Jump to content
Science Forums

An explanation of what I am talking about.


Doctordick

Recommended Posts

Hi Rade. You are getting closer. I thought I could also try and provide some clarification. DD already replied, but perhaps it is helpful if I comment in my own words also.
Thank you Anssi. I am getting warmer--but as you can see from my comments in the previous post to DD, and those here, there are still some questions and concerns I have. Here are some comments for what you provided--but also do read my comments to DD.

 

The relationships involved are generally true because they are consequences of the transformation process that turns "unknown reality" into a "discrete set of defined persistent objects".
Well, as I see it, the transformation process turns "a universal and discrete set of undefined persistent objects" into a "discrete set of defined persistent objects". By placing constraints on unknown reality other than as derived from "definition" you are placing an unneeded worldview into the explanation. You have not logically derived why unknown reality cannot be discrete and persistent--it is not enough to just say they must be so that the fundamental equation is valid. I find the fundamental equation to be valid if unknown reality is both discrete and persistent.

 

Just to get something to mentally grasp on, I tend to think of the noumena just as arbitrary data points, onto which the defined ontological elements will be related to in some ways (depending on the exact definitions one happens to make)
Sure, makes sense since they are undefined they must be arbitrary, but this does not then mean that they cannot also be discrete and persistent--see above comment.

 

DD tends to communicate in a fashion where those noumena are, prior to definitions, seen in the sense where each occurrence of something is treated as a completely new entity; i.e. nothing persists from one moment to the next.
? How can DD communicate what noumena "are" prior to "definitions"--given that the claim is already made that they are undefined. ? It is not logical to say that one must treat noumena to be anything from one moment to the next--this is nothing more than an imagined worldview. DD has no idea what noumena may be from one moment to the next prior to placing a definition on them--I hope you see my confusion in the claim you make here. I just do not understand all the interest here about what "noumena must be" in order for understanding of the fundamental equation--I find that none of this is of any importance and only adds confusion to the discussion.

 

only after some definitions you have ideas of some objects that carry persistent identities to themselves.
This cannot be claimed--by definition noumena are "undefined", hence you cannot make any claim about their persistence or identity. ?? Same with your comment below about "motion" of noumena--you cannot claim any knowledge at all about whether or not undefined noumena have motion prior to definition.

 

Which ever way you like to think of the noumena, what is actually important is that after the definitions, reality is treated in terms of defined objects, and the raw data that got you there did not contain explicit knowledge of what objects exist behind the data. The transformation process involved must obey the symmetries, which the fundamental equation is an expression of.
OK, here I agree. The key words are that "reality is treated in terms of defined objects" which is completely different than saying "reality is defined objects". Again, I do not understand all the concern here with making claims about "reality" when over and over it has been stated that the fundamental equation has absolutely nothing to say about ontology.

 

Most people tend to start the queries to reality by experimenting with (defined) objects, and then say those objects conserve their momentum.
Is it not correct to say that "all" people experiment with defined objects ? Do you have a reference for an experiment in science dealing with an undefined object--or can you propose one ?

 

This is not to argue that reality is idealistic. It is just to say that we have created immaterial references to refer to unknown reality. Entirely different argument, I hope everyone understand that by now.
I agree completely. Reality is not idealistic nor subjective. Reality is objective--as you say--it is the unknown that stands behind the immaterial references created within the human mind.

 

I always get the feeling that you are trying to find some sort of "nature of time" with that sort of definition to time (I don't know what does "in between" mean etc).
. Not sure what you mean by "nature of time" ? When DD states that time is the future (what is not known) derived from the past (what is known) within the present--is this not the "nature of time" ? I define time as that which is intermediate between two moments--a much more fundamental definition which includes that presented by DD. That is why I find the fundamental equation to be of interest, since it fits well my definition of time. Think of the past of DD as being a moment (what is known at any moment), and the future of DD as being another moment (what is not known at any moment)--do you then see where time fits in to the equation, as being "between" the two ?

 

To have "motion" to noumena would be a misnomer, because in order to say how something moved, would require a definition for what constitutes that something. I.e. it would not be a noumena anymore.
But, it is not required that one say how something (specific) moved in order for noumena to have motion, it is only required that undefined noumena in general have "potential for undefined motion".

 

You can think of the noumena as a set of elements that always exist for one single instant only.
Yes, of course, undefined noumena can only exist for a single moment at a time. A single defined ontological element that maps a set of noumena (say we call it a chair) at any moment must refer to a large number of noumena that also exist at that single instant.

 

I think here you are starting to slip little bit. You can't take motion as fundamental, because then you are already thinking of some defined things. To get on track with the analysis, you should substitute "motion" with more neutral "changes", as that includes the possibility that nothing ever actually moves, but rather things come to existence and go out of existence.
Motion can be taken as fundamental when you consider that it is related to undefined noumena--well prior to definition of some specific defined thing. Coming to be and taking away are but specific types of motion--there are many other types of motion possible for undefined noumena.

 

Thanks for all your input AnssiH. I would like to move on to other applications of the fundamental equation such as relates to artificial intelligence if possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To DD & AnssiH,

 

I would like to add a comment about my statement above:

...Think of the past of DD as being a moment (what is known at any moment), and the future of DD as being another moment (what is not known at any moment)--do you then see where time fits in to the equation, as being "between" the two ?

 

For example, suppose for an observer there is a set of ontological elements with labels (#,0,+,*,^) at a moment #1. One can say that the "past" for the observer is what is known at moment #1 (#,0,+,*,^). The "future" at moment #1 is what is unknown (an infinite number of other potential labels that can be placed on undefined noumena). So far in the discussion, time does not exist for the observer.

 

Now, suppose one initiates the process to "place a label on one of the undefined noumena" and a new ontological element (let us call it %) is formed. At this moment #2 for the observer, the future is now an infinite number of noumena (potential ontological elements) minus the actual ontological element (%). Of course, the past at moment #2 is then (#,0,+,*,^,%), which differs from the past at moment #1. Time for this observer is then what is intermediate between the two moments, the past (moment # 1) and the future (moment #2).

