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
My Sub Needs Pressurizing

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on April 16, 2001 23:39:17 UTC


Okay, you want me to dive deeper. Let's go...

>>>H:"I don't even think solipsism is provable" D:
I think you misunderstood my comment. I hold that that is the only tenable position provable or otherwise and your statement. H: "but of course not preferable." D: is a "religious" position on the issue.>>H: "This is not a precise definition." D: At least at the beginning, I think we need to be as precise as possible.>H: "The 'meta-rules' are said to exist in that they are said to influence observable phenomena (e.g., the creation of the world)" D: Again, we are presupposing some rules and the necessity of the concept "influence".>H: "It is not a statement (human language) that you originally said must be self-consistent. I believe you said that the 'laws of symmetry' were a result of self-consistency." D: I think the laws of symmetry as I present them or as they are presented by others are human language statements!>"I can easily imagine a universe that is not self-consistent". D: I deny your ability to imagine such. There is a big difference between imagining something and your telling me you can imagine it. If you can truly imagine it, then you should be able to answer any questions about it that I might propose. So perhaps you have a different definition of the word "imagine" than I.>>H: "The events of the universe would be contradictory in that scenario. So, when you suggest that the laws of physics arise from a self-consistent universe (or something like that), then my question is why is self-consistency something that we should expect of the universe?" D: I think you are mixing up two different concepts. First, the universe and second your description of the universe. Essentially, you are telling me that you believe there is something other then a description of the universe: i.e., "something real exists".>>H: "A cause is a valid reason (i.e., assuming we had all-knowledge)." D: The cause, as you have defined it, is an aspect of your imagination: your mental model of what is going on (reality).>How about "reality" is a complete correct description of what "is": i.e., each and every possible observation in detail from every possible perspective? And an observation is a piece of information we can communicate.

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