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
You Will Have To Explain "Language" First!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on August 14, 2002 11:12:02 UTC

Hi Aurino,

For some strange reason, I woke up early this morning so I took a look at the forum.

Aurino: 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.

Both you and Paul seem to think these people can be reached. I personally doubt it very much. The lengths to which people will go to avoid thinking about anything simply astounds me. In particular, I notice that cosmologists absolutely refuse to even consider the impact of electromagnetic effects on their theories in spite of the fact that many people with very good professional references (some even Nobel prize winners as a matter of fact) have shown many significant results for over 30 years already. To expect anyone technically trained to take a serious look at my stuff is pure fantasy!

Aurino: 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.

Look at ! Read some of that stuff and explain to me why no one takes their premises seriously. I think I understand why no one takes my premises seriously - because to do so would require them to think and that's something people do not like to do!

Aurino: 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.

Ok, I will read what you have to say; however, you must realize that I find the definition "reality is a language" completely meaningless as I find the term "language" extremely vague. Before we can even begin you will have to explain to me exactly what you mean by "a language".

Have fun -- 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