You Misunderstand The Issue Here! - an Astronomy Net God & Science Forum Message

God & Science Forum Message
Forums:	Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem


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

You Misunderstand The Issue Here!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on April 25, 2001 20:19:43 UTC

Richard,

First, let me apologize for being so slow to respond. I have been out of pocket for a few days (life gets to be complex sometimes). With regard to your concern that I am making assumptions, I think you have missed the central issue of exactly what I am doing.

To restate the problem I am attempting to solve: I am trying to come up with a procedure for modeling the underlying data given that that data is totally undefined and (a very significant issue) that data has been transformed by a totally undefined process! I define the underlying data and reality to be identical concepts (from the position that there exists no communicable concept of reality which cannot be transformed into numbers). I define the undefined process to be our senses: i.e., our senses and the undefined process are also identical concepts!

Think of the undefined process as some totally undefined secret code. All I ask is that the code be defineable not that it be defined. One of the components of that transformation could be "add a number to every number" and my model must be able to handle such a phenomena. If my model cannot handle that transformation, then my model is not universal!!

>>>>For example spontaneous rotational symmetry breaking would be outside the scope of your model.

Follow Ups:

Not totally undefined - yanniru - April 26, 2001 - 00:02 UTC
- You are looking at the problem incorrectly. - doctordick - April 26, 2001 - 20:39 UTC
  - Your transformation is defined - yanniru - April 27, 2001 - 15:19 UTC
    - Let me try again. - doctordick - April 27, 2001 - 18:40 UTC
    - From another perspective! - doctordick - April 27, 2001 - 19:12 UTC
    - Or a third! - doctordick - April 27, 2001 - 19:34 UTC
      - Yes, I am defining my model as symmetric - yanniru - April 27, 2001 - 22:01 UTC
        
        Ignore the development!! - doctordick - April 30, 2001 - 14:52 UTC
        
        Classical physics is completely based on rationality, except per - yanniru - May 1, 2001 - 01:24 UTC
        
        A second issue! - doctordick - April 30, 2001 - 15:02 UTC

Additional Information

About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy

Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 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