 

Thus, we see that, until the fundamental equation is used to move from potential to actual (e.g., until what is "known" for the observer increases), time does not exist for any specific observer. This is an example of how I integrate my definition of "time" (e.g., that which is intermediate between moments) with the fundamental equation of DD--if it is incorrect, please explain how.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it must be since they are a sub-set of the universal. It is the universal sets that are infinite.
I don't think that is true. I believe one can define an infinite subset of an infinite set. The information standing behind an extant explanation cannot be infinite for the simple reason that such a body of information can not be considered: i.e., the required consideration can not be completed as per the definition of infinite itself.
I think I am ready to move into this line of thinking, "how" nomena are transformed into ontological elements, for I find this process to be the first step in what I would define as "concept formation".
From my perspective, worrying about HOW concepts are formed without understanding the consequences of my proof is pretty well a waste of time.
Well, here I cannot agree, at least not how I define "perception"...
But you cannot define anything without an explanation as the definitions are part and parcel of the explanations.
as being "a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism".
Can you not comprehend that you are working from a world view there? With no world view, exactly what is a “sensation”? What is meant by “automatically”? What is meant by “retained”? What is meant by “integrated” What is meant by “the brain”? What is meant by “living”? What is meant by “organism”? All these words imply you have some sort of mental construct which gives meaning to your expressions: that is exactly what an explanation is.
For me, perception allows a brain (human, animal) to "be aware of" undefined entities (e.g., nomena).
That “awareness” implies a world view of some sort.
That is, perception is prior to any "explanation" of the undefined nomena--it is what must come before you can explain any thing.
Prior to an explanation, perception is no more than another undefined “nomena”. In fact, it is not even a elemental “nomena” but is, via your explanation, a complex phenomena mediated by an number ontological concepts.
So, clearly, I have a road block in understanding--and it will require you to define for me exactly what you mean by the term "perception".
I suspect my definition would be very similar to yours. But that is not the issue. In this conversation, I am working with a world view which I suspect is quite similar to yours; at least the English language seems to map your world view reasonably well into my world view. The issue is that “without a world view” we can not even discuss the subject and that is the real starting place! What I am talking about is the constraints symmetry considerations place upon that world view independent of what stands behind that view. In essence, a world view is a data compression mechanism and is, in many respects, quite analogous to the Dewey Decimal system for library structure: it provides a way of expressing whatever data one wishes in a coherent non-contradictory fashion. You must come to comprehend that the result has no bearing whatsoever on what the “nomena” are.
? No, not at all. Time is not a "field" as the term is used in physics.
I suspect you do not understand the meaning of the word “field” as used in mathematics and physics. A field is a collection of things from which a specific case may be discussed. In my definition, time is an arbitrary label given to “new” information. Since the number of such labels is finite (and that is a very important issue) they may be ordered. Numbers are not necessary to the operation of “ordering things”. Once the labels are ordered, they can be related to numbers (which have a standard order). For example our granddaughter has a set of “Dora” dominoes where, instead of matching numbers (as per standard dominoes) one matches cartoon pictures. While we were there, we taught her a game of dominoes we like to play which is number orientated. We therefor assigned numbers to those pictures making the rules of the game meaningful. We could do that because the number of dominoes was finite (six to be exact). It was an arbitrary choice to use the first six integers making the system quite analogous to ordinary dominoes.

 

Integers are not continuous and neither is any finite set of numbers. A field is continuous if, and only if, for any two ordered members, one can always pick another which lies between the two. It should be obvious to you that, if a field is continuous, the number of elements in the field is infinite. It follows that the set of indices used to label “new information” absolutely can not be continuous. It is your explanation which, in presuming such a continuous set of labels, can then be rendered as a mathematical label taken from the set of real numbers, a continuous infinite set.

You do agree that there is undefined motion that is prior to time--correct ?
No, I do not agree. Motion requires two different “nomena” to be identified as the same which is impossible prior to definition.
Time is what is intermediate between these two moments.
And exactly how do you know that there is something “between” those two indexed collections of nomena.

 

Perhaps if we used the word “event” instead of “nomena”, the discrete nature of our knowledge would become clearer. Until an event is defined as corresponding to a the existence of a defined ontological element one cannot even begin to define “persistence” of that element: i.e., one must find another event which can be defined as being the same element and that requires a defined ontological element, ergo it requires an explanation (some kind of world view).

It is not enough that you claim that persistence "requires" definition--this is the worldview you hold, not a logical premise of the definition of the term persistence.
Please define persistence without defining either time or what it is that “persists”.
It is completely logical that one could hold a valid worldview that undefined nomena have persistence and motion, there is just no way they would "know" it.
I am sorry but that does not eliminate the possibility of existence of a valid worldview without either persistence or motion and my equation is still valid.
? It was my understanding that one predicts the undefined nomena by transformation of them into valid ontological elements--am I missing something here?
You are absolutely correct: most all explanation depend upon mapping those undefined nomena (events) into ontological elements; however, that transformation is not at all necessary. A totally random collection of nomena (of events) is an excellent description of the past. And the prediction that the probability of any given “new” nomena (events) is exactly the same as any other is a perfectly valid explanation. And yet neither persistence nor motion are required by that explanation.
OK, this makes sense. So I can come to "know" undefined nomena by their transformation into valid ontological elements--the transformation process is the process of placing a definition onto to undefined.
And that act is itself part and parcel of the process of creating an explanation.
OK--but is this not the same as saying that when you claim you "know" something is to say you have a mental grasp of the existence of some undefined nomena upon which you then place a label and transform into an ontological element ? And then, once this explanation of the undefined nomena exists (e.g., the ontological element), we say we "know what the explanation is based on"--that is, we know that some undefined nomena exists which forms the "basis" of the explanation.
Once we have an explanation, then (and only then) do we think we “know what the explanation is based on”. That is, we presume we know that some undefined nomena exist which form the “basis” of the explanation. Almost all scientists immediately throw out the possibility of Solipsism which certainly implies they think the explanation is based upon something; however, that does not constitute a proof that Solipsism is wrong. What is nice about my equation is that it applies to all explanations and it makes no difference if Solipsism is right or wrong, these supposed validating relationships will still apply.
I guess all I was trying to say is that where such constraint exists, advantage can be taken of it, and clearly the fundamental equation is used to advantage in the process of forming any explanation--since it is the equation of explanation itself--correct ?
It can be taken advantage of via the simple procedure of assuring yourself that your explanation does indeed satisfy my equation. Since every valid explanation must be interpretable in a form which satisfies that equation it really does not help much except for eliminating internally inconsistent hypotheses.
I find the fundamental equation to be valid if unknown reality is both discrete and persistent.
The unknown reality need not be either discrete or persistent. It is ”the information you have available to you” which must be discrete: i.e., it must constitute a finite quantity of information, otherwise you cannot accumulate it all. And, as I have pointed out above, persistence is an aspect of your explanation.
? How can DD communicate what noumena "are" prior to "definitions"--given that the claim is already made that they are undefined. ?
As I tried to clear up above, you cannot communicate what nomena are in any way until you have an explanation. The idea of “time” is introduced in order to accommodate the fact that reality might not be discrete; in which case your explanation must be based on a subset of reality and the size of that subset must be kept as an unknown quantity: i.e., your explanation must be capable of handling additional information.
It is not logical to say that one must treat noumena to be anything from one moment to the next--this is nothing more than an imagined worldview. DD has no idea what noumena may be from one moment to the next prior to placing a definition on them--I hope you see my confusion in the claim you make here.
Perhaps what you are missing is that my deduction most definitely imagines a specific world view. What is important here is that there exists no possible collection of “underlying data” which cannot be explained by that particular world view (in a manner which is perfectly consistent internally). So I am presenting a world view here. That is why I always say, “any explanation can be interpreted in a way which makes it consistent with my equation”. That fact is based upon the underlying fact that explaining your communication of an explanation is exactly the same problem as explaining the original problem being attacked: i.e., my understanding of what you are saying has to be a totally self consistent construct. If that construct is inconsistent with itself, I am either misunderstanding you or the explanation you are explaining to me is itself inconsistent.
For example, suppose for an observer there is a set of ontological elements with labels (#,0,+,*,^) at a moment #1.
They are now labeled so you must have an explanation in mind. Since they were undefined, you could just as well have labeled them (^,+,*,#,0) or (a,b,c,d,e) without having any effect on your explanation.
Now, suppose one initiates the process to "place a label on one of the undefined noumena" and a new ontological element (let us call it %) is formed. At this moment #2 for the observer, the future is now an infinite number of noumena (potential ontological elements) minus the actual ontological element (%). Of course, the past at moment #2 is then (#,0,+,*,^,%), which differs from the past at moment #1. Time for this observer is then what is intermediate between the two moments, the past (moment # 1) and the future (moment #2).
What you seem to be overlooking is the fact that you have already labeled many things here and thus have an explanation in mind. Prior to labeling “moment #1” and “moment #2” what makes you believe “something lies between them”? You are doing nothing but dealing with different collections of undefined information (which, by the way, could be no more than figments of your imagination to begin with).
Thus, we see that, until the fundamental equation is used to move from potential to actual (e.g., until what is "known" for the observer increases), time does not exist for any specific observer.
That is right; time is a convenient concept for the purpose of handling the fact that what is being explained, though both discreet and finite,has no limit
This is an example of how I integrate my definition of "time" (e.g., that which is intermediate between moments) with the fundamental equation of DD--if it is incorrect, please explain how.
An explanation is a mechanism for predicting one's expectations for specific data. That specific data, under my paradigm, possesses a “time index” which in the end (after it is defined and appropriately ordered as per the explanation under analysis) and that index is a totally open parameter: i.e., it is selected from the infinite and continuous set of real numbers. The issue is that questions of probability may be asked concerning any value of that index. The comment that “time is intermediate between two moments” is little more than a statement that the parameter called time is selected from an infinite and continuous set; it is not a definition of time but rather is an emotional expression of how you feel about the concept together with a vague understanding of continuity. Any specific point in any formal geometry may be seen as a point between other points: i.e., what you present as a definition requires understanding what “a moment” is which you are presuming is understood.

