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
Hi Dr. Dick

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Tim on May 22, 2003 01:33:51 UTC

i am happy to review your paper especially since the character of it takes on such a general approach. i'm the type that is allways interested in generalities and then tends to lose interest with the specifics and areas of application. well unfortunately i'll probably get bogged down in the math, i'm competant through differential equations but have only a familiarity with matrix algebra, statistical and probablity mathematics.
interesting what you say, "...I think the issue of understanding words (essentially creating the concepts to be attached to those words) is a very serious aspect of puzzle solving itself."
the process does spur one on to think about the puzzle what ever it may be.
that the great puzzle of the universe is so complex and incomprehensable on a conscious level and yet we all have some solution or another that bears similarity leads one to feel confident that there are aspects about reality that are comprehendable and communicable.
i have not been able to find any errors in your deductions. it all seems self consistent and logically defensible from every angle i've tryed so far.
i appreciate your review of my synopsis.

truth as we know it is dependent upon our definitions:
hence we must be meticulously correct in our definitions.

****The meaning of correct is vague. We must do our best to avoid relying on context as the context itself may be misconstrued. That is why I move to context free labels provided by numbers. (This appears to be an issue beyond Harv's comprehension!)****

here is what i meant when i used the word correct:
"We certainly cannot know the consequences of our definitions unless we very carefully delineate them."

reality is comprehensible and communicable therefore:
reality can be represented by a set of numbers.

****I presume you understand here that the set of numbers are nothing except a representation of a message in meaningless labels and that we possess no information not provided by that message.***

this is a clarification. thank you. i shall think more about this.

this set of numbers can be divided into subsets. those subsets can be construed as transformed by our senses for analysis via the fundamental transform of the model we construct.

****Now here there seems to be a slight misunderstanding. I hope you are not referring to the "fundamental transform" I mention in figure 2. If you are referring to what I call an "Alternate view of our senses" in that same figure, then you are correct. I would rather say "via the transform performed by our subconscious in the model we will construct". Let me know if this seems confusing to you. ****

i'm afraid i did mean the fundamental transform that you mention in figure 2. so i could benefit by some clarification here.

i believe i understand the need for the parameter 't' as a continuous variable.

i understand your preference for leaving out the reference to "independent observers" where it would be better to state:
"that the resultant model can not depend on that ordering referred to in the definition of 't'. If it did, the model would depend on that ordering and that would violate the definition of 't'. "

****I really don't know how to make the idea of "knowable" and "unknowable" classifications clear enough to avoid Harv's tendency to barf all over what I say. His complaint here is that there exists no way to identify the "knowables". He is of course correct; however, what he misses is that the conclusion is not dependent upon being able to make that identification and I have no idea of how to make that fact clear to him.****

this point is in my humble opinion the most elegant and ingenious part of the first chapter.

****" I have explicitly proved that, if you accept that both the rules and the entities are variable (that is, subject to change by advancement of science), then it is always possible to put the rules in the form of a solution to the expression F=0. That is, there exists a very specific rule for the functioning of the universe which does not constrain the universe in any way. That rule is in fact my fundamental equation. The result of that constraint is that the only question left to answer is "what entities actually exist?" The equation itself is entirely content free and imposes no constraints whatsoever on the universe."****

so for example the speed light =c, that would be an entity that your fundamental equation would not deduce.

Essentially (depending on how one cares to view my work), I have either invented or discovered a very powerful abstract tool for organizing any serious scientific investigation.

yes that contains the essence of power.

regards tim

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 1994-2024 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