Luis,

I've criticized Dick's use of time, reality, etc. My criticism is not the same as your criticism. Your criticism is that you think he wants to refer to time independent of his frame of reference. But, I don't see this in his assumptions. The basis of his paper is his frame of reference. He tries to start from scratch and talk in terms of only his sense impressions of the world and not knowing which of his sense impressions are real (i.e., actually exist in teh universe) and which are simply mistaken notions. You might read the dialog we are having on the Space Exploration sub-forum.

My criticism isn't that he references time according to his own meaning of the term, rather it is that he tries to equate his meaning of those terms with the physical equations that he tries to deduce from his earlier assumptions. The physical equations might look like the equations of physics, but this is where his peculiar definitions of time, velocity, etc, come back to haunt him. He isn't actually referring to the physics' terms, hence the equations might look like the geniune article, but they cannot be since his definition of those terms are different. Dick's argument, I imagine, is that because the physics equations are the same format as his deduced equations, therefore his definitions of time must be correct. This is when (I think) he tries to show that Einstein's use of the clock was mistaken.

It would seem to me that anyone can define a word as they wish, but this becomes confusing and should not be done. Although, I still don't see how Dick introduces time as independent of the frame of reference. Please show me.

Warm regards, Harv

• You are mistaken re: many of these posts. - luis_hamburgh - September 15, 2002 - 20:56 UTC
  • Wrong - harvey1 - September 15, 2002 - 21:57 UTC