Hi Tim,
I don't come over here much any more. I only happened to drop by and saw Paul's note about the Axiom of Choice and made a couple of posts. It was very nice of you to bring this discussion back up to the top. I didn't notice it the other day because it had already been moved a good distance down.
You seem to be getting a good handle on what I am trying to say and I appreciate your efforts. With regard to "knowable" and "unknowable" data, the first is what is a real part of reality (if that makes sense) and the second is the stuff we make up in order to make reality make sense.
It is fundamentally impossible to tell the difference between them as we have required that everything must obey the resultant explanation. In ordinary attacks on science, the fact that something obeys all the rules (essentially causes all the effects supposed to be caused by a real object) is taken as proof that it is real.
So it follows that, from the standard perspective of science, my unknowable data is just as real as the knowable data. What is important in my derivation is that knowable data cannot possibly change as it is what is to be explained. On the other hand, the explanation can contain whatever unknowable data seems convenient to our explanation.
I don't want to confuse you. If you have any questions about chapter 1, please ask. You do know how to reach me directly don't you?
Have fun -- Dick
|