Hi Richard,

If the proof is incomplete, then logically it is insufficient to convince a skeptic. Of course, for you who are already convinced, no proof is required, so in that sense I suppose the preceding argument is sufficient.

The argument, however, is deficient. It is okay up to the statement,

"So DoctorDick's "Foundations of Physical Reality" paper could just as well be titled "Foundation of Bananas"."

The next statement, however, contains an error in substitution:

"According to the great genius, if you study bananas you'll find "most of physics" there, from particle physics to general relativity."

Oversimplifying in order to point out the substitution error, Dr. Dick defines reality to be a set of numbers and asserts that by studying a set of numbers we can discover the laws of physics that explain the behavior of reality.

Substituting 'bananas' for 'reality', we get, Dr. Dick defines bananas to be a set of numbers and asserts that by studying a set of numbers we can discover the laws of physics that explain the behavior of bananas.

It is incorrect to conclude that Dick asserts that by studying bananas you'll find "most of physics" there.

It is pointless to proceed with this "proof" with such an elementary error right at the beginning.

Warm regards,

Paul

• Grasping at straws? - tourist - September 24, 2003 - 15:56 UTC
  • No, Simply Pushing Over A Flimsy Strawman - pmartin - September 24, 2003 - 17:29 UTC
    • Sidetracing won't work with me! - tourist - September 24, 2003 - 18:38 UTC
      • Did You Mean 'Sidetracking'? - pmartin - September 24, 2003 - 19:11 UTC
        • I just had a proper subset of reality with some ice-cream - tourist - September 24, 2003 - 19:47 UTC
          • It Seems To Have Addled Your Brain - pmartin - September 24, 2003 - 20:32 UTC
            • My brain is just fine - tourist - September 24, 2003 - 20:45 UTC
              • Did You Say, "Uncle"? - pmartin - September 24, 2003 - 21:08 UTC
                • Paul - harvey1 - September 24, 2003 - 21:23 UTC
                  • Harv - pmartin - September 25, 2003 - 00:41 UTC
                    • Harv, I think Paul means it! - carefuluniverse - September 25, 2003 - 01:37 UTC
                    • more blah-blah-blah - tourist - September 25, 2003 - 13:20 UTC
                      • Jibber-Jabber is a "Harv" word - carefuluniverse - September 25, 2003 - 16:41 UTC
                        • Hmmm. Good Points (nt) - pmartin - September 25, 2003 - 17:32 UTC
                  • You are right Harv... - bruce - September 26, 2003 - 08:55 UTC
                    • I think - harvey1 - September 26, 2003 - 14:26 UTC
                      • That is pretty obvious to me... - bruce - September 26, 2003 - 21:39 UTC
                • You suck as a detective martin... - bruce - September 26, 2003 - 08:47 UTC
                  • True - pmartin - September 26, 2003 - 16:15 UTC
                • Bruce implies being correct is a good reason to be a roadapple - carefuluniverse - September 26, 2003 - 18:27 UTC
                  • Bruce may be rude but he has an advantage - aurino_ - September 26, 2003 - 18:53 UTC
                    • dnftt - carefuluniverse - September 27, 2003 - 03:51 UTC
                      • What the heck does that mean - secretary - December 3, 2003 - 18:53 UTC
                    • dnftt - carefuluniverse - September 27, 2003 - 03:51 UTC