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
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
That Was A Very Nice Reply

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Aurino Souza on June 27, 2001 20:50:49 UTC

Hi Dick

No apologies needed. I still don't understand why you think I don't understand you but that's OK, this is not the best medium to have these kinds of discussions anyway. I haven't posted on internet forums for a long time, I realized it seldom takes you anywhere. Believe me, the only reason I joined astronomy.net was because you post here. The God and science stuff, I've had enough of it already. And your posts interested me because you are the first person I ever met who seems to be seeing the same problems with science that I see.

>> the things I am interested in require a certain understanding of what is usually called higher math so I seldom bring them up unless I think the audience has the education to follow my thoughts Actually, you should have an argument with [physics being a tautology] > The problem with [the physicists's] attack is that, as I said above, it is based on thousands upon thousands of concepts which they have grown up believing. Time and time again, these same scientists have discovered errors in those concepts (the great breakthroughs of science are based on the discovery of errors in accepted concepts). > I decided to define "reality" to be a set of numbers. My rational for doing so is laid out in Chapter I of "The Foundations of Physical Reality". > ... when I define these concepts, I use the fact that the definitions will result in my tautological statements corresponding exactly to some conventional physics relations. There is nothing wrong with that at all. What it does is make my definitions correspond to the standard definitions. These are relations physicists have found to be true. When I find some very analogous relations in my tautology is it not reasonable to use the same words for these relationships that the physicist uses? > I have claimed many times that my interest is not in generating theories! My publication concerns the fact that it is possible to construct a working stage for scientific inquiry which does not require any of the concepts acquired as we grew up to be true. I have cut the Gordian knot so to speak. > if you are still young enough to learn something new, I would suggest you do something about learning mathematics.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 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