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

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Paul R. Martin on June 2, 2003 17:09:19 UTC

Hi Harv,

You can also call it what you want, but the only disagreement Dick and I have is in the classification of his fundamental equation as a theorem. And, I am not content to stop there and "cut out all the fluff" as you call it. I am awestruck by the implications of his theorem on philosophy and the philosophy of science. I'm not competent to debate those philosophical issues and so I don't very often comment on them. And, as Bruce has hinted, but has not been specific about, I may be incompetent in mathematics also. But at least I feel I know more about mathematics than philosophy, and since I have spent my study time of Dick's work on the mathematical aspects, I am inclined to comment more on the math than the philosophy.

I think Dick would be willing and eager for anyone competent to tear his paper apart in any way they want. But attacking it with generalities and invectives is, in my opinion, a waste of everyone's time.

Warm regards,


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