- #1
Canute
- 1,568
- 0
The purpose of this thread is to explore Dr. Richard Stafford's paper 'The Foundations of Reality' in order that I (and anyone else who wants to try) can come to some understanding of it. I'll quote from some introductory essays written by the author and also by Paul Martin, who has spent some time getting to grip with Dick's ideas, and ask questions of the two essayists as they arise.
These essays are available at http://paulandellen.com/ideas/tfor2.htm and are quoted with permission.
Paul/Dick
Q1: How is 'self-consistent' defined here? Specifically, would quantum theory qualify as a self-consistent (mental or otherwise) model despite the contradiction at the heart of it?
Q2: For 'explanation' my dictionary is not very helpful. It equates explaining with rendering comprensible. But the explanation of Nature given by physics is incomprehensible to us according to most physicists. Does this create a problem for the definition here or not? Is 'explanation' given a more precise definition later?
I'm ok with the rest.
Canute
These essays are available at http://paulandellen.com/ideas/tfor2.htm and are quoted with permission.
The Starting Point of "The Foundations of Reality"
by: Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D.
1) We know what we know whatever that might be! Of significance is the fact that it is all in the past and that the future is completely unknown!
2) We want to understand what we know! That means we are looking for an explanation of what we know. An explanation can be thought of as a collection of ideas which, taken as a whole will make describing what we know as easy as possible. Such a collection of ideas is called a mental model of reality.
3) A useable mental model of reality must be self consistent as, if it is not, it will not serve its purpose. It may give a different answer to the same question depending on the attack taken.
4) Finally, the explanation can not change as more information is added. That is, the "model" must be valid, no matter what the future consists of.
My entire presentation is based on those simple four ideas and it will "explain" any conceivable reality.
Paul/Dick
Q1: How is 'self-consistent' defined here? Specifically, would quantum theory qualify as a self-consistent (mental or otherwise) model despite the contradiction at the heart of it?
Q2: For 'explanation' my dictionary is not very helpful. It equates explaining with rendering comprensible. But the explanation of Nature given by physics is incomprehensible to us according to most physicists. Does this create a problem for the definition here or not? Is 'explanation' given a more precise definition later?
I'm ok with the rest.
Canute