Jump to content
Science Forums

Doctordick

Members
  • Content Count

    1,103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Doctordick last won the day on June 8 2018

Doctordick had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Doctordick

  • Rank
    Explaining
  • Birthday 09/23/1938

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Southern US
  • Interests
    Understanding
  1. Clearly you just like to type things out and have no interest whatsoever in thinking. I had hoped you had more brains than that. Have fun -- Dick
  2. Apparently you have no comprehension of what I am talking about at all. Suppose you had every publication, every document and every thought ever conceived by any entity which ever existed (clearly a finite collection of finite entities) but printed in a representation which is totally undefined. (That would be my representation (x1,x2,...xn), a totally undefined collection of numbers each designating a specific concept represented in that collection of documents.) Now that collection would include every issue necessary to represent reality as it has been presented to us (including every per
  3. You guys simply cannot comprehend the actual problem your intellect is faced with solving. Every attack you bring up involves presuming you understand the information available to you. Consider an attack which presumes no beliefs whatsoever. Yeah, I fully comprehend that starting from that position is totally incomprehensible to you. You all want to start with some set of beliefs you feel are valid. Suppose, for the sake of interest, a description of every publication which has ever existed (and every experience you have ever had) is available to you to examine; however the meaning of the
  4. No, I do not feel you understand what I am talking about. My issue is rather simple: do there exist any constraints on an explanation of reality which do not require any assumptions at all. I have discovered an attack which yields some rather astounding conclusions.. The only reason I assign numbers to the relevant concepts is to allow me to refer to them without assigning any meaning to them whatsoever. The object is to maintain complete ignorance and at the same consider the possible logical consequences of a finite set of beliefs. (Finite because it is impossible to know an infinite nu
  5. What you did was demonstrate that you totally failed to comprehend what I was trying to express. We both agree that language is absolutely necessary to any discussion of any subject. Your position (and that of Wittgenstein's) is to proceed under the presumption that you understand a known language. What you totally fail to comprehend is that the first step (of avoiding all presumptions) is to find a way of avoiding that presumption. I googled Wittgenstein and found not a mention of that issue. In fact, I have never met a person who has not made many presumptions as to what is meant b
  6. Yes, you seem to have misinterpreted the roll played by "xi". What I said was that each xi is a number used to refer to a specific concept necessary to express the set of assertions being examined: i.e. the entire set of concepts required to express all assertions can be a defined number. That would be a specific number you assign to those concepts. Two important issues exist in such a representation. First, the number you choose to represent a specific concept is entirely arbitrary (you can choose any number you wish) but once you choose what number represents that concept, that is the numbe
  7. No, I would not refer to the issue engcat brings up to be "embedded" constraints. Note that the question was "can one find any constraints on the collection of all possible explanations of experiences without making any constraints whatsoever on the assumptions embedded in those explanations?" The expression, (x1,x2,...xj,...xn), was defined to be an assertion made by an entity trying to explain reality and P(x1,x2,...xj,...xn) was defined to be the probability the entity which created that assertion believed it was true. These are defined representations, not constraints. That P(x1,x2
  8. I am of the opinion that you are all dropping out a very important aspect of logical analysis by presuming that the only purpose of logical analysis is to provide actions. I put forth that the true purpose of logical analysis is to discover the consequences of collections of specific presumptions. If you limit those presumptions to only those you believe to be true, you have constrained your examination to an extreme minority of possibilities: i.e., there could exist a vast quantity of alternate possibilities which mankind will never even begin to examine. Is anyone even interested in thinking
  9. Well, I reviewed this site and decided I might try to reach someone again. (Failure to communicate seems to be my profession.) My interest is essentially presenting an analysis of the question, “can one find any constraints on the collection of all possible explanations of experiences without making any constraints whatsoever on the assumptions embedded in those explanations?” This question is actually entirely different from the question of what those assumptions are to be. Sir Arthur Eddington brought up the issue in one of his early publication of "New Pathways in Science" first pu
  10. eodnhoj7 makes it quite clear that he comprehends not a single thing I have said!!!!!!!!!!!!
  11. Ok, it has been quite a long time since I broached the issue of science and religion. Perhaps another perspective would be valuable. Communication is the central issue of education and it is an issue seldom examined. We use language as a means of communicating and we are not born knowing the required language. It follows that comprehending reality is something to be learned and the underlying issue of learning is worth examination. Let me guide you down a rather special perspective on that issue. All languages can be seen as a finite collection of concepts (you could think perhaps of words
  12. Ah, Buffy; look around at the world as it is today and tell me that you truly believe we need more of every component of the current society which exists today. My question is quite simple, what number would accommodate all the beneficial aspects of humanities existence without implementing some of humanities more dangerous tendencies. Do we really need the population we seem to be working with? What would be a rational number? This seems to be an issue no one wants to think about. Perhaps they are right! Perhaps all aspects of human behavior have worth while benefits and populations should
  13. I agree except for one issue. Do you really believe that no matter how many you have, more is always better? That idea strikes me as thoughtless! Now here you are failing to take into account the fact that our ignorance means that we essentially have no idea as to what knowledge is most important. My position is that all fields of research should be studied and extended. Furthermore, I have been around for a long time and have run across no serious cases of inbreeding among the people I have known personally. In my opinion "inbreeding" is a phenomena which rarely occurs within an open a
  14. Buffy asked the following question : I find myself in need of a clarification: correct me if I'm wrong but it has seemed that you are talking about two distinct groups that would have an "optimum number": A group as small as possible that would be tasked with finding an optimal number for The group that is the total population to be optimized given Earth's resources. My interest would be in group #2. Human beings are not very good at comprehending the consequences of their activities and, as such, could very easily be the source of their own destruction. This is an important factor
  15. I would agree with you here; however, I would disagree with seeing that as a fixable problem. It should be clear to you if you read history at all that mankind has made many errors with regard to the consequences of their beliefs. It is my belief that they will make many more errors in the future because they are not "all knowing". The only thing they could possibly do about the issue would be to reduce their population so as to reduce the consequences of that throw away. Buffy's remark about reducing the population to two simply ignores another serious fault in her analysis. With only two p
×
×
  • Create New...