 

My definition of time is quite specific. The past is the basic information underlying your explanation (defined when you create your explanation). The future is what is not known and the “present” is a change in the past. It should be obvious that “the past” can be seen as a collection of presents and it is that collection which is indexed by “t”. I should comment that there is nothing significant in that final assertion as the past could very well consist of a single present, but you cannot presume all explanations make that assumption. On the other hand, I can show you slews of problems where there is no change in the data underlying the explanation: only a single present exists and that present is essentially a statement of the problem.

 

What you seem to miss is that I am dealing with absolute generality.

 

Have fun -- Dick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Rade, I have been ridiculously busy and haven't been able to respond earlier.

 

Your posts display one very serious misunderstanding that needs to be cleared before the epistemological analysis can make sense to you.

 

Well, here I cannot agree, at least not how I define "perception" as being "a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism". For me, perception allows a brain (human, animal) to "be aware of" undefined entities (e.g., nomena). That is, perception is prior to any "explanation" of the undefined nomena--it is what must come before you can explain any thing.

 

You are saying that perception must be prior to any explanation of the undefined noumena, and I suppose you are saying that because you are thinking that without first perceiving something, you wouldn't have anything to work with.

 

The problem with that is simply that perception is already your understanding of some input data; you are already working with definitions when you perceive something (i.e. you are aware of a defined thing, not of the underlying pattern that was "automatically" taken to mean that thing).

 

That is sort of why Kant came up with the concept in the first place. Noumena is the form you can't think of (=perceive).

 

Note that "an explanation" does not necessarily refer to something one would conjure by conscious effort. It refers to any mechanism that can produce meaningful expectations for some unknown data. AI people would say "a general learning machine", i.e. something that can pick up the "meaning" of some input data in arbitrary form, and come to have some expectations about its future.

 

In a nutshell, the problem is that "perception" implies that the meaning of the input data is known. So what needs to happen for "a learning machine" to learn enough about the input data, so to be able to "perceive" it in some form? And most of all, how is it possible to "learn" anything about a data whose meaning is entirely unknown?

 

The epistemological analysis begins by identifying what exactly is there to "work with" prior to "perceiving" or "being aware of" reality in some form. I.e; in the process of ordering the input data into a form dictated by some definitions (regarding what does such and such data pattern supposedly mean), there are some data ordering principles that are universally valid for any definitions; the principles required by self-coherency.

 

The fundamental equation is the expression of those principles, and it is important that you understand that the everyday idea of persistent objects floating around in a 3 dimensional space will turn out to be the RESULT of ordering the data patterns according to those principles. Just as an example of this, you can think about the mechanism that takes electrochemical impulses in the neo-cortex, and interprets them in the form of a 3D space and persistent objects that behave in predictable ways. (I.e. exactly the part you refer to as "automatical")

 

That is also why this is related to AI as well. (I could go on to make a comment about how this results into machine semantics - something that some people think is impossible - but perhaps this is getting too long as it is...)

 

Well, as I see it, the transformation process turns "a universal and discrete set of undefined persistent objects" into a "discrete set of defined persistent objects". By placing constraints on unknown reality other than as derived from "definition" you are placing an unneeded worldview into the explanation. You have not logically derived why unknown reality cannot be discrete and persistent

 

I did not mean say the unknown reality cannot be discrete and persistent. As I am commenting above, I am referring to the mechanisms that infer meaning from unknown data patterns, and whether or not reality is made of discrete and/or persistent objects, that information is not available to us, and valid worldviews are built without knowing something like that.

 

So all I tried to say was that a world view is not founded on such knowledge.

 

I must add though, that I am very confused about why you are saying that "a discrete set of undefined persistent objects" is less constraining than "unknown reality". After all, you are then beginning with the assumption that persistent objects exist over and beyond our ability to define some set of events as being caused by persistent objects. Not assuming ontological persistence to the elements we define will turn out to be incredibly important, and I just can't stress this enough.

 

At any rate;

 

Which ever way you like to think of the noumena, what is actually important is that after the definitions, reality is treated in terms of defined objects, and the raw data that got you there did not contain explicit knowledge of what objects exist behind the data. The transformation process involved must obey the symmetries, which the fundamental equation is an expression of.

