Hi Dick,

I hope you are feeling better.

>>>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.>>As I said in my paper, scientists are, in general, blind to their assumptions.>The existence of these assumptions is the root cause of the slow progress of science.To get to what is possible to know (which is very possibly nothing), we must first eliminate these bogus results. What I find astounding is that the "bogus" results turn out to be --Physics--.>>If we worked very hard at it we could separate any dictionary into two sets of words. The first set, which could be defined entirely via the words in the second set and the second set which would violate the rule on the first cycle. The second set can be seen as forming a basis for the dictionary. Those words you must know the meaning of a priori as without a priori knowledge, the definitions are without meaning.>One could say that I am searching for the basis of reality: the minimum I need to know (or can know) to understand! As far as I have been able to determine so far, the basis appears to be an empty set. (Moving me to utter the rather funny phrase “At this point there appears to be no basis for any concept of reality that I am aware of!”)

• correction - harvey1 - May 4, 2001 - 19:33 UTC
  • Correction question - paulm - May 4, 2001 - 22:42 UTC
    • Correct sp: bored (nt) - harvey1 - May 5, 2001 - 14:12 UTC