Excerpts From My "foundations Of Physical Reality"

[Doctordick]

The following are some excerpts from my opus "The Foundations of Physical Reality" given here as an attempt to clarify Rade's comprehension of what I am talking about.
 

In this chapter, I will construct a universal mental model of reality without making any presumptions whatsoever concerning what that universe might be. I will make much use of mathematics without defense or argument. In essence, it is quite clear that mathematicians are very concerned with the exactness of their definitions and the self consistency of their mental structures. These are exactly the concerns which drive my work; I am merely attacking a slightly different problem.

...

What follows was begun, back in the 1960's, with the realization that human intelligence is totally isolated from the outside world. The only contact which exists is via interactions, the real meaning of which cannot be known a-priori. Our mental image of the universe is constructed from data received through mechanisms (our senses) which are also part of that image. I think any scientist in the world would hold it as obvious that one could not possibly model the universe until after some information about that universe were obtained. The problem with this position is that we cannot possibly model our senses (the fundamental source of that information) until after we have modeled the universe. This may appear to be another silly presentation of an old chicken-egg paradox but it really isn't.

In order to solve the problem of creating a mental image of reality, it is first necessary to carefully define a few important terms. I find four common terms to be especially significant. Those terms are, “understanding”, “explanation”, “communication” and “language”. These are concepts which are almost absolutely required to even pose the problem to be solved. The underlying intuitive meanings of these terms are fairly clear: “understanding” generally implies one has an “explanation” and “an explanation” can not be seen as existing in the absence of “communication”. (By the way, I include “conscious” thought as communication with ones self.) And, finally, communication can not exist in the absence of a “language”: i.e., without the concepts which are represented by that language.

...

The issue is that two of these four concepts are absolutely essential to solving the problem of inventing a mental image of reality: i.e., the solution we are looking for is the “explanation” and a “language” is absolutely essential to any explanation. I have chosen to use these words as reference tags to be defined because the concepts of interest in this presentation are quite analogous to the common understanding of those two English words.

...

In essence, if you have found a solution to the problem of modeling reality, you must also possess the solution to the problem of designing a “language” required for you to express that solution.

As a matter of fact, this is actually the very crux of the “chicken-egg” paradox mentioned earlier. We absolutely must have a universal method of representing the known circumstances which does not require knowing the definitions of the elements being represented. Coming up with definitions of those critical elements is a serious part of solving the problem. This is, in fact, the actual critical dilemma and, once seen, the solution is quite straight forward.


The only thing required of a language is that it be capable of representing the required information. In fact, the standard definition of the word “language” quite often includes something similar to the phrase, “communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols”. It is that word “arbitrary” which allows us to step across an otherwise implacable obstacle to true objective analysis.


It should be understood that a representation via numerical labels is as useful as is any other conceivable representation. With regard to that issue, please note that the TCP/IP protocol used in internet communications is no more than a defined numerical code for the various communicable elements to be sent. Thus it is that I propose using the common mathematical notation [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] to represent any specific “circumstance” of interest. In this representation, each unknown “x” is to be seen as nothing more than a numerical label attached to a specific language element necessary to express the referenced circumstance.

What “x” labels is of no importance whatsoever. It could, in fact, simply label the firing of a specific brain cell, in which case [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] would denote a specific set of brain cells firing. What is important here is that what “x” actually labels cannot be specified or even considered until after the mental model is created. Any attempt to specify what “x” actually labels would essentially presume a solution is known. If you presume any characteristics whatsoever are known prior to creating a mental image, that image cannot possibly be thought of as universal.

I assert that absolutely any communicable information of interest can be represented by a collection of such circumstances, [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] . It is also of interest that notation is almost identical to the mathematical notation used to denote multiple arguments in any mathematical function of many variables. I use the word “almost” because, at this point, presuming they are identical is a very dangerous assumption.

If you can understand that, we can go on. If that is beyond your comprehension going on is a waste of time.

Have fun -- Dick

 

Edited May 27, 2014 by Doctordick

[Rade]

The following are some excerpts from my opus "The Foundations of Physical Reality" given here as an attempt to clarify Rade's comprehension of what I am talking about.

I truly have no idea what comment of mine you attempt to clarify with this post ? You agreed with my most recent post that your fundamental equation has absolutely nothing to do with prediction of future physical reality, so we seem to be in complete agreement.

