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
But That's The Beauty Of It: I Don't Have To!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Aurino Souza on August 14, 2002 13:07:47 UTC

Hi Dick,

Before I post nonsense, I need to know if you can agree with this:

Do you think reality is a set of numbers? I'm convinced you don't, so why do you choose to define reality that way? I can think of a good reason why, and if you are thinking of the same reason then I have no issue with your definition at all; I never did, in fact. However, something is still missing.

The problem is simple, and I'm convinced you can understand it. It's not essentially different from your argument, but it includes something you overlooked. First, we have to assume a few things:

1. Reality exists
2. Some aspects of reality can be cast in the form of a theory
3. It's possible, but not known until our theorizing process is complete, that some aspects of reality cannot be theorized

Do you have any issue with those? I'm not defining anything so far, just trying to make it clear where I'm coming from. Let me know what you think.

Cheers,

Aurino

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