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
You Are Looking At The Problem Incorrectly.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on April 26, 2001 20:39:45 UTC


Let us begin with a totally undefined set of data. Next, let us transform the data by a totally undefined procedure. The general case of this finnished set is what we have as the input to our abstract modeling method.

Thus the model (which must be universal) can only depend on patterns in the finnished set.

You are confusing the original undefined data with the finnished set (the data after it has been transformed by a totally undefined procedure)! That is, your mental model of the model building procedure is entirely omitting the problems created by the undefined transformation!

It should be clear to you that no matter what asymetrys you (as God) were to put in the original data, I could concieve of a set of transformations on the data which would invalidate those asymetrys.

Given those possibilities, an entirely general model can not depend on any asymetrys to be in the finished set. If it did, it would not be general.

You are looking in the wrong end of the telescope!

Have fun -- Dick

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 1994-2022 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