[Doctordick]

I truly have no idea what comment of mine you attempt to clarify with this post ?

Oh, you have made that quite clear. I was attempting to clarify to you what I have been talking about; something which has apparently never been grasped by either you or Qfwfq. Perhaps it is just too far over your head for you to even think about it.

 

You might try studying some of the philosophical writings of Sir Arthur Eddington of Cambridge University as he speaks of exactly the problem I have solved.

 

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington

 

I wish he were still alive as I am confident that he would comprehend that the solution to the philosophical issue he confronted lies with comprehending the significance of the arbitrary nature of “language” itself.

 

The only thing required of a language is that it be capable of representing the required information. In fact, the standard definition of the word “language” quite often includes something similar to the phrase, “communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols”. It is that word “arbitrary” which allows us to step across an otherwise implacable obstacle to true objective analysis.

The following quote of Sir Arthur makes it quite clear that he saw the issue I am talking about quite clearly.

 

The Value of Science.

 

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.

 

I have elsewhere expressed this in the words: "Let us not forget that mind is the first and most direct thing in our experience; all else is remote inference". * That is a statement which, I believe, physicists accept almost as a truism, and philosophers generally condemn as a hoary fallacy.

 

Scientific thinkers generally agree that the channel of communication between the external world and man's consciousness is severely limited in this way; but, whilst giving intellectual assent, they do not always adjust their scientific outlook to correspond. They are strangely reluctant to doubt the assertions of the familiar story teller even when it is evident that he is talking through his hat.

 

Broadly speaking the task of physical science is to infer knowledge of external objects from a set of signals passing along our nerves. But that rather underrates the difficulty of the problem. The material from which we have to make our inferences is not the signals themselves, but a fanciful story which has been in some way based on them.

 

Thus in saying that the initial data of physics are nerve signals, we must not be confused by the fact that nerve signals are pictured by us as known processes in the external world. This identification of our initial data is not itself an initial datum; it is one of our indirect inferences.

 

The solution of a cryptogram is found by studying the recurrency of the various signs and indications. I do not think we should ever have made progress with the problem of inference from our sensory experience, and theoretical physics would never have originated, if it were not that certain regularities and recurrencies are noticeable in sensory experience. We call these regularities of experience laws of Nature.

 

Sir Arthur Eddington, 1938

 

I am quite sorry that all of this is beyond your comprehension. You apparently fail to comprehend that “nerve signals are pictured by us as known processes” does not mean it is a fact! As Arthur says, it is an indirect inference. What I am presenting is an analysis of exactly what can be said without making that inference. My discovery was that all of modern physics appears to be no more than satisfaction of my deduced constraint: my fundamental equation. A perspective you refuse to even look at!

 

I hope others are reading this who have some comprehension of what I am talking about.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Eclogite]

Excuse me butting in here, but I have question in my mind. This is the question: is the apparent failure of others to comprehend what you are presenting a failure on their part, or on your part. As a possible means of answering that questions to my satisfaction I wish to explore - hopefully brifely - one comment by yourself.

It should be understood that a representation via numerical labels is as useful as is any other conceivable representation. With regard to that issue, please note that the TCP/IP protocol used in internet communications is no more than a defined numerical code for the various communicable elements to be sent. Thus it is that I propose using the common mathematical notation to represent any specific “circumstance” of interest. In this representation, each unknown “x” is to be seen as nothing more than a numerical label attached to a specific language element necessary to express the referenced circumstance

Would you specify what, in this context, constitutes a language element.

[Doctordick]

Excuse me butting in here, but I have question in my mind. This is the question: is the apparent failure of others to comprehend what you are presenting a failure on their part, or on your part. As a possible means of answering that questions to my satisfaction I wish to explore - hopefully brifely - one comment by yourself.Would you specify what, in this context, constitutes a language element.

A language element is an aspect of the language which can be referred to.  Anytime you use a language, you are making use of the fact that you possess ways of referring to things: the "elements of the language are no more than whatever you use to refer to things. The symbol "x" refers to whatever “language element” the explanation requires to specify a circumstance of interest.

 

 

Coming up with definitions of those critical elements is a serious part of solving the problem. This is, in fact, the actual critical dilemma and, once seen, the solution is quite straight forward.

[math]\cdots[/math]

Any attempt to specify what “x” actually labels would essentially presume a solution is known. If you presume any characteristics whatsoever are known prior to creating a mental image, that image cannot possibly be thought of as universal.

