Quote:
Originally Posted by Essay
I was following your convention; but maybe I should have phrased it as '...one's perceptions, and by one's preconceptions.'
|
How can you have perceptions without presuming your senses? And “preconceptions”? Where did they come from? All you know or think you know must be built from information which is totally undefined. The definitions themselves are epistemological structures. The problem of understanding reality can be put in a nutshell.
The problem is one of constructing a rational model of a totally unknown universe given nothing but a totally undefined stream of data which has been transcribed by a totally undefined process. That is the problem I have solved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essay
...or am I misunderstanding something?
|
I have no way of knowing the answer to that question. I have not the slightest idea as to what is going on in your head as I have no knowledge of what portion of what I have written you have read.
Essentially, what I have shown to date is that if one takes the position that the job of a research scientist is to search out the rules which separate the "true" universe from all possible universes, then no classical experiment can provide any guidance on the subject whatsoever. What I have presented up to this point is a pure tautology applicable to any body of information which can be referred to. Classical mechanics is itself a tautology. And I am ready to extend that tautology well beyond what I have already laid out. This thread is nothing but a side note on how relativity arises in that tautology and arguments that the result is experimentally exactly what is produced by Einstein's theory.
Have you perused the thread “What can we know of reality?”?
Have fun -- Dick
