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
How Do You Know?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on June 4, 2003 16:54:24 UTC

Richard,

***Anyway, my thought is that much of what Dick identifies is correct, like the existence of the so-called pipeline of conscious and unconscious thinking and that everything can be represented by numbers.***

There is nothing wrong with identifying features in the world and trying to model those features, but the overwhelming lesson of science is that models are almost never fully right, and that a model can be deemed a success when it is at least partially correct to a point of being useable. Since Dick's model is not useable in the scientific sense, and it philosophically it is not useable from what I can see, what purpose does it serve? I have a real problem with those who try to mathematically model an unobservable phenomena (i.e., metaphysical phenomena) that may or may not be correct in the set-up parameters and then doesn't even provide predictions. Why not just mathematically model God for crying outloud? Godel did it as a proof of God, but he never submitted it.

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