 

You seem to have missed the point that it is the explanation which provides the definitions. All my presentation requires is a means of representing the information to be explained! As Eddington commented, the problem to be solved is essentially a very complex cryptogram; an issue no one seems to comprehend.

 

The solution of a cryptogram ...

Have fun -- Dick

Edited May 27, 2014 by Doctordick

[Rade]

I was attempting to clarify to you what I have been talking about; something which has apparently never been grasped by either you or Qfwfq. Perhaps it is just too far over your head for you to even think about it.

Wow, I see you elevate yourself to a God, claim to have clear understanding of what others think. Have you noticed that next to no one bothers to reply to your posts. Not because they are over their head, but because they reject your philosophy.

 

You might try studying some of the philosophical writings of Sir Arthur Eddington of Cambridge University as he speaks of exactly the problem I have solved.

You solved the problem of the arbitrary nature of language...?...you have the understanding of the history of philosophy of a 5th grade student.

 

You apparently fail to comprehend that “nerve signals are pictured by us as known processes” does not mean it is a fact!

You tell me I fail to comprehend a concept that I never discussed..how did you come to this gem of logical argumentation ?

 

I hope others are reading this who have some comprehension of what I am talking about.

Once again you fail to grasp that the problem with your philosophy is not comprehension, but that 99% of the people on this (and other forums) that read your posts do not agree with your premises...completely different problem you have, and the reason nothing you write will ever be published in peer reviewed philosophy journal.

 

Must we continue with post after post by you about your fundamental equation (which cannot predict anything, has only approximate solutions, has a false understanding of time, etc. etc. etc) rehashing the same old bromides, month after month, year after year ?

[Doctordick]

Eclogite, the following is an attempt to clarify what I am talking about.

 

The underlying problem being examined is “how can you represent a problem you don't understand” because, until you understand it, how can you even think about it and “understanding a problem is part and parcel of solving it”.

 

When it comes to representing the problem to be solved, what everyone seems to miss is the fact that any specific example of any aspect of the solution absolutely destroys the generality of the representation. Note that every year millions of children are conceived facing the problem of a universe they do not understand. And yet they manage to come up with a rather complete solution to the problem in less than two years: i.e., one year old children already have a rather complex world view and are beginning to make attempts at a language. Please explain how that is possible without presuming a fertilized egg already possesses a vocabulary of the important concepts. Actual thought about the problem being brought up here is absolutely avoided by everyone I have ever spoken to (except Anssi and Bombadil).

 

It is exactly the problem of solving a very very extremely complex cryptogram and, as Sir Arthur Eddington said, “The solution of a cryptogram is found by studying the re-currency of the various signs and indications.” If you are to make no presumptions as to what that cryptogram actually presents, you need a method of representing the significant elements of the cryptogram and the circumstances of those various signs and indications ”without making any assumptions as to what those signs and/or indications represent.”

 

We are talking in the abstract here. The symbol “x” stands for “an unknown”. What it stands for is totally unknown as the language required to explain the circumstances is totally unknown. Manufacturing a personal representation of the required language (the underlying important concepts) is part of the problem to be solved. No fertilized egg KNOWS the language necessary to think about the problem. It has to come up with that by working with “the re-currency of the various signs and indications”. That is the simple reason why over 2000 different languages exist within the human community.

 

What I am talking about are the constraints imposed on the solution (where that solution includes the language) by the need to be absolutely general: i.e., manufacturing a representation of the problem (the problem being to explain a set of given circumstances) which makes no presumptions as to what those circumstances are at all and yet can be guaranteed to be capable of representing any possible solution. I am not solving any problem at all; I am merely expressing “the constraints” that the solution must satisfy.

 

In order to express those constraints, I need an absolutely general means of representing whatever it is that needs to be represented before I have any idea at all of what it is that needs to be represented.

 

If anyone on this forum can follow that, let me know.

 

Have fun --Dick

[Eclogite]

Eclogite, the following is an attempt to clarify what I am talking about.

 

The underlying problem being examined is “how can you represent a problem you don't understand” because, until you understand it, how can you even think about it and “understanding a problem is part and parcel of solving it”.

I agree that understanding a problem is typically a key part of solving a problem. (Blind luck may also be used, but is unreliable.)

