Harv and Tim,

I just had an interesting conversation on the elevator, and I thought of sharing it with you as it has everything to do with what I'm trying to explain.

A co-worker and I were discussing a problem she's having dealing with someone at the office. As we entered the elevator, a gentleman got the last part of our conversation. I told her this:

"You think this is about competence at work but it isn't, it's about politics. You are very good at what you do, but you're not a good politician, so keep out of it or you'll burn yourself. This guy is much better at playing games than you are, focus on your work and let the chips fall where they may"

Something like that. The man who was eavesdropping was obviously curious about our conversation, so I looked at him and asked, "what do you think she should do?". He said, "I think you are right"

What does that have to do with Dick's ideas, you might be wondering. Everything, believe it or not. The interesting thing about the episode was that the man thought I was right without having a clue as to what the problem affecting my co-worker is. The gentleman in the elevator seems to think the argument expressed by my three sentences above is correct regardless of context.

The essence of Dick's work, as he explained to me, is a search for all statements that are true regardless of context. The laws of physics, he claims, are part of the solution, but only the beginning.

Hope this helps. It's never too much to remind that I in no way agree with his claims, I'm just trying to help you guys understand where he's coming from, so you can properly evaluate his ideas.

• Aurino - harvey1 - September 29, 2003 - 20:33 UTC
  • Prediction != Valid Theory - sfnative - September 29, 2003 - 21:25 UTC
    • Prediction + Good theory attributes = adequate theory - harvey1 - September 29, 2003 - 22:25 UTC
      • TOEs must go beyond SM - sfnative - September 29, 2003 - 23:41 UTC
        • Truth is not a scientific issue - harvey1 - September 30, 2003 - 15:47 UTC
          • Excellent Discourse - sfnative - September 30, 2003 - 19:25 UTC
            • Thanks! - harvey1 - September 30, 2003 - 19:32 UTC
            • yes excellent imho - sagefr0g - September 30, 2003 - 20:33 UTC
              • This approach is philosophy - harvey1 - September 30, 2003 - 21:08 UTC
                • probably so - sagefr0g - September 30, 2003 - 21:50 UTC
                  • No way - harvey1 - September 30, 2003 - 22:20 UTC
                    • Philosophy defines science - sfnative - September 30, 2003 - 23:00 UTC
                      • It depends on what you mean - harvey1 - October 1, 2003 - 15:26 UTC
                    • prediction is a key element of - sagefr0g - October 1, 2003 - 01:47 UTC
                      • Free will is an empirical fact - yanniru - October 1, 2003 - 12:18 UTC
                        • those bounds though - sagefr0g - October 1, 2003 - 14:46 UTC
                          • No- finite bounds - yanniru - October 1, 2003 - 15:30 UTC
                            • again my bad - sagefr0g - October 1, 2003 - 16:56 UTC
                              • Apologies not needed - yanniru - October 1, 2003 - 18:48 UTC
                                • zeno's arrow wasn't - sagefr0g - October 2, 2003 - 00:05 UTC
                                  • Yes - yanniru - October 2, 2003 - 03:59 UTC
                                    • this scenerio - sagefr0g - October 2, 2003 - 21:25 UTC
                      • re: prediction - harvey1 - October 1, 2003 - 15:10 UTC
                        • clarification - harvey1 - October 1, 2003 - 15:11 UTC
                        • point well taken with respect to - sagefr0g - October 1, 2003 - 16:53 UTC
          • "TRUTH IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR SCIENCE TO CONSIDER" ??????? - carefuluniverse - October 1, 2003 - 17:36 UTC
  • Harv - aurino_ - September 29, 2003 - 22:19 UTC
    • I'm not upset - harvey1 - September 29, 2003 - 22:29 UTC