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
Some Points Of Departure

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on July 26, 2001 22:04:24 UTC

>> The epistemological problem that Dick wishes to address does exist >>It is my understanding that Dick makes the very reasonable assumption that the problem can be solved, after all it has been solved. But you don't seem to be disputing his right to approach the problem in a rational way, you're questioning the outcome of his solution.>>And if physics can be obtained from an abstract model, doesn't that make it clear that physics is not really a reflection of reality as much as it is a logical consequence of the way we chose to interpret it?>Again, I don't understand what is anti-realistic about a model which not only confirms that most of modern physics is true, it clearly shows that it couldn't possibly be otherwise.>>The problem Harv, is that no matter how you look at reality you must necessarily arrive at the same conclusions. Had history been different we might have developed a different kind of science>but as long as this different science were as self-consistent as ours, in other words as long as it was based on logic, the two would be perfectly compatible. That is what I get from Dick's paper and it makes perfect sense to me. But then when someone comes and says that instead of space, time, mass, energy, you could have a totally different set of concepts that could still model reality as efficiently as our current models do, people get upset. They see it as an attempt to prove science wrong when that is completely beside the point, the point is to show how science, being a self-consistent model, is completely tied-up to the definitions involved in building it.>It still amazes me that most people can't understand what to me sounds like a very simple idea.

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