I disagree very strongly that you cannot think about the problem until you understand it. You have that bass ackwards. Only by thinking about it can you understand it.

Perhaps you meant something else entirely, but got caught out by one of those pesky little little 'language elements' you seem reluctant to define.

 

When it comes to representing the problem to be solved, what everyone seems to miss is the fact that any specific example of any aspect of the solution absolutely destroys the generality of the representation.

I am employed as a trainer. In many years of delivering training every topic or situation or paradigm I have encountered has always benefited from provision of specific examples. I accept that there could be exceptions, but to seriously entertain that possibility I require more than a simple statement of your opinion on the matter.

 

Note that every year millions of children are conceived facing the problem of a universe they do not understand. And yet they manage to come up with a rather complete solution to the problem in less than two years: i.e., one year old children already have a rather complex world view and are beginning to make attempts at a language. Please explain how that is possible without presuming a fertilized egg already possesses a vocabulary of the important concepts. Actual thought about the problem being brought up here is absolutely avoided by everyone I have ever spoken to (except Anssi and Bombadil).

To answer this fully would require more time in searching out references and constructing a comprehensive explanation than I am currently willing to spend. Here is the short answer.

 

What you think of as world view is, in part, nothing more than the application of a few simple rules to external stimuli. In that regard the world view is embedded genetically in the zygote in a manner that will epxress itself as instincts. The migration of birds, the concerted movement behaviour of flocks of birds and shoals of fish, the construction of intricate nests by some ant species are examples. In the higher animals more complex behaviour is built upon and from these simple foundations. Humans have been described as having a two year gestation period, with only nine months of it spent within the womb.

 

So, briefly, you assert the problem is ignored. I assert it has been considered and long since dealt with. You need to make a stronger case.

 

It is exactly the problem of solving a very very extremely complex cryptogram and, as Sir Arthur Eddington said, “The solution of a cryptogram is found by studying the re-currency of the various signs and indications.” If you are to make no presumptions as to what that cryptogram actually presents, you need a method of representing the significant elements of the cryptogram and the circumstances of those various signs and indications ”without making any assumptions as to what those signs and/or indications represent.”

So you say that in identifying the significant elements of the cryptogram that you make no assumptions as to what constitutes a significant element? How do you justify that?

 

We are talking in the abstract here. The symbol “x” stands for “an unknown”. What it stands for is totally unknown as the language required to explain the circumstances is totally unknown. Manufacturing a personal representation of the required language (the underlying important concepts) is part of the problem to be solved. No fertilized egg KNOWS the language necessary to think about the problem. It has to come up with that by working with “the re-currency of the various signs and indications”. That is the simple reason why over 2000 different languages exist within the human community.

I see you choose to ignore the fact that these languages all share basic similarities and appear to be derived from a common template. You appear to have erected a strawman, which causes me to doubt this aspect of your thesis.

 

What I am talking about are the constraints imposed on the solution (where that solution includes the language) by the need to be absolutely general: i.e., manufacturing a representation of the problem (the problem being to explain a set of given circumstances) which makes no presumptions as to what those circumstances are at all and yet can be guaranteed to be capable of representing any possible solution. I am not solving any problem at all; I am merely expressing “the constraints” that the solution must satisfy.

 

In order to express those constraints, I need an absolutely general means of representing whatever it is that needs to be represented before I have any idea at all of what it is that needs to be represented.

 

If anyone on this forum can follow that, let me know.

You overlook the fact that our genetics imposes a series of assumptions, based upon the behavioural patterns embedded in our genes because they provided survival value to our ancestors. We do not start with a tabula rasa.Therein lies a seemingly fatal flaw in your thesis.

 

And to answer your implicit question - I follow exactly what you are saying, but believe you to be seriously mistaken for the reasons summarised above.

[Rade]

...I need an absolutely general means of representing whatever it is that needs to be represented before I have any idea at all of what it is that needs to be represented. If anyone on this forum can follow that, let me know.

It is called illogical thinking. So, you need a general way to represent x, before you have any idea of x. However, logically you must begin with an idea that you need to represent x in an absolutely general means, which meets the criterion of "any idea of x", thus what you need is a logical impossibility. So, we conclude that your entire presentation that ends with a fundamental equation is based on a false premise concerning what needs to the represented by that equation..no wonder you claim the fundamental equation cannot predict anything.

