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
Some Thoughts

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Aurino Souza on July 27, 2001 13:40:50 UTC

Hi Harv

I'm not the best person to defend Dick's position, since I don't even understand it as a whole. I believe I have a good understanding of his statement of the problem and his approach to the solution, and that alone is enough to blow most people away, but only as long as they are willing to accept the consequences of logical thought.

As to Dick's claims on anything, I'll leave it up to him to do that.

>> I'm not contesting the math, but based on his dialogue with Richard it seems that Dick acknowledges using symmetries which are used by physicists to obtain the laws of physics - so there is a big question if Dick has really accomplished anything. > ...and laugh at experimental physicists as they spend billions to test a priori known theories. > Of course, it is not like that. > Mathematics is very wide open for interpretation as to how to apply the math to nature's workings. > One of the arguments against this anti-realist claim is scientific progress. Dick wants to say that scientific progress is tautologically true which dismisses scientific progress as an argument against anti-realism. If I, as a realist, say scientific progress indicates that we are actually learning about reality, Dick can retort, 'No, my model shows that we arrive at physics based on our a priori assumptions that are axiom driven. You have no such claim to suggest that science infers realism.' This is anti-realism. >> Had history been different we might have developed a different kind of science> I don't think you can do without concepts such as space, time, mass, energy without actually referring to *those* concepts with just a different name. > It may seem simple, but I don't think Dick has properly considered the possibility that his model is really saying 'nature is simple and it flows from mathematical processes' (i.e., Alex's approach - which I think is correct)

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 1994-2020 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