 

OK, here I agree. The key words are that "reality is treated in terms of defined objects" which is completely different than saying "reality is defined objects". Again, I do not understand all the concern here with making claims about "reality" when over and over it has been stated that the fundamental equation has absolutely nothing to say about ontology.

 

The claim being made there is about what information is available in forming a world view. I wouldn't like to use the concepts of neurobiology too much, but much like the neo-cortex is working with elecro/chemical impulses to form a view of persistent elements - without that persistence explicitly existing in those electro-chemical impulses themselves - the epistemological analysis works with consequences of having to form a predictive world view without knowing what event(s) correspond to what defined entities.

 

I should add that in general all the claims made at the premise of the epistemological analysis are epistemological of nature; i.e. related to our ignorance about the meaning of the data, resulting to specific symmetries and specific consequences. (And that is why it is meaningful that various physics definitions are found to be embedded to these symmetries)

 

Is it not correct to say that "all" people experiment with defined objects ?

 

Yes that is correct.

 

Not sure what you mean by "nature of time" ? When DD states that time is the future (what is not known) derived from the past (what is known) within the present--is this not the "nature of time" ?

 

No, that's a specific definition of time. It is related to the epistemological requirement of ordering "changes" of the raw data in some meaningful way.

 

When I said I always get the feeling that you are trying to find some sort of "nature of time" with your definition of time, I mean that I don't understand what is the meaning or the function of this "in-between" that you have conceptualized. So I always get the feeling that you say it just so to make an argument about what time might be in some ontological sense (without any observational function)

 

But I am getting the feeling that that's a separate topic.

 

But, it is not required that one say how something (specific) moved in order for noumena to have motion, it is only required that undefined noumena in general have "potential for undefined motion".

 

I don't understand what you are implying with that. But, I hope you understand why that epistemological claim (as oppose to ontological) is made, about motion not existing explicitly in the raw data, until it has become interpreted that way.

 

I'm sure you can already guess that the funky ways how defined things "move" in modern physics, and how the time-wise relationships must be defined for prediction-wise validity, can indeed have something to do with how "unknown events" become ordered in our head. Being able to trace the epistemological reasons for those definitions means you understand why QM is valid, without attaching any of the associated idealistic ideas to reality itself. And it means you understand why simultaneity is undefineable while reality itself can be actually dynamic or anything at all.

 

-Anssi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi Doctordick and Anssi. Just a few comments on both of your helpful posts above--to clarify.

 

DD states that ..."A field is a collection of things from which a specific case may be discussed."
. OK, this is a definition of a field, and it clearly conforms with my statement that "time" is NOT a field, for the simple reason that time is not a "thing" or any collection of "things". Time is the "number" of things that are counted. So, the "number" of 100 cats and 100 dogs is the same, but the "things" numbered are different. A field according to your definition and my example would be a collection of cats and dogs--not a collection of times.

 

There cannot be any "explanation" without first some"thing" (undefined) to be explained. But I get the feeling that both of you do not agree with this statement, and it has me very confused as to why not ??

 

It is stated by DD...

The idea of “time” is introduced in order to accommodate the fact that reality might not be discrete
. I see a major problem here. A "fact" is not a "might be" or "might not be" situation. For example, it is a fact that 1+1=2. Thus, you cannot claim as fact that reality "might not" be X--instead you would need to claim as fact that reality IS NOT discrete. If what you claim above is your world view about time, then logically there must be the situations where "reality might be discrete", in which case your "idea of time" would not hold as a truth statement and cannot be universal. And, taking the thinking one step further, if your idea of time is not universal then your fundamental equation cannot be universal. However, given that the fundamental equation is universal then your idea of time, as stated above, cannot be a truth statement--it must be modified as suggested above. But if so, then you must logically defend why you claim as fact that reality IS NOT discrete--that is, what is the basis of this fact ?

 

It is stated by Anssi

When I said I always get the feeling that you are trying to find some sort of "nature of time" with your definition of time, I mean that I don't understand what is the meaning or the function of this "in-between" that you have conceptualized. So I always get the feeling that you say it just so to make an argument about what time might be in some ontological sense (without any observational function)
. I see also that DD makes a comment that he has no idea what this "in-between" means, and why I make the claim that time is what is intermediate between moments. OK--what does common sense tell us "in-between" means ? Moment #1 (before) <------ in-between -------> moment #2 (after). Time is what is between "before" (past) and after (future) as moments. It is bounded by moments and also divided by moments. If you consider either the "before" or "after" as being a "now" as one, then time does not exist within the "now" (present). Time is then a type of number, it is the number that is counted between the before and after as moments as relates to motion. Time is NOT motion, only motion in so far as one can place a number label on it. The past, and future, and present "are within time" the same as "odd" and "even" are within number.

 

You are saying that perception must be prior to any explanation of the undefined noumena, and I suppose you are saying that because you are thinking that without first perceiving something, you wouldn't have anything to work with. The problem with that is simply that perception is already your understanding of some input data; you are already working with definitions when you perceive something (i.e. you are aware of a defined thing, not of the underlying pattern that was "automatically" taken to mean that thing).
OK, I see the problem. We are talking about two different events. You are talking about perception of some noumena already defined--such as ..I perceive the chair. This is not at all what I am taking about. I am referring to the first time a new undefined noumena is encountered--thus there cannot be any understanding of it or definition of it, for the simple reason that it is undefined. My point is that this type of fundamental perception is "prior" to understanding and explanation--logically it must be so. It is the first step in the process of gaining understanding. Of course, once you define a chair as a chair then any future perception of an object so defined depends on this world view you have created.

 

I am trying to show how the fundamental equation of DD fits a worldview that allows for fundamental perception of that which exists as undefined input data to be prior to understanding and the process of "defining". One does not place definition nor have understanding of undefined input data until the next stage of the process--what is called concept formation--what DD calls the transformation of the undefined into ontological elements (thus defined).

 

Perhaps it is best to then separate two types of "perception" for future discussion (1) fundamental perception of undefined input data prior to placing a definition on it (2) secondary perception of ontological elements already defined and understood via a personal world view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it is best to then separate two types of "perception" for future discussion (1) fundamental perception of undefined input data prior to placing a definition on it (2) secondary perception of ontological elements already defined and understood via a personal world view.

 

The closest thing to "1" would be the raw input data, or the "what is, is what is" data that DD has talked about. I.e. the form of information where each recurring event is considered a uniquely a new "thing".

 

Maybe it's easier to go with a little thought experiment. Let's say you are closed into a room, which has got a wall full of little lights going on and off in random looking manner. Let's say those lights are an input data from some sort of reality, and you are given the task to form a predictive world view about that swarm of activity. I.e. to form a valid explanation about what is going on "out there", that is causing that activity, so to allow you to make meaningful guesses as to what is happening in the future.

