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
Can We Look Again?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on July 25, 2001 17:31:31 UTC


>>>First of all, please bear in mind that I wrote this while reading your post, so if my thought process seems to bounce all over the place you'll know why. I agree, but I do need to point out that not all human models are respresented through symbols. It would be difficult to represent the sensation of pain into a numeric set capable of being interpreted by the originator of that sensation.> So, while reality may be reducable to a set of numbers which represent all reality, realize that we are absolutely incapable of knowing some aspects of that reality in a numeric sense. > (it can not be physically represented: you cannot have i apples.)>Of course, that could just be a conflict on the meaning of our symbols.>Maybe sense and model of reality follow each other in a paralell sense. One doesn't cause the other, they move in unison.I'd say that if a certain number set is modified greatly by your senses, it stands to reason that that set is influenced primarily by your senses and therefor at least partially subjective. (not correlating directly to reality.)>For example, the number set translating to "I love my wife" may change to "I hate my wife" after she divorces you and takes the kids. But the set translating to "The earth is round" doesn't change much no matter how riled up your senses and emotions get. Oh sure, it changes a little, but not much.>So in this way you can narrow down what has more real-content: whatever is modified less by your senses tends to be more "real." So while we may never pin reality down to one point, we can get closer every time a new page with number sets comes through.>Okay. But each time reality is updated, we get closer. Imagine a number line X which represents every possible model for reality which extends from positive infinity to negative infinity. Now, science makes a discovery which narrows reality down>Yeah, but there are some sets of data less suceptible to sense-alteration than others.>Those can be interpreted as being more in harmony with reality. Sure, the earth may not be round, it may not even exist, and I simply may be a disembodied brain floating in Vat 1452 in some mad scientists lair. But the probability of that is currently so low I don't fret much about it. I call it pragmatic reality application. The earth might as well be round. Thought might as well exist. And until someone passes me a number set that says "You're wrong, idiot" I'll continue to say "According to all I know, the earth is round." >>Absolutely true, but your observations are based on reality. So your algorithms operate based on modified reality. And a modification that gets smaller every day. >I see what you're saying but I'm not convinced. Astrology does not display symmetries accepted by modern astronomy, but few would deny that astrology isn't created by your undefined transformation.All you're saying is that anything is possible. I agree. But only to a certain extent

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 1994-2024 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