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
If This Doesn't Work, Nothing Will

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Aurino Souza on August 15, 2002 15:47:35 UTC

Hi Dick,

I think I found a better way to present my argument. First, a few comments on your post.

" Ok, I guess. But I really don't know what exists means. "

I find it amusing that you have less trouble with "____ exists" than with "reality exists". That betrays the fact that you are assuming you know more about reality than you know about ____. At least it does so from my perspective.

" The only "exists" I am aware of which is reasonably exact is the idea of a mathematical relation existing which essentially means it is not internally self contradictory. "

If you don't like "exists" I can just as well replace it with "^^^^^^". It makes no difference at all. Therefore...

1. ____ ^^^^^^

Now you cannot possibly disagree with that, the statement is entirely meaningless! As meaningless as "reality exists", but only as long as you don't lose sight of the fact that you have no idea what "reality" and "exists" mean.

I'll save 2 and 3 for later.

" If that is your position then you will have to give me a proposition which lacks a representation! "

I just did.

" I am fully prepared to give you a representation which lacks a proposition "

Gotcha again! Let me rewrite the above: " I am fully prepared to propose a representation which lacks a proposition "

No matter what you say, there's no way around it. It's a fact of life, and the only thing we can do is learn to deal with it. It is possible, but only to a limited extent.

" the problem is that the abstract concept you are trying to put forward is far beyond the scope of the problem I am discussing. "

That's your fundamental misunderstanding. What I'm talking about must be considered even before I read the title of your presentation, even before you tell me the url to your website. Luis understands that issue perfectly, take a look at his last post (I know you're capable of overlooking his rhetoric just as much as you expect us to overlook yours)

" I think our differences can be summarized with the issue of which comes first: proposition or representation. You think proposition comes first because you are intending to deal with the problem of making propositions in the representation your subconscious has already presented to you. "

What the heck does "subconcious" mean? (caveat: this is just empty rhetoric, please disregard)

The problem is not which comes first, the problem is that proposition and representation cannot be dissociated, period.

" I insist that only those logical constructs which can be exactly defined be used."

I agree with you, except that if you stick to it absolutely all the way from beginning to end all you can possibly get is a circular argument. That's exactly the issue I want you to understand.

" To do otherwise is to invite logical disaster. "

Another fact of life...

" Certainly the hardware representation of information must be established before you begin the work of designing a programming language. "

That's not exactly correct, but I'm glad you mentioned "language". That means you're starting to grasp it, and that makes me happy.

" I don't mean to do that it is just that we do need to understand one another if anything is to be communicated. "

That's the whole idea!

Now grab your Men In Black memory eraser and forget everything you read above.

=====================================================================================

Here are my first assumption put in a better way. If you can't agree on the absolute truth of this assumption then we have nothing left to discuss:

1. Communication is possible

I will not define communication, for two reasons. First, I cannot, I am already seventeen words too late, and counting. Second, I don't have to.

And I'm not prepared to defend the fact that communication is possible. Anyone who tries to prove me wrong will prove me right.

Are we having fun yet?

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