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
You Mean To Say That You Think I'm Incorrect?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on July 31, 2001 17:32:19 UTC

Hi Dick,

>>>H: " It's very simple, what makes something true?" D: I will use your definition; "For the realist, a statement S is true if and only if there exists a state of affairs corresponding to the description given in S">>Again, I will state that "prior to the construction of your model" your senses, having not been modeled, are not defined. To state that your senses of reality are reality has no logical content at all. You are presuming your current model is correct (i.e., free of all illusion - those illusions which you are not yet aware of that is)!>You seem to entirely miss the essence of my attack. All I am doing is explicitly stating that the base model (your starting point) must allow for all conceivable illusions. Once that possibility is explicitly expressed, then one can look at the information available through our senses with an unprejudiced eye. So, instead of assuming our current model is correct, let us start with a base model which is capable of encompassing anything we can conceive of! Then let us determine exactly what illusions may arise and what may not arise. Let us analytically find if we can put any constraints on "what is real" and what is illusion before we go to do our experiments.>>No, I am not saying another model couldn't be developed! What I am saying is that if another model was developed (and it was internally self consistent) I can guarantee that it can be mapped directly into mine detail by detail. I can even give you the procedure to do so.>I am still of the opinion that you are just playing naming games! You don't like "reality is a set of numbers" or reality is pligits; how about "reality is information". Will that sit a little better with you?>So, yes I believe the world is actually composed of something! Call it information if that makes you feel better! Yes, I believe the universe is actually some collection of information and that information is real! But not that there is a room full of information in that universe; rather the universe itself is nothing more than information. That the whole of the information is everything.> No, it is not! I hold a stronger realist position than that! God is nothing more than additional information: i.e., nothing more than another concept to be cast in the whole called the universe. God himself cannot invalidate my model. Perhaps my conclusions (I could have made a logical error) but not the model itself. I have him by the short hairs chief! I think that if you could understand the model, you could see that.

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