I took some time yesterday and read all of your posts back three sets of those "next 30 threads" on this forum. I had read all of them earlier but I read so much I don't always connect what was said to who said it. I think we must have had a major misunderstanding of what each of us was trying to say back around June 26th. Even now, when I read that thread you seem to be somewhat illogical which is completely counter to anything I have seen you say since. The only conclusion I can come to is that we simply were not communicating; a very common problem in the world.
My impression at the present is that you are coming very close to exactly what I am trying to say. With regard to that, I would like to point out a subtle aspect of my analysis of the problem which you may very well understand. First, I would like to point out something which, unless you are familiar with a few foreign languages, you could very well miss. Sometimes a concept used in one language is not used in the other. What this clearly means is that it is possible to set up a viable "definition pattern" which is not the same as the one we use.
When I point out that our only contact with reality is through our senses (which we must leave as undefined) it should also be evident that our communications (which I think almost by definition must be through reality) put us on opposite ends of a communication channel with undefined transformations on both ends of the channel. The situation is very analogous to our communications through this forum except that *no alternative mode of communications exists*.
To tell me that you know anything about what kind of transformations your senses are making on the base data (reality) is completely equivalent to telling me you can figure out what the TCP/IP protocols are by writing messages back and forth through this forum. The issue is, there are many possibilities and we really cannot be sure exactly what is going on. Does that mean that there is nothing we can do to discover any limitations (rules regarding) an the actual physical message mechanism (analogous to reality - the underlying actual transmission)? I can still think of a few things we could do.
Add to this the fact that they can apparently create a language translation layer in that channel. Now what does that language translation layer do in the case where a concept used in one language can only be approximated in the other? I would say, it makes an erroneous translation. Maybe not a serious error, but an error none the less!
What I am saying points right into something Harv said: >>>If we are both 'onto something' (i.e., us and whatever other history of life we discuss), then I believe we can logically map our theories and laws into their theories and laws. They will correspond.