 

Prior to having made any guesses as to what lies behind that activity, you need to start logging down all that activity for future review. You will be logging down the activity in a form where each recurring little blink is considered a completely NEW THING, simply because you have not made any guesses yet as to what sorts of objects "out there" are causing the activity. (After having made some definitions, you will need to try and make them fit with all the past logged data.)

 

That log would sort of be the "1" form of perception that you talk about (although I very much dislike the implications that come with the word "perceive" here).

 

As you log down that data, you also very much would like to retain the information about in which order those little blinks occurred to you. There you have the epistemological requirement for "time". It is not a guess about what time is like "out there", it is just something you need for yourself, in order to put together any sort of explanation at all.

 

Now, there are few things we can say, that will be universal to all explanations you could ever create. For one, whatever valid explanation(s) you manage to create for the data, those explanations will always be based on finite amount of information. You will not be able to generate an explanation, that was based on infinite amount of information, as that explanation could never be "finished", so to speak.

 

You with me still? Let's do this in small steps...

 

It is stated by DD.... I see a major problem here. A "fact" is not a "might be" or "might not be" situation.

 

You tripped on semantics... Let's say he said "The idea of “time” is introduced in order to accommodate the fact that we do not know whether reality is discrete or not". Perhaps it's best to not confuse any of this with the above thought experiment quite yet. (I think he is talking about the everyday idea of time... you know, an ontological extrapolation)

 

It is stated by Anssi . I see also that DD makes a comment that he has no idea what this "in-between" means, and why I make the claim that time is what is intermediate between moments. OK--what does common sense tell us "in-between" means ? Moment #1 (before) <------ in-between -------> moment #2 (after). Time is what is between "before" (past) and after (future) as moments. It is bounded by moments and also divided by moments. If you consider either the "before" or "after" as being a "now" as one, then time does not exist within the "now" (present). Time is then a type of number, it is the number that is counted between the before and after as moments as relates to motion.

 

Okay, what does it mean to count the number, i.e. how is it done? And what constitutes "a moment"? By "I have no idea what this means", I mean, if we decide to move onwards with that definition of time, what will it tell us?

 

Can you tell me whether this definition is something that you, in that closed room, might put forward as a guess as to how "time" exists in the reality "outside the room", or whether it is a tool you use to your advantage when ordering all that data?

 

If you are referring to a guess (another ontological extrapolation), it is off topic and I would like to keep it there, I'd like to walk through the thought experiment instead.

 

-Anssi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Maybe it's easier to go with a little thought experiment. Let's say you are closed into a room, which has got a wall full of little lights going on and off in random looking manner. Let's say those lights are an input data from some sort of reality, and you are given the task to form a predictive world view about that swarm of activity. I.e. to form a valid explanation about what is going on "out there", that is causing that activity, so to allow you to make meaningful guesses as to what is happening in the future. Prior to having made any guesses as to what lies behind that activity, you need to start logging down all that activity for future review. You will be logging down the activity in a form where each recurring little blink is considered a completely NEW THING, simply because you have not made any guesses yet as to what sorts of objects "out there" are causing the activity. (After having made some definitions, you will need to try and make them fit with all the past logged data.) That log would sort of be the "1" form of perception that you talk about (although I very much dislike the implications that come with the word "perceive" here). As you log down that data, you also very much would like to retain the information about in which order those little blinks occurred to you. There you have the epistemological requirement for "time".

 

OK, let us use your thought experiment to help me explain how I understand time (well, it is Aristotle's concept, not mine). So, on the wall, you can place an x-y grid and locate exact position of each flash moment (A,B,C,D...so on). Each on-off light flash is a 'moment'. Now, above you claim that you need a concept of time to allow you to "retain the information about order of the blinks". Well--here then is exactly where we do not agree--a concept of time is not needed to retain information about "order" of the blink events.

 

So, suppose the following random order of blinks A,A,B,C,C,D,D,D,A,C,C,...etc that you log. Time has nothing at all to do with the "order" of the blinks, for the reason that TIME IS WHAT IS INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN ANY TWO EVENTS ! I hope you see the important difference. Time is the number that can be counted (either inside or outside the room) between events (past<--->present<--->future). So, in the above example, you see that there are 10 time intervals, and let us suppose they have the following counts in some units that you define (2,2,4,6,23,1,1,3,6,4). Thus, to have any valid explanation of the blink activity pattern (A,A,B,C,C,D,D,D,A,C,C) you need two things (1) the order of the information on position of the blink moments on the wall--the x-y grid information, and (2) the time interval counts between the moments.

 

I hope this explanation allows you to find the answers to all your other questions you asked above, such as "what does it mean to count time ?" and "is it the same exact time inside and outside the thought experiment room ?" (the answer is yes).

 

I do agree with you that the information on which you make your future prediction of blink events must be finite.

 

But, each blink event is only unique in that it occurs at a different time interval from the first event you log. So, for example, suppose you log as an x-y grid position blink moment A at (2,7) feet as x-y position on wall in front of you. Then moment B as (1,9), moment C as (6,6), etc. Now, suppose you log the following order of blink information (A,B,A',A'',C,D,B',B''.....etc). As you can see, you will quickly come to explain that events you call A (A,A',A'') are at exactly the same x-y grid location. Thus, the only secondary information that you can use to tell apart the different A moments is that they are at a time interval different from the first A blink moment. Thus, each first log event of a blink moment (A,B,C,D...) would represent the "what is, is, what is" information that is a representation of "what is outside" the room as cause of the blinks. After each moment is defined via an x-y grid location, then the subsequent A's, B's, C's, D's...etc represent ontological elements that are used to make predictions about the future as relates to the "what is outside" noumena that is the cause of the blinks (on-off) to occur (what DD calls the undefined noumena). Of course, as we know, the fundamental equation of DD has absolutely nothing at all to do with the undefined noumena--it only deals with the defined ontological elements.

 

It is not a guess about what time is like "out there", it is just something you need for yourself, in order to put together any sort of explanation at all.
Well, I hope you can see from the above why this is incorrect as relates to the concept of time I use. There is exactly no difference between time "out there" and time "inside the thought experiment room". True, you need the time count to put together a valid explanation of the order of blink moments, but whatever that count my be, it is in reality exactly the same as what time is like "out there". Logically, it cannot be any other way once you come to understand what it means when I say that TIME IS WHAT IS INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN MOMENTS.

