[MD] a-theism and atheism

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Mark,
I'm feeling perfectionistic so I'll point this out,
don't mind me if you don't want, I know you're a scientist.
Tim

>[Mark] Here's another Quality analogy.  [...] In this way, everything is spread out on the
> axis of Quality (dimensionality is not important). So what we see is not the
> object itself, but its representation within Quality.

[Tim]
I will point out for the casual reader that this 'what we see' is what
we would see if we could see it directly against the axes of quality,
dimensionality not important.  What-we-see may be many levels further
in, so that the axes of quality are objects of faith.


> 
> [Mark] In science we collect data points.  Such points represent one of many
> possible points

[Tim]
in order for science to 'work', a portion of reality has to be
simplified enough that experiments can be said to be 'precisely
repeatable', and in that sense, data points can be said to be one of
many possible...

> [Mark] and are only symbolic of a function which underly their
> pattern.

[Tim]
the simplification of reality implies 'function' - and (knowable) model.

> [Mark]  We create a model to describe such points and their significant
> appearance  It is the model which matters not the data points themselves.

[Tim]
but from even a level up, it is teh reality that matters, not the model.

>[Mark]  If the model works, then data points should fall within it.

[Tim]
to the extent that the model works, reality will furnish data to show
itself through it.

> 
> [Mark] You can't see gravity, but you can measure it with data points like a
> falling object, for example.  Gravity is what underlies; the falling
> object
> is gravity at work.  Such data points only serve to describe gravity,
> they
> are not gravity.

[Tim]
and neither is the model.

> 
>[Mark] Same with Quality and objects.

[Tim]
where I will highlight that Quality is likened unto the phenomena of
gravity, objects are likened unto ones ability to perform the experiment
measuring data points; and the model of the data is our attempts at
understanding in our static patterns.
 
> 
>[Mark] Just another way to put it, there are many analogies.  Don't take them
> too
> literally, these words are just data points which represent something
> underlying which form them and give them meaning.

[Tim]
yes, literal becomes a hurdle, or impediment; an analogy is a way around
an impediment.  Our ways around impediments become our next impediments.
 So, from both perspectives, we must take them seriously though.  There
is a real; and we can, seemingly, get pretty close to it.

But then, what do you do with it??? (i.e. The aging Mark is Quality at
work)
Tim

-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Accessible with your email software
                          or over the web