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
Sorry, I Got Sick - Been In Bed All Day!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on May 4, 2001 00:59:02 UTC


For the most part, my biggest problem with your comments is that I usually have not a hint of what you are trying to say. You seem to be more concerned with classifying than understanding what I say. This appears me to be an indication that you think that if you get me properly classified, you will understand me.

>>>In philosophy what you are referring to is called foundationalism.>>If you see me as correct so far,> then my question is: is your foundationalist model a reductionist model in that you are reducing the laws of physics or symmetries of physics (i.e., a 'physical layer') to a foundational layer (i.e., a 'mathematical layer'), or is it non-reductionist in that it only models the 'physical layer' but does not pretend to be the most primitive respresentation? >So is correct to say that your model is a coordinate system by which to construe the 'physical layer'?>Don't you mean that reality can be effectively represented by a set of numbers?

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