|
Hi Dick,
Just so that you don't get confused, I wrote this post after the one above.
I basically agree with your assessment of the situation re your paper, I just don't think that assuming people are idiots, or worse, letting them know you think so, can improve things. You have to find a more rational route, and I believe one exists.
" If you are truly interested in what I have to say and want to really understand it, we would simply have to take the presentation I have written one line at a time and discuss each line (in order) which you find difficulty understanding. "
Sure, but before we can start anything, you have to also make a commitment to understand why is it that nobody takes some of your premises seriously. Your paper is controversial enough from the first paragraph, but the good news for me is that the controversy is not part of your argument, so all we have to do is get rid of it. Does that make sense to you?
" With regard to your rejection of "reality is a set of numbers", let us just talk about "a set of numbers" and what we can say about what kind of explanation we could create to make those numbers make sense. "
You know, I have as much fun watching myself being misunderstood as you do. If you go back to my post, what I really said was that from a philosophical perspective reality cannot be defined as a set of numbers. Besides, defining reality as a language only makes physics a subset of the explanation, and it allows us to say that "a set of numbers" is the portion of reality which is the subject of physics. I'm sure my argument is solid and that you can understand it, it is in fact where I want to begin, before getting to your paper at all. Whereas you discovered something about any mathematical explanation of reality, I discovered something about any explanation of any kind, of which yours happens to be just one case.
" I am willing to talk. "
So let's get started. I'll post something in a day or two called "Reality as a language"
I'm hoping this will be fun. See you,
Aurino |
