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
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
High School Philosophy

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Luis Hamburgh on August 13, 2002 01:05:39 UTC

Alan,

>>>"all the non-priveleged frames of reference DO HAVE SOMETHING IN COMMON, SOMETHING PRIVILEGED: 'REFERENCE' itself"

How many ways can we rephrase Einstein's relativity and give others credit for it? " 'Reference' itself"? Surely you're joking! Do you not realize that the statement 'there is no priveleged frame of reference' REQUIRES that all frames be self-referential??? This all seems very dumb to me, and I'm no genius.

I mean, who doesn't realize that what we label as 'stuff' and 'movement' would be 'stuff' and 'movement' without any of our labels? Who doesn't contemplate QM and not realize that the dualistic model of nature clashes with our psychological and holistic biases?

It seems like you and a few others are marveling at Stafford's public resolution of his mental struggles: he's grappling with the philosophical implications of QM. Trouble is, he's about 70 years behind the rest of science and philosophy. Besides, many of us appreciated this philosophical problem long before we'd had the misfortune of meeting Stafford. Moreover, a lot of us understood the philosophical paradigm shift re time brought about by relativity.

>>>"Dr. Dick may have found the UNIVERSALITY OF SELF-REFERENCE instead"

Stafford indeed has you fooled. You and Stafford might call it "the universality of self-reference" -- the rest of us call it relativity.

What you're marveling at (I think) is Stafford's approach to meshing quantum mechanics with relativity, amidst an inability to see around the ontological sense of time. As I said a few days ago, he's about a century behind the power curve on this one, and stubbornly headed in the wrong direction. It's like he's drawn a blueprint for a steam boat that runs on luminiferous aether, and you can't stop gawking at it.

>>>"considering how a word sees itself and other words in a circular dictionary . . . as 'measurement' requires 'comparison' . . . Self-referencing . . ."

Come on Alan, this is high school philosophy fodder. It's very strange to see you and others judging this line of thinking as something clever and new. It's surreal.

-LH

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
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