 

You tripped on semantics... Let's say he said "The idea of “time” is introduced in order to accommodate the fact that we do not know whether reality is discrete or not". Perhaps it's best to not confuse any of this with the above thought experiment quite yet.
But, as stated above, a concept of time is not needed to accommodate the fact that we do not know if reality is discrete or continuous. If reality is a discrete point, then time is what is intermediate between the points. If reality is a continuous wave, then reality is superposed with continuous time. The important aspect is that time does not exist within the moment, does not matter if the moment is a discrete point or a continuous wave. For example, one can say that time does not exist "within" the photon or at the discrete moment of 12:34 hours.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rade, I think the problem is that you simply have no comprehension of what Anssi and I are talking about. I am setting up a representation of “an explanation”. Of issue is the fact that there can not exist any explanation of anything which can not be represented in that representation. It is not put forth as a method of obtaining explanations nor a method of explaining any explanations. It is merely a mathematical (an internally self consistent system) structure which can represent any possible explanation without making any presumptions concerning what is actually being explained.

 

All of your complaints and/or questions stem from issues concerning specific explanations.

So, suppose the following random order of blinks A,A,B,C,C,D,D,D,A,C,C,...etc that you log. Time has nothing at all to do with the "order" of the blinks, for the reason that TIME IS WHAT IS INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN ANY TWO EVENTS !
And exactly how to you know that anything at all exists “between” the blinks (other than the fact that you have used the term “between”). The step you have omitted to define is what is the meaning of “between”: i.e., you make the assumption we already know what between means and that is a very deep philosophical flaw in your approach. I hope you see the important difference.
But, each blink event is only unique in that it occurs at a different time interval from the first event you log.
Now you jump on to talk about “interval” without defining the thing.
True, you need the time count to put together a valid explanation of the order of blink moments, but whatever that count my be, it is in reality exactly the same as what time is like "out there".
What you are saying is that the concept “time” is necessary to your explanation of reality and it is therefore a real necessary component of reality. So you know what reality is. The problem is that you are presuming your picture of reality is correct and thus your concept of time has to be right. This is quite different from presuming your explanation of reality is useful; they are quite different issues.
But, as stated above, a concept of time is not needed to accommodate the fact that we do not know if reality is discrete or continuous. If reality is a discrete point, then time is what is intermediate between the points. If reality is a continuous wave, then reality is superposed with continuous time. The important aspect is that time does not exist within the moment, does not matter if the moment is a discrete point or a continuous wave. For example, one can say that time does not exist "within" the photon or at the discrete moment of 12:34 hours.
You are simply insisting on dealing with explanations familiar to you. Essentially, you apparently have utterly no concept of the general problem I have solved.

 

Have fun -- Dick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Doctordick:

 

Of course I understand the use of the fundamental equation--it has absolutely nothing to say about reality. It is the "equation" that describes mathematically the mental process involved in the transformation of undefined noumena into ontological elements. But, this is not what is being discussed above ? AnssiH and I are discussing a thought experiment he proposed--one dealing with blinking lights on a wall in a random pattern.

 

You indicate that you need some definitions before we can address the thought experiment presented by AnssiH. Ok, this is fair.

 

And exactly how to you know that anything at all exists “between” the blinks (other than the fact that you have used the term “between”). The step you have omitted to define is what is the meaning of “between”: i.e., you make the assumption we already know what between means and that is a very deep philosophical flaw in your approach. I hope you see the important difference.
. First, from the example given by AnssiH, we "know" that there are blinks of light on the wall that "exist" in a random pattern--this we know because AnssiH tells us it is so--it is defined that way in the situation under discussion. Thus, logically, if we have a priori knowledge that some"thing" exists that come to be and pass away (e.g., light blinks), it is not difficult to reason that we may want to discuss if anything exists "between" these two moments. Now, note that I never made a claim that any"thing" exists between the blink moments, I only provided a definition of time as that which is intermediate between moments. This is much different than saying some "thing" exists between moments (it may or may not--of no interest here at all), especially since I have already posted that I do not find time to be a "thing"--it is a number related to motion of things, much different.

 

So, to keep all definitions in context of what AnssiH wants to talk about, let moment A = blink # 1 and let moment B = blink#2 (that is, two different blinks on the wall at two different x-y coordinate position, and of course not simultaneous. So, as a picture we have first moment A <------> then moment B. Thus, the <-----> represents (symbolically) the "between" of two moments. However, recall that also is possible the situation where the blinks before and after are observed at the same x-y position on the wall--this I have referred to as the A, A', A''....blink situation. Thus, clearly we have two aspects of "time" being discussed, that which is intermediate between unique position blink moments (e.g., the set A,B,C,....) and that which is intermediate between identical position blink moments (e.g., the set A,A',A''....). If this is not clear, please let me know.

 

Now, you ask, "how do we know that anything at all exists between the moments"?--and I hope you can see that we do not know any such thing--we do not know if any "thing" exists between blink moments A and B, or between A and A', what we know is that a "between" exists--I do hope you see the important difference.

 

Finally, you ask--what is this "between" blink moments--how is it defined ? OK. To have a "between" concept as relates to the problem provided by AnssiH there must be a delta, a 'change' from one blink moment to the next moment. The concept of "between" implies logically two moments and one change. Since the "between" cannot be within either moment, logically it is within the change. Therefore, we define "between" the two blink moments as the change of the passing away of one moment before the arrival of the coming to be of the next.

 

Now, all we need to do is address the term "intermediate". By definition, the two blink moments are "contraries", they are different from each other. What is intermediate between any two blink moments is that which is neither the one nor the other during the delta, during the change from one moment to another. Now, some intermediates we have given names--thus gray is the name we give that is intermediate between black and white.

 

I hold that "time" is the "name" that we give to that which is "between" two blink moments (here, in the context of the thought experiment we discuss as presented by AnssiH). Of course, this definition of time has the universal form, TIME IS THAT WHICH IS INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN MOMENTS. Your fundamental equation is one specific example of this definition in action, the transformation of noumena into ontological elements. This is why I support your approach and agree with you.

 

I do wonder if AnssiH will now join the discussion about the light blinks since it is his thought experiment after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Rade, sorry I'm slow, I've still been incredibly busy lately, even more so than before. :hihi:

 

The thought experiment is "Let's say you are closed into a room, which has got a wall full of little lights going on and off in random looking manner. Let's say those lights are an input data from some sort of reality, and you are given the task to form a predictive world view about that swarm of activity."

 

The important bit bolded; we do not know what sort of reality we are trying to explain, i.e. the reality "out there" has got nothing to do with reality inside the room. If it helps, you can imagine the light blinks are coming from a virtual reality, whose rules we are trying to understand.

 

I.e. the room or the lights are not definitions about the reality that is to be explained. We are interested of the logical mechanisms that can give us meaningful ways to classify, order, and predict a set of events, whose meaning is unknown prior to us defining some meaning for them.

 

And as a first step, we are interested of tracking and logging the history of those blinks; that is our "raw data", something to be explained. Whatever books or pens we use to log it, are not considered part of "what is to be explained".

