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
It Is In The Public Domain!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on April 30, 2003 01:17:27 UTC


I am sorry, I had thought you were beginning to understand the basis of my arguments but it is clear from this post that you still fail to see the need for the symmetries I use. Since that is in reality the central issue of my presentation, for all practical purposes, you miss the essence of my presentation entirely.

My first point, the point that the entire argument is built on, is that our subconscious stands between us and reality. If one believes that their subconscious is no more than an open pipeline to reality (that is, it is incapable of creating any illusions, [beyond those illusions we know of that is]) then they are wasting their time paying any attention to me at all. (In case you missed it, that's a "by-by" to all the simpletons!)

I hold that the ability of our subconscious to create illusions is far beyond anything we can even contemplate on a conscious level. As I have said many times, in a heartbeat your subconscious can generate useable solutions to problems you can't even begin to consider on a conscious level. From my perspective, absolutely everything we see is illusion. As Aurino has pointed out, even by current understanding of the universe (where, our senses are direct open pipeline contact with reality), we see an "illusion" of a tree out there when, in reality (as the "authorities" understand the universe), what we are actually working with is an image on the retina of our eyeball.

How many of you have enough control of your subconscious to force a perception of the image being on your retina and not an object out there in front of you? Can you make yourself conscious in a perceptual way of that "reality"?

Of issue here is the power of your subconscious. Since all information you have about reality has been delivered to you via a mechanism you cannot examine (as all information is processed by that entity), to say that any symmetries you see are real is to state unequivocally that your subconscious mind cannot possibly be powerful enough to create any illusion of a non existent symmetry. My question is, who provided you with that basic piece of information?

I say it is you who have made an assumption here! I say that one cannot rationally credit any such symmetries to reality so long as it is possible for one's subconscious to accomplish such a thing.

And, over and above that, since your explanation of the universe must include an explanation of your senses, any symmetry which is easy to attribute to your subconscious can simply be incorporated into your explanation: i.e., to require that the symmetries be "real" is essentially to regard "how you obtain your information" to be an inexplicable phenomena (a "given").

If it is possible that an explanation of your subconscious exists which could create such an illusion of a symmetry, then it is unpardonable scientific sin to ignore that possibility and it's consequence.

And, exactly what is the consequence of paying attention to that fact? If your explanation of any phenomena is to be communicable, the consequence of that fact is exactly as I have deduced in my opus. And I have generated more physics with less input than has ever been accomplished by anyone in the history of the world! In my opinion that is as close to a "Theory of Everything" which will ever be achieved! And it is not even a theory; it's a fact!

And Yanniru, I can summarize your paper in one sentence, "if you have something you don't understand (dark matter) then maybe it will explain other things you don't understand". It is the "shotgun" attack on scientific problems. Historically speaking, it is not a very successful attack.

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 1994-2018 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