[Aethelwulf]

The following are some excerpts from my opus "The Foundations of Physical Reality" given here as an attempt to clarify Rade's comprehension of what I am talking about.

 

 

 

If you can understand that, we can go on. If that is beyond your comprehension going on is a waste of time.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

''The only thing required of a language is that it be capable of representing the required information. In fact, the standard definition of the word “language” quite often includes something similar to the phrase, “communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols”. It is that word “arbitrary” which allows us to step across an otherwise implacable obstacle to true objective analysis. ''

 

In a sense we actually require two languages. Mathematics and English. Sometimes they break down with each other and our English language cannot properly describe the mathematics involved. One can see good examples, such as black holes. Language often breaks down when describing either their time dilation effects or even singular regions.

[Doctordick]

Eclogite,

 

Under your signature you place the comment, “An open mind is more about accepting nothing, than about accepting everything.” And then post a response which is, in essence, an assertion that the issue I bring up (which is in essence “accepting nothing”) is not even worth thinking about.

 

I am almost seventy-five years old, I have a Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Vanderbilt University and, during my graduate studies, I worked with Oak Ridge theoretical staff. My long life includes a considerable additional experience with the thoughts of many other persons. During that entire period no one whom I have ever talked with (excepting Anssi and Bombadil) ever expressed even the slightest interest in even thinking about the actual foundations of their ideas.

 

I was thus quite astounded when I accidentally ran across that comment by Sir Arthur Eddington in my post above,

 

...

I have elsewhere expressed this in the words: "Let us not forget that mind is the first and most direct thing in our experience; all else is remote inference". * That is a statement which, I believe, physicists accept almost as a truism, and philosophers generally condemn as a hoary fallacy.

...

He is the only person I have ever discovered who even thought about the issue and he, in essence, gave up on finding a solution other than saying it was great cryptogram.

 

So you say that in identifying the significant elements of the cryptogram that you make no assumptions as to what constitutes a significant element? How do you justify that?

You miss the point that it is the explanation which makes that identification not my representation. You solve the problem of finding explanations by making assumptions. What you fail to recognize is the fact that those assumptions could be wrong. In order to take that fact into account, “I need a method of representing the significant elements...” no matter what they might be. But all explanations will identify the significant elements so, given you can find an explanation, you can list the significant elements associated with your assumptions. That is a totally different issue and one of no interest to me in my initial proof. I am interested in the constraints implied by that absolutely general representation I create.

 

So, briefly, you assert the problem is ignored. I assert it has been considered and long since dealt with. You need to make a stronger case.

You avoid the whole essence of the problem and instead, make some fancy hand waving about the proper assumptions to be made, declare the problem as none existent. A fact you make quite clear at the end of your post.

 

You overlook the fact that our genetics imposes a series of assumptions ...

No, I do not! It is you who want me to overlook the fact that those are assumptions!

 

My opening line in the opening post of this thread was, “I will construct a universal mental model of reality without making any presumptions whatsoever concerning what that universe might be”. I either do that or I do not do that. But no one has brought up a single error in that construct. Instead everyone makes every effort to avoid thinking about the issue. They all put forth gobs and gobs of assumptions they assure me must be made.

 

I personally feel that it is because everyone of you wants to avoid thinking about the issue no matter what the cost. At least Eddington concedes that the assumptions should not be believed.

 

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.

What you want is for me to trust that story; just as you insist on doing!

 

You insist that, "an open mind is about accepting nothing" while actually insisting that one should not ever actually consider doing that.

 

The only thing I accept is the field of mathematics. I do that because mathematics is a collection of abstract internally consistent constructs having nothing to do with reality: i.e., their concerns are, in many ways, exactly the same as mine and thus I leave defending their constructs to them.

 

Have fun -- Dick

Edited February 5, 2013 by Doctordick

[Rade]

“I need a method of representing the significant elements...” no matter what they might be. But all explanations will identify the significant elements so, given you can find an explanation, you can list the significant elements associated with your assumptions.

This statement gets to the heart of the problem. In fact, you cannot provide a single example of any specific explanation that will identify your so-called 'significant elements'. If I error, provide an example. Edited February 6, 2013 by Rade

[Rade]

DD, you made this statement of what you are trying so hard to clarify for me in Post #1, that your mission is:

 

solving the problem of inventing a mental image of reality

 

I think you will agree that mental image is nothing more than a model, so what you seek is:

 

SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF INVENTING A MODEL OF REALITY.

