Happy Halloween

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
Thank You For Your Kind Words, Dick

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on May 30, 2003 15:29:06 UTC

But Dick, please do not read any farther. I am not interested in what you have to say.

Stafford's whole treatise boils down to the following two paragraphs:

"The final step in the puzzle is to realize the significance of symmetry. This is where I totally lose Yanniru (I worry about his mental competence). Since there is absolutely no way to uncover what processes take place within that pipeline, there is no way to justify any symmetry in the things I think exist to be a valid characteristic of reality itself. It is entirely possible that those symmetries are nothing but an illusion created by the pipeline (our subconscious or intuitive feelings). Since no method exists to prove they are not so generated, attributing to reality is a direct consequence of the standard scientific position: "if it can not be tested it must be believed to be true". Yanniru and the whole lot of posters on this forum use that postulate all the time (without any defense I am aware of).

The solution to the difficulty of symmetries in the things I think exist is to construct an mathematical representation which inherently includes those symmetries. Deviation from that representation then yields important characteristics of reality. Thus it is that the first step in my analysis is to assure that my bare model displays every symmetry that I can think of. By this mechanism I assure myself that my model will not attribute to reality things which could have been generated by the pipeline. Make it easy to "discover what it is we know and what part of what we think we know which is myth" created by our subconscious. "

I am not writing this for Stafford, but for the other posters here.

Allow me to extract the key phrases from the above patagraphs.

'Since there is absolutely no way to uncover what processes take place within that pipeline, there is no way to justify any symmetry in the things I think exist to be a valid characteristic of reality itself'

'Thus it is that the first step in my analysis is to assure that my bare model displays every symmetry that I can think of.'

'By this mechanism I assure myself that my model will not attribute to reality things which could have been generated by the pipeline. '

To me these three statements are inherently self-contradictory. Could someone other than Stafford attempt to explain to me how they could be logically consistent?

Thanks in advance, as we are apt to say.

yanniru



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 1994-2020 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