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
Just So There's No Misunderstanding...

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Paul R. Martin on May 4, 2002 23:46:21 UTC

Hi Mike,

***Dr. Paul is apparently "tooled up"***

Thank you, Mike, but I only hold an M.S. in Math, not a Ph.D.

***It is apparent that no one on this forum is capable of following my thesis save Paul***

Make sure you understand that I have followed Dick's thesis in detail only up to the last page of Chapter 1. And that only after more than a year's intensive help from Dick during which time we exchanged over a thousand numbered paragraphs of correspondence peppered with differential equations. It isn't that others aren't capable; it's just that so far, I have probably spent more effort on his paper than anyone except for Dick himself. I really wish someone more qualified than I am would spend as much effort on it.

You didn't ask me, Mike, but since "I'm talkin ta you", I'll offer my opinion on your question:

*** With "include", you could be saying one of these(which one or a different one?):
1) laws of physics can serve as a filter for nonsense. If a concept won't work with them, we know it won't work at all, except as a fiction.
2) our thoughts are all fiction; the real business is the physical processes which spawn and assess our thoughts to determine which will be sent to archives...which will further shape the material universe
3) Every internally consistent set of concepts which is true ACTUALLY INCORPORATES all the laws of physics as we know them, and this is a guide to the creating of excellent concepts for public policy and personal conduct.***

In my opinion, 1) and 3) are exactly correct. I think 2) gets into some deeper concepts about which I also have an opinion.

First of all, the word "our" could hinge another 20 words or so. As you know, in my scheme, we are all one so there is no difference between "our", "my", "your", "his", or "her". Similarly, "fiction" deserves some further defining before we know exactly what we are talking about. Next, I have an opinion different from most about which "spawns" which: thoughts or physical processes? So from my opinionated viewpoint, I would interpret your 2) to mean that among the thoughts of the one-and-only thinker, only those which are consistent with the laws of physics can lead to anything that we would call real.

You are fun, fun, fun to talk to, Mike.

Warm regards,


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 1994-2018 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