Hi Tim
Don't worry, I am not talking over your head ! :)
You wrote:
"the varied interpretations of QM another creationism & big bangism, relativity ect.
and i don't really have a problem with any of those as long as the definitions of each and conclusions drawn are self consistent and logically irrefutable with in any give point of view."
We cannot tell if they are irrefutable until we try to refute them! Some of those are quite refutable when misapplied to the wrong question!
Agree?

mathematics is the most self consistent and logically irrefutable system of thought we have with respect to definitions and conclusions.

Exactly NOT! Mathematics can be logically refuted in many instances by pointing out its irrelevance to a particular situation. Fairly elementary math is all that is needed for almost all decisions that humans make. The exceptions are interesting -- but can you discuss them?
Dr. Dick never has discussed them on this forum as far as I can tell. I think there is much illogic done with math because someone has blind faith in math.


that doesn't answer Einstein's question i alluded to in the previous post but it does provide a solid starting point for Dr. Dick's definition of reality as being a set of numbers.


Well, I think you did not refute my idea that
scientific reality is a model that rests entirely on measurements -- hence numbers -- but that if we have not discovered the properties of something and not measured it, then we do not have the numbers. I would try harder to "refute" his vague assertion, but he "hid" me quite a while ago, saying nasty things about my posted content.
He has not had much to say on this forum about "God" or any science except physics.
He implies God is for ignorant persons who do not know math. Yet he offers no opinions about
the many pressing matters which face humanity,
and can only seem to discuss stuff in the physics department.

• depends on the definition of so (chortle) - sagefr0g - September 13, 2003 - 21:44 UTC