 

Thus, you have spent a good part of the past 50+ years thinking about how to model reality, and you use your Ph.D. training in physics to attack the problem.

 

Your approach to the problem is most likely unique...it is mathematical, with the messy requirement that some language must be used to allow anyone to understand your mathematical model, and you use English language. OK, so very clear even a caveman (or women) can understand.

 

But, there is a serious problem. At the end of it all, you claim your mathematical invention, what you call your Fundamental Equation CANNOT, I repeat, CANNOT "predict anything about reality" (I'll be happy to supply you the thread where you made this important claim in case you forgot). So, your goal was to invent a mental image model of reality and the end result of 50+ years of effort resulted in a model equation that cannot predict anything about reality.

 

This is what I know.

[Aethelwulf]

This statement gets to the heart of the problem. In fact, you cannot provide a single example of any specific explanation that will identify your so-called 'significant elements'. If I error, provide an example.

 

Under exterior ego, this is actually a very important question. If you cannot prove (make a positive example) of an explanation that would identify a criterior designated to know specific elements in a set then you cannot identify the elements because you do not know the set up of your example. A good fundamental example is whether you know the set up conditions of an experiment and if you do, you can know everything (or pretty much everything) there is to know about that system because you can successfully extract all information about that system when you need to because you know what you are looking for.

 

Elements are significant if you know where they belong in the initial condition set-up stage, rather than assume off-hand we know nothing about the system.

[Aethelwulf]

Doctordick

''What “x” labels is of no importance whatsoever. ''[/i]

 

Ok, so the example is arbitrary.

 

Doctordick

''What is important here is that what “x” actually labels cannot be specified or even considered until after the mental model is created.''

 

I think, what you are saying, is that without the initial data, what [math]x[/math] represents will be inexorably unknown. As you seem to realize, without knowing the set-up conditions of a system, you cannot know how your system works.

 

Doctordick

''I assert that absolutely any communicable information of interest can be represented by a collection of such circumstances.''

 

There is certainly no communication between, say... [math]x_1[/math] and [math]x_2[/math] without knowing their designated connection (as I represented it in a set) as one possible example of a solution.

 

Doctordick

''It is also of interest that notation is almost identical to the mathematical notation used to denote multiple arguments in any mathematical function of many variables. I use the word “almost” because, at this point, presuming they are identical is a very dangerous assumption.''

 

Well, I am not sure what this is about to be honest... There isn't any multiple arguments in what I have read. Using a VERY simplified example, we only have one argument and it holds on the fact we don't know all about the systems initial set up conditions, which remains a problem.

 

If I am missing anything, please tell me.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Aethelwulf

[Doctordick]

Aethelwulf,

This is beginning to look like a worthless effort on my part. I get the distinct impression that no one ever takes the trouble to read what I say. It is quite clear that I am attacking a problem which absolutely no one wants to even look at; their interest seems rather to morph the issue into something totally outside the subject. To once again quote Sir Arthur:
 

Broadly speaking the task of physical science is to infer knowledge of external objects from a set of signals passing along our nerves. But that rather underrates the difficulty of the problem. The material from which we have to make our inferences is not the signals themselves, but a fanciful story which has been in some way based on them.

 

At this moment you are probably looking at a video screen displaying what is contained in this post. That is a rather straight forward description of what Eddington refers to as a specific “fanciful story”. Even in your own mental image of reality, you are actually experiencing activation of nerve cells in the retina of your eyes; however, it is next to impossible for you to sense those actual nerve signals (their existence is actually an inference). Your brain (under your mental image of reality) performs the transformation into that image you actually see, It has already performed an astounding number of inferences based upon its solution to the problem of understanding reality; that fanciful story Eddington refers to. That is quite clearly an issue absolutely no one wants to think about. What they want to absolutely hold to, is the idea that those inferences are correct. They have no interest in questioning the issue I am talking about at all. Probably because, to them, it is clearly an insolvable issue and thus impossible to examine.

As I say, trying to convince anyone to think about the issue is apparently a total waste of time. But, for you, I will give it one more try...

 

 

What “x” labels is of no importance whatsoever.

Ok, so the example is arbitrary.

 

 

An example can only be constructed once an internally consistent explanation of the universe is found. That fact contains a problem clearly expressed by Eclogite in his earlier post
 

To answer this fully would require more time in searching out references and constructing a comprehensive explanation than I am currently willing to spend.

