The Most Critical Question!

[Rade]

So do you understand first of all why he defined "explanation" as a method of generating expectations from undefined information, as oppose to defining it as a method of establishing the correct meaning of undefined information?

Well, first, this is not at all what DD has claimed. He has never defined "explanation" using the terms "undefined information"! So, I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are claiming about how DD defines the concept of explanation.

 

Second, it would help the discussion if you could provide the definition DD uses (or would logically use) for the concept "interpretation". So, when you told Ken that a perception is a type of interpretation of some input energy, would this not be the same as saying a perception is a type of explanation of some input energy, a process of deriving expectations from the input circumstance ? Or, are you saying that explanation is a process (cause) and interpretation the end result (effect) ?

 

Finally, here is an alternative definition of explanation to the one presented by DD that more accurately represents my world view:

 

An explanation is the logical arrangement of facts translated into a simpler language, with facts being observations [perceptions] over time that yield the same result. Because all facts are subject to change, all explanations are subject to change, thus there is always doubt associated with any valid explanation.

 

I do not find that the fundamental equation of DD has anything to say about this defined class of valid explanations, but perhaps you can clarify.

[AnssiH]

Hi Ken,

 

It appears that you missed my final statement:

 

I noticed, that is why I made the clarification that he is referring to the end result, not the process.

 

As of what the translation process is between the input and the final perception, that is deliberately left completely undefined in his analysis. That is because the purpose of his analysis is to demonstrate what kinds of properties can be considered to be true for any valid translation process, regardless of what that process actually is. Valid means anything that generates valid expectations; anything that cannot be explicitly proven to be wrong.

 

So, the point he is attacking is actually that, when you take some input, and you generate such a representation of that input that some (inductive) expectations can be represented, then that representation must contain few specific symmetries to itself. I,e, whenever you represent something in terms of "a set of objects", few symmetries arise to your representation, because the input cannot in itself be known to be "a set of objects"; only your interpretation of the input is.

 

That's just one way to put it, but let it be said that if you are interested of neurophysiological view of the brain, this subject has got nothing to do with that. This is actually logical-mathematical examination to those beforementioned symmetries.

 

A slight modification of DD's and your definitions would make a far stronger argument if the purpose is to emphasize the plasticity of Percepts or world views.

 

It's not. I'm not sure if you've seen the posts DD's made about the analysis, but if you want to browse a bit deeper;

 

Defining "explanation" and establishing its general notation:

http://scienceforums.com/topic/21476-laying-out-the-representation-to-be-solved/

 

Establishing the general properties of explanations:

http://scienceforums.com/topic/22171-conservation-of-inherent-ignorance/

 

And establishing a succint expression of those general properties:

http://scienceforums.com/topic/22894-a-universal-representation-of-rules/

 

From that junction, the analysis moves on to point out what sorts of approximations lead exactly to the definitions of modern physics;

 

Schrödinger's Equation:

http://scienceforums.com/topic/15021-deriving-schrodingers-equation-from-my-fundamental-equation/

 

Special Relativity:

http://scienceforums.com/topic/17844-an-"analytical-metaphysical"-take-on-special-relativity/

 

Dirac's Equation:

http://scienceforums.com/topic/19202-anybody-interested-in-diracs-equation/

 

General Relativity:

http://scienceforums.com/topic/21373-the-final-piece-of-the-puzzle/

 

If you want to get an idea of what sorts of results are being implied, just skim those last 4 posts a bit.

 

I understand it is a lot of material, but I thought if I don't say anything, that would have been quite useless to you as well. :/

 

-Anssi

[Rade]

...As of what the translation process is between the input and the final perception, that is deliberately left completely undefined in his analysis.

The translation process is called conception..the forming of concepts, either directly via differentiation of perception input or indirectly via integration of previous concepts formed. While this process may be "completely undefined in the analysis of DD", it must be present for any valid explanation to be formed by the mind. As I have mentioned many times in the past, imo, the Fundamental Equation of DD represents the mathematical representation of how humans form concepts...yet alas..DD does not agree with my interpretation of his presentation.

 

...the purpose of his analysis is to demonstrate what kinds of properties can be considered to be true for any valid translation process' date=' regardless of what that process actually is. Valid means anything that generates valid expectations; anything that cannot be explicitly proven to be wrong.[/quote']Unfortunately, valid translation process as you define is not possible, for one can never with certainty generate any expectations that cannot be explicitly proven wrong. But perhaps I error, please provide a example of such error.

 

...the point he is attacking is actually that' date=' when you take some input, and you generate such a representation of that input that some (inductive) expectations can be represented, then that representation must contain few specific symmetries to itself. I,e, whenever you represent something in terms of "a set of objects", few symmetries arise to your representation, because the input cannot in itself be known to be "a set of objects"; only your interpretation of the input is.[/quote']I do not agree. The representation generated in your example is a complete symmetry to itself, it is the symmetry of each specific "input" as object in itself [ii] and how the mind generates the representation [Ri] of it, to yield the perfect symmetry [ii-Ri] for each such objective input. You generate expectations for each [ii-Ri] representation, not for [ii] in of itself ! Thus, repeated input can be known via differentiation and integration (call it mental calculus) as a "set of objects" {[i1],[i2],[i3]...} and your interpretation [iNT] of this set to form a concept is a subjective map of what you know as object transformed in complete symmetry to a representation of the interpretation as [iNT-R] = {[i1-R1], [i2-R2], [i3-R3]...}. Perhaps a bit abstract, but it is the nature of the beast that you discuss.

[AnssiH]

Unfortunately, valid translation process as you define is not possible, for one can never with certainty generate any expectations that cannot be explicitly proven wrong.

 

Certainty has never been required for validity.

 

I do not agree. The representation generated in your example is a complete symmetry to itself, it is the symmetry of each specific "input" as object in itself [ii]

 

I should have said whenever you represent something in terms of "a set of persistent objects", few symmetries arise to your representation, because the input cannot in itself be known to be "a set of persistent objects"

 

Where "persistent" refers to the idea that some collections of events are interpreted as the same elemental entity.

 

-Anssi

[Doctordick]

Regarding the "Critical Question" being discussed here, I have come across a quote of Sir Arthur Eddington

 

As a conscious being I am involved in a story. The perceiving part of my mind tells me a story of a world around me. The story tells of familiar objects. It tells of colours, sounds, scents belonging to these objects; of boundless space in which they have their existence, and of an ever-rolling stream of time bringing change and incident. It tells of other life than mine busy about its own purposes. As a scientist I have become mistrustful of this story.

 

Sir Arthur Eddington, 1934

 

Taken from his book: New Pathways in Science, Chapter I, Cambridge University Press, 1935 (Reprint by Cambridge University Press, New York, 2012).

 

Someone think about that a little bit!

Edited March 21, 2013 by Doctordick

[Rade]

Let me be clear, this is not a direct reply to our DD, as we no longer directly communicate with each other. I comment to the thread topic. Here is another post by Eddington to think about:

 

 

There is a doctrine well known to philosophers that the moon ceases to exist when no one is looking at it. I will not discuss the doctrine since I have not the least idea what is the meaning of the word existence when used in this connection. At any rate the science of astronomy has not been based on this spasmodic kind of moon. In the scientific world (which has to fulfill functions less vague than merely existing) there is a moon which appeared on the scene before the astronomer; it reflects sunlight when no one sees it; it has mass when no one is measuring the mass; it is distant 240,000 miles from the earth when no one is surveying the distance; and it will eclipse the sun in 1999 even if the human race has succeeded in killing itself off before that date.

—Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 226