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
Just Like A TV And A Movie Theater Can Show The Same Movie

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Paul R. Martin on June 9, 2003 17:19:57 UTC

Hi Yanniru,

"So why call it a pipeline. It has nothing to do with my biological pipeline. It's just a mathematical representation with assumed symmetries in sets of data."

I don't think the word 'pipeline' appears in Dick's paper. In his paper, he referred to it as his "model". I think 'pipeline' was an analogy he started using recently in an attempt to get some ideas across. By now, that decision has probably caused more confusion than it has cleared up.

Now, I think his model, or 'pipeline', does have something to do with your biological pipeline. It relates to it in the same way that any mathematical representation relates to some physical phenomenon - for example, the way in which an equation describing the balistic flight of an artillery shell relates to the actual flight of a real shell.

Your biological pipeline presents your consciousness with information that somehow originated in the real world. From all this information, and in particular from the accumulation of similar information from thousands of other people, the laws of physics as we know them have been inferred. I'm talking here about the progress and results of Science.

What Dick has developed is a mathematical method of converting any arbitrary set of numbers into a "picture", or a "display", or a "presentation" which also happens to conform to the familiar laws of physics.

"NO WAY. Not he, not you , nobody has shown that the biological pipeline has anything to do with his representation of data. That is a tremendous assumption. Completely ad hoc as Dick has admitted to me on this forum. "

WAY. He has shown that his model conforms to the laws of physics, and the biological pipeline (Science) has shown that the model of reality it produces also conforms to the laws of physics. It's not an assumption, but a derivation.

"Just saying something is true does not make it true."

I agree. And, I think you would agree that just saying something is false does not make it false.

Warm regards,

Paul

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