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
Dr. Dick

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on May 17, 2003 06:12:55 UTC

I haven't published detail yet; but although I have apparently found patterns that look like what you found (see recent posts for hints); one thing you seem to have overlooked is:

When you add so-called "unknown data": from where does this "data " come? I think I showed that in your lists of numbers version of your system that you once explained to me; that there was a complementarity required between the layers of "known " and "unknown data".

You seem to have overlooked that "as you add, so you take away"; as the "unknown data" is imagined by juggling already known patterns in new ways. Example: you know "cone", you know "horse", you know "flying": if you imagine "flying unicorn" this imagination must be logically possible such as this combination doesn't destroy the minimal requirements for the definitions of the parts?
If the definition of "horse" requires "not flying under its own power" in the dictionary; then one
would break down that definition if one added unknown data that allowed the horse to fly?

If the combination destroys the definition of the parts (this example not so good as there appears room enough in the parts to postulate the possibility of their combination?) then what?

At a minimal level it does seem that any "added data" must be at least vaguely connected already to the "known" in "logical possibility space"?

The ways these patterns are juggled to generate "unknowns" must be complementary and not contradict the knowns; or you will be destroying the integrity of the knowns in the process of adding alleged unknowns?

Full internal transparency (self-knowledge; consciousness of freedom and the law of non-contradiction) allows one to go anywhere without tripping over?

It is said "as you judge, so you are judged"; writing a dictionary means writing down relative constraints among the entries?

-dolphin

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 1994-2022 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