 

OK, let us use your thought experiment to help me explain how I understand time (well, it is Aristotle's concept, not mine). So, on the wall, you can place an x-y grid and locate exact position of each flash moment (A,B,C,D...so on). Each on-off light flash is a 'moment'. Now, above you claim that you need a concept of time to allow you to "retain the information about order of the blinks". Well--here then is exactly where we do not agree--a concept of time is not needed to retain information about "order" of the blink events.

 

So, suppose the following random order of blinks A,A,B,C,C,D,D,D,A,C,C,...etc that you log. Time has nothing at all to do with the "order" of the blinks, for the reason that TIME IS WHAT IS INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN ANY TWO EVENTS ! I hope you see the important difference. Time is the number that can be counted (either inside or outside the room) between events (past<--->present<--->future). So, in the above example, you see that there are 10 time intervals, and let us suppose they have the following counts in some units that you define (2,2,4,6,23,1,1,3,6,4).

 

Now if I read you correctly, you are measuring how long time it took between blinks. That is, you are using the reality inside the room (the behaviour of a clock or of "time" inside the room) to evaluate reality outside the room.

 

You are jumping the gun by a mile there. The behaviour of things inside the room has got nothing to do with the behaviour of things outside the room. We are trying to explain the blinks, and how we will come to understand time outside the room, or whatever we will consider to constitute a valid time measuring device outside the room, will depend on how we will come to explain those blinks.

 

Think of it this way; if a neo-cortex is modeling the reality "out there", and this is something based on the firings of nerve synapses, then there is no clock in there to measure how long it takes between two firings. There is nothing there to serve as a tool in understanding something "between" the firings. Instead, much later on down the road, clocks will become understood via those firings, as part of an interpretation of reality.

 

I hate to use neurobiological concepts too much and there would be much to nag about the above paragraph, but you have to get the point that as long as we are talking about the raw data that our world comprehension is based on, there is no such thing as measuring the time interval between two raw data points. A single tick of a clock in your hand, is an interpretation made out of millions and millions of data points (think about how many firings of synapses were involved for you to form that comprehension of a single impulse of a clock device).

 

At the very least, a single "tick" would have to be "made of" 2 data points, and by definition there are no data points in between; there is simply no information there for anyone to sensically claim it took "this and this long" for one data point to turn into another data point. We are already talking about the smallest points of information that we have at our disposal. "The blinks" :evil:

 

I hope this explanation allows you to find the answers to all your other questions you asked above, such as "what does it mean to count time ?" and "is it the same exact time inside and outside the thought experiment room ?" (the answer is yes).

 

This tells me how you misinterpreted the thought experiment, I hope I got it back on track. The reality inside the room has got nothing to do with how we will come to explain the reality outside the room (i.e. the answer most definitely is not "yes" :naughty:

 

Also I hope you can see why I keep asking you "what does it mean to count those in-between intervals". To be able to count the time interval between two blinks would mean, that you could interpret some blinking patterns as a clock, and then being able to tell what happens to those patterns in between two consequent blinks... The problem being, there are no patterns to be found from "in between" two blinks; nothing happens to patterns between two consequent data points. If you think it can be measured, you are imagining a naive realistic time progression between two data points, while there's absolutely no information in-between at all, by definition.

 

If you trust me a bit and just follow me with how this will turn into ways to actually define meaningful "clocks", you will come to understand why those definitions also lead to things like relativistic time relationships etc. Stuff that is actually meaningful for "an understanding of our understanding of reality" <- No typo there :eek2:

 

I do agree with you that the information on which you make your future prediction of blink events must be finite.

 

Great! Or, like DD's been trying to say, any world view that has actually been built, must be based on finite amount of information. It is impossible, by definition, for a worldview to take into account an infinite amount of information (even if theoretically there was an infinite amount of information to be extracted from that wall of blinking lights, no world view could take all of that into account)

 

I think you agree that that is quite trivially true. Yet many people fight that point, before they have come to understand what was actually being said. I find this to be the case with many points in DD's presentation, unfortunately :I

 

But, each blink event is only unique in that it occurs at a different time interval from the first event you log. So, for example, suppose you log as an x-y grid position blink moment A at (2,7) feet as x-y position on wall in front of you. Then moment B as (1,9), moment C as (6,6), etc. Now, suppose you log the following order of blink information (A,B,A',A'',C,D,B',B''.....etc). As you can see, you will quickly come to explain that events you call A (A,A',A'') are at exactly the same x-y grid location. Thus, the only secondary information that you can use to tell apart the different A moments is that they are at a time interval different from the first A blink moment. Thus, each first log event of a blink moment (A,B,C,D...) would represent the "what is, is, what is" information that is a representation of "what is outside" the room as cause of the blinks. After each moment is defined via an x-y grid location, then the subsequent A's, B's, C's, D's...etc represent ontological elements that are used to make predictions about the future as relates to the "what is outside" noumena that is the cause of the blinks (on-off) to occur (what DD calls the undefined noumena).

 

You seem to be talking about a 1 to 1 mapping between a specific blink and the perception of a defined element. It's quite a bit more complicated than that. Obviously you can't just suppose that's a valid map to reality out there. It would mean you take reality out there to literally be similar to the firing of the blinks, i.e. one blink means something came to existence and then ceased to exist.

 

Think of a neo cortex again. The firing of one specific synapse doesn't mean a perception of one specific object, and the firing of another specific synapse a perception of another specific object etc. It's in the patterns.

 

What we are talking about is the creation of some definitions, which tell us the meaning of some specific patterns of those blinks.

 

I.e. the existence/perception of "a dog" is not a matter of the light (56, 78) coming up. It is a matter of a huge number of lights coming up and going out, creating a very specific pattern (spatially and temporally) that looks like the pattern defined to be "a dog".

 

Same thing with the existence of "an electron" or "a volkswagen". When DD asked "what is the difference between an electron and a volkswagen", he was referring to exactly this circumstance; the information that we come to understand as "an electron" or as "a volkswagen", is not just a single piece of data point even though "electron" is understood as "a single object" in the end. Epistemologically, we are talking about huge amounts of data points, i.e. what tells them apart is, they are something appearing in different "context" within that whole avalanche of data.

 

Are you with me now?

 

-Anssi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I understand the use of the fundamental equation--it has absolutely nothing to say about reality. It is the "equation" that describes mathematically the mental process involved in the transformation of undefined noumena into ontological elements. But, this is not what is being discussed above ? AnssiH and I are discussing a thought experiment he proposed--one dealing with blinking lights on a wall in a random pattern.
I am afraid you miss the entire issue embedded in my presentation and Anssi has been drawn into a representation which essentially overlooks the central issue. I can't complain about the fact that Anssi's attempts to clarify things has led the discussion astray as I myself have often been guilty of being drawn off subject by people's erroneous interpretations of my work.

