home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.physics
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!decwrl!concert!uvaarpa!murdoch!kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU!crb7q
- From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
- Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
- Message-ID: <1992Nov5.173352.20400@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
- Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
- Organization: University of Virginia
- References: <73642@hydra.gatech.EDU+ <1992Nov4.225441.22809@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU+ <73753@hydra.gatech.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:33:52 GMT
- Lines: 25
-
- In article <73753@hydra.gatech.EDU> cegtitd@prism.gatech.EDU (Tim Dodd) writes:
- >
- >+ As far as 'reality' goes, if you may define it as you wish,
- >+ just don't expect everybody else to share the definition, especially
- >+ outside of science.
- >+
- >
- >If a concept is defined in such a manner that it cannot in principle
- >ever be shown to pertain to a component of reality, that concept is by
- >definition meaningless.
-
- This seems to depend, to a great degree, on your definition of
- 'reality'. You may well define it so that anything that is
- not reality is meaningless. If, however, you define it so that reality
- is equivalent to the domain of science, things that are outside
- do not lack innate 'meaning.' In fact, it is arguable that *any*
- concept of which one can conceive has 'meaning' simply in the conception,
- regardless of the nature of 'reality'.
-
- dale bass
- --
- C. R. Bass crb7q@virginia.edu
- Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
- University of Virginia
- Charlottesville, Virginia (804) 924-7926
-