God & Science Forum Message Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
 Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...The Space and Astronomy Agora No, Simply Pushing Over A Flimsy Strawman Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response ToPosted by Paul R. Martin on September 24, 2003 17:29:53 UTC

Hi Bruce,

"Then you have to allow me to do the same: "

Of course I'll allow you to do the same. But that's not what you did.

Let's go over carefully what I did, and then carefully go over what you did. I'll show that they are not the same.

I said, "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."

(1) Let's say 'A' is a variable standing for 'a set of numbers'.

(2) Let's say P(x,A) is the statement, "Dr. Dick defines x to be A."

(3) And let's say Q(x,A) is the statement, "Dick asserts that by studying A we can discover the laws of physics that explain the behavior of x."

(4) Then, what I said becomes, "Oversimplifying in order to point out the substitution error, P('reality',A) implies Q('reality',A)."

(5) And, P('bananas',A) implies Q('bananas',A).

(6) Finally, I said, It is incorrect to conclude that Q(x,'bananas').

(It could be that Q(x,'bananas'), but I simply said that you cannot correctly draw that conclusion from what has been said here.)

Now, let's look carefully at what you claim to be "the same".

You say,

""It is incorrect to conclude that Dick asserts that by studying a set of numbers you'll find "most of physics" there." (my first substitution) "

or,

(7) It is incorrect to conclude that Q(x,A).

From (3) we have Q(x,A) so (7) is false. Contrary to (7), Dick does indeed assert "that by studying a set of numbers you'll find "most of physics" there.""

"The burden of proof is still on your side. Sorry"

Don't be sorry. The burden of proof never was on my side. You are the one who proposed a "proof" so the burden is yours. I am simply pointing out errors in your "proof".

Warm regards,

Paul

""It is incorrect to conclude that Dick asserts that by studying reality you'll find "most of physics" there." (my second substitution)
"

happens to be true but it has nothing to do with your "proof" or my demonstration of the errors in your "proof".