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
Therefore...

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on May 20, 2003 17:49:16 UTC

Dick's model means absolutely nothing, right? That's what me and Aurino have said from day one, it is meaningless. You can't apply its meaning to the real world and Dick should just publish as a math theorem (scratch the phil of sci 101 and remove terms like 'reality', 'knowable', 'unknowable', etc) and forget about it and discuss other things. When asked about it, Dick should say: "I once published a math theorem dealing with probability theory". I could buy into that and it seems you can to. It's Dick who wants to say something more.

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