality is an illusion of communication turns into actual communication (only the meanings are changed to protect the innocent).

Is that better? -- Dick

• It's a place to start...tho an earlier step worries me - carefuluniverse - April 20, 2002 - 14:50 UTC
  • OOps ! Nobody reminded me....I still have a reply to write ! - spazcon - May 7, 2002 - 06:58 UTC