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
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
As Usual

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Tim on September 29, 2003 18:04:30 UTC

your understanding and knowlege is beyond mine.
there are only a few points you make that i can even remark on.

"1. He assumes what reality is, numbers, which is like assuming that math exists but not physics. He never states how the numbers are communicated."

doesn't he really just assume that reality, what ever it is, is communicable and then go on to define reality as a set of numbers? in other words isn't the step of defining reality as a set of numbers actually a logical step following the assumption that reality is communicable?
previous to making that definition he freely states that "I will make much use of Mathematics without defense or argument." so it is left to us to decide if that is an acceptable step. i find it an acceptable step in that while it is probably true "primordial" mathematics stems from abstractions of nature it is never the less as Dr. Dick states "quite clear that mathematicians are very concerned with the exactness of their definitions and the self consistency of their mental structures." but if my statement of the source of "primordial" mathematics is nature is true as Morris Kline in his book "Mathematics and the Physical World" seems to say, then even the assumption of numbers as reality or the undefended use of mathematics in his reasoning is not really an assumption that math exists but not physics.

in a previous post you made referance that you were in agreement with Dr. Dick's definition of reality as a set of numbers. do you remmember that post?

also in a previous post you in my estimation lamented the level of mathemantics that is required to understand modern physics while at the same time making it clear that it is inescapable for us to understand the physical world with out mathematics. it seems reasonable to me that one day the physical world shall be understandable with out such a convoluted, difficult to achieve level of mathematics as a requirement. i for one recognize in Dr. Dick's approach the feasability of such a hoped for outcome.

regards, tim




Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 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