 

Suppose you have an “internally consistent explanation of the universe”. If you have such an explanation I define the existence of that explanation as an understanding of the universe (it may be right, it may be wrong; that is not the issue here). If you “understand the universe you find yourself in”, that means you can answer questions about that universe. Answering those questions requires a language.

What everyone omits to consider is the fact that the language you “know” is an aspect of that understanding (once again, the issue of being right or wrong arises in your understanding of that language). What is important is that both the questions and your answers can be expressed via a collection of elements of that explanation.

The issue of self consistency must include internal consistency of ALL possible relationships implied within that explanation. That constitutes the entire collection of circumstances expressible in that language. If you have both the explanation and the language, you can list all the circumstances upon which that understanding is based (presumed or real is of no importance). If you can list all the circumstances you know (or think you know) in a language you know (or think you know), with what you think are the fundamental concepts of that language (words, references or what ever) then you are in a position to define [math]x[/math].

Consider the collection of all publications in the world! The procedure would be as follows. Your language must consist of a finite number of such “elements” (the “fundamental concepts”): i.e., your dictionary of “signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols”. Simply list those elements and then make [math]x[/math] no more than a numerical label for the position of those elements in your list. Note that the order of your list is of no consequence.

At that point, all conceivable circumstances known to you (either actually known or presumed to be known) can be represented by an ordered collection of those numerical labels (as an ordered collection those fundamental concepts of your language). The numerical label you gave to each entry is of no importance so long as your use of those labels in the asserted circumstances is totally consistent with regard to all circumstances being represented.

That collection of circumstances, [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots, x_n)[/math], constitutes a representation of the universe you think you understand. It is that collection which constitutes the cryptogram which you have solved. The number of circumstances required to make even the simplest example exceeds by far what one human being could write down in a life time.

The issue I am talking about is, having defined the nature of the cryptogram, what constraints can be placed on the explanation without making any constraints whatsoever on what is represented. And all everybody wants to discuss is that “what they have in mind" cannot be so represented. And, as I have previously said, they insist bringing forth supposed counter examples which omit volumes of context beyond belief. Where my definition of "context" is those "beliefs" they hold where they simply leave out expressing those beliefs and/or the presumed known circumstances those beliefs are based upon.
 

 

''What is important here is that what “x” actually labels cannot be specified or even considered until after the mental model is created.''

I think, what you are saying, is that without the initial data, what [math]x[/math] represents will be inexorably unknown. As you seem to realize, without knowing the set-up conditions of a system, you cannot know how your system works.

 

 

Yes, [math]x[/math] represents an unknown! The set-up conditions of the system is what you know (or think you know), some collection of circumstances which describe what you think is known about the universe.
 

Well, I am not sure what this is about to be honest... There isn't any multiple arguments in what I have read. Using a VERY simplified example, we only have one argument and it holds on the fact we don't know all about the systems initial set up conditions, which remains a problem.

 

I have no idea as to what you are referring to here. You appear to assert that your understanding of the universe can be reduced to one word and nothing else. Sort of like Rade's idea that the only concept required to understand the entire universe is the idea conveyed by “it exists”. That all other concepts and/or circumstances or their internal relationships are of no interest to him.
 

If I am missing anything, please tell me.

 

As far as I can tell, you are missing the entire subject I am trying to talk about.

Unless I get a reasonable response to this note, I will cease trying to explain things. I have better things to do with my time.

Have fun -- Dick

 

Edited May 27, 2014 by Doctordick

[Eclogite]

It is quite clear that I am attacking a problem which absolutely no one wants to even look at;

An alternative view is that you are describing a situation that others do not regard as a problem.

 

You have been working on this for decades. It is important to you. We are casual observers looking to while away a few idle minutes with some light intellectual stimulation. With the cursory examination that such a context permits it seems to me that you are simply revisiting Plato's shadows. Yes? No?

 

Consider the collection of all publications in the world! The procedure would be as follows. Your language must consist of a finite number of such “elements” (the “fundamental concepts”): i.e., your dictionary of “signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols”.

This is what I suspected you thought and why I asked you to give an example of a language element. What you have suggested listing is not language, but merely the lexicological sub-set of language. I just find what seems to be such an oversight renders your thesis highly questionable.