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

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Bringing Aurino Up Top

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Tim on September 27, 2003 21:45:28 UTC

allow my quote sir, many others are to follow:
"You are wrong

Einstein had his metaphysical notions but they are not part of his work. I said before and I'll say it again: whatever Einstein thought "reality" means, it makes no difference to his theories. On the other hand, Dick's ideas cannot be understood if you don't understand exactly what he means by "reality". And that is because Einstein was a very good physicist while Dick is, at best, a very bad philosopher."

maybe not Aurino. please consider the following quotes from "The Universe and Dr. Einstein" by Lincoln Barnett ( a book endorsed by Einstein):
i quote:

"A complete Unified Field Theory touches the grand aim of all science, which as Einstein once defined it, "is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deductions from the smallest possible number of hypotheses or axioms"."

hmm Dr. Dick in his document attempts to make no assumptions other than that reality is communicable.

further quoting:
"The urge to consolidate premises, to unify concepts, to penetrate the variety and particularity of the manifest world to the undifferentiated unity that lies beyond is not only the leaven of science, it is the loftiest passion of the human intellect. .... In trying to distinquish appearance from reality and lay bare the fundamental structures of the universe, science has had to trancend the "rabble of the senses""

hmm, "rabble of senses" now whom among us in this forum have we heard similar statements? what document refers to such ideas? how about "Fundamentals of Physical Reality"?

further quoting:
".... so paradoxically what the scientist and the philosopher call the world of appearance--the world of light and color, of blue skies and green leaves, of sighing wind and murmuring water, the world designed by the physiology of human sense organs--is the world in which finite man is incarcerated by his essential nature. And what the scientist and the philosopher call the world of reality--the colorless, soundless, impalpable cosmos which lies like an iceberg beneath the plane of man's perceptions--is a skeleton structure of symbols."

hmm reality as a skeleton structure of symbols, now whom on this forum has expressed similar thoughts? what document defines reality as a set of numbers?
i think we all know.

cheers, tim

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 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