 

The central issue here that my model of “an explanation” has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with what is being explained. What is important about my model is that, in spite of having absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with what is being explained, it still requires Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, electrodynamics and Dirac's equation to be valid explanations of whatever is being explained. The fact that those fields of physics must be valid no matter what it is that constitutes reality (no matter what is being explained) is a very profound and intellectually significant observation: i.e., the physicist's explanation of reality has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with what reality actually is.

 

The moment you talk about how you are going to define the information your mental model is based upon, you are already dealing with “an explanation” and not with the relationship between your model and reality!

 

Sorry but that is the issue everyone seems to refuse to look at. (Anssi excepted of course.)

 

Have fun -- Dick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I have to mention that I am quite uncomfortable about possibly making some wrong implications with the thought experiment, before we have even gotten off the ground at all.

 

Rade, the most important bit is simply to focus onto the epistemological fundamentals of creating a working world view. A working world view is based on some sort raw information, that comes to be understood in some ways.

 

I did not mention the room or the blinking lights in order to imply anything about the reality or about a working world view. In the thought experiment, we are trying to form a working world view based on what the blinks could imply, not what the room is like. The blinks can be taken as "events", and we are not at all aware of what is causing them "outside the room". Could be any sort of world out there, with any number of dimensions or any sort of ontological "time". Note that we will never need to actually answer those questions, in order to arrive at a working predictive world view (i.e. focus is on the epistemology).

 

It should not be too hard to believe, that a working world view can indeed be built without ever actually coming to know the real ontological form of "what is being eplained"; all you need to come up with is a prediction-wise valid way to interpret some data, and that's a working world view.

 

What DD is saying just above is that he can actually show exactly HOW Newtonian mechanics, QM, electrodynamics, relativity etc, are in fact aspects of a working world view, without ever having a real answer to ANY ontological questions. I.e. he can show how they are aspects of a valid interpretation of fundamentally unknown patterns of events.

 

Having followed his presentation so far, I must agree it would be quite illuminating for many people to understand exactly where certain aspects of "modern physics" arise, "modern physics" being the thus far (predictionwise) best known interpretation for reality. Normally people think of those aspects as arising simply from "observation", without spending a second to think about how any "observation" is also an "interpretation of reality" by itself :I

 

And that gets us to your (Rade's) definition of time, as a measurable time-wise interval between "moments". That is an aspect of a working worldview (incl. definitions for how such interval is measured), and if you think it is related to DD's definition of time, you have misinterpreted him somehow. The epistemological definition of time has to do with ordering that raw information, and obviously by definition there is no such thing as measurable time interval between those "raw events". One first needs to have a working world view, so to define what sorts of circumstances are taken as to mean "time measurement", and those circumstances themselves will be based on a large number of "raw events".

 

-Anssi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi AnssiH

 

...The epistemological definition of time has to do with ordering that raw information, and obviously by definition there is no such thing as measurable time interval between those "raw events".

You make the assumption that it is the observer in the room that provides the "order" to the raw data. However, the "order" is provided to the observer by what happens outside the room to produce the blink moments. Thus, suppose the blink moments are recorded as being in this order....A,A,B,C,D,C,D,A,..... Thus, while your epistemological definition of time is this order of blink moments, the ontological source of the "order" is external to this definition.

 

Do not get hang up by worry about measurement of what is in-between moments. The units of measurement are of no importance, the only important point is that, while the time measurement may be any measurement you wish to make it, it must be some measurement. Thus, suppose that the moment of each blink event is all you "know". Thus,when you observe blink event A, then there is an interval (logically must be a truth statement) and you observe blink event B--well, you can use the magnitude of A event to measure the extent of the interval between A <--> B. Thus, no additional definitions are needed, no worldview outside the raw information provided to you is needed to measure the interval between blink moment A and B.

 

In summary, we appear to be at a crossroad. Given the raw information set of blink moments...A,A,B,C,D,C,B,C....(or any such set), you define time = the order of the moments (that is, time for you is within the moments), whereas, I define time = that which is intermediate between the moments. Thus, time for you = the ordered set (....AABCDCBC...), while time for me = the set (...,,,,,,,...). It is of interest that we each assign to time the aspect of being a set (for you, a set of moments, for me, a set of that which is intermediate between moments). So, we do reach some common ground--we each agree that time is a type of ordered set.

 

AnssiH...you state that I do not understand how the Fundamental Equation is related to time as given by the worldview of Doctordick as being the "order of raw information" --however--I would reply that you do not understand how the Fundamental Equation is related to time as being that which is intermediate between the sequence of the ordered set of raw information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make the assumption that it is the observer in the room that provides the "order" to the raw data. However, the "order" is provided to the observer by what happens outside the room to produce the blink moments. Thus, suppose the blink moments are recorded as being in this order....A,A,B,C,D,C,D,A,..... Thus, while your epistemological definition of time is this order of blink moments, the ontological source of the "order" is external to this definition.

 

Yes, the "ontological order" is the one you get only once you have a working world view, not before. You don't have that information at your disposal when you are building a world view. The "ontological order" of events is a characteristic of a valid interpretation for the data.

 

What we are talking about is epistemological issue of becoming able to form a valid interpretation for the data. And for any set of raw data, the order of the raw events is relevant in forming the definitions that make up the entities like space and time, that will become what you call "ontological order of events. Different interpretations for the same set of data (with the same "epistemological order") can assign different ontological order for events. We are not that far yet.

 

Do not get hang up by worry about measurement of what is in-between moments. The units of measurement are of no importance, the only important point is that, while the time measurement may be any measurement you wish to make it, it must be some measurement.

 

I'm not worrying about what units to use, I am saying there is no information between "raw events" to assign any definitions on, i.e. by definition we have already made measurement of such thing non-sensical. You are talking about a measurement made in terms of some presumed ontology, i.e. in terms of a working world view. We are not that far yet at all, and what you actually end up measuring is completely different from "interval between raw events".

 

Thus, suppose that the moment of each blink event is all you "know". Thus,when you observe blink event A, then there is an interval

 

Inside the room! You are using a time measurement device inside the room to measure that interval, it is not part of the data to be explained; obviously time intervals are not a characteristic of the data to be explained directly, time intervals are a characteristic of an interpretation of that data, because first you have to have formed assumptions about what the "ontological source" of that data is, don't you agree?

 

In summary, we appear to be at a crossroad. Given the raw information set of blink moments...A,A,B,C,D,C,B,C....(or any such set), you define time = the order of the moments (that is, time for you is within the moments), whereas, I define time = that which is intermediate between the moments.

 

I think you just need to make the separation between "epistemological time-wise order of events" and "presumed ontological form of time" and then pay attention at not using the latter as a fundamental basis to the process of forming a valid world view (but rather as a result of having formed one), and we are back in track.

 

-Anssi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi AmssiH,

 

I do want to continue the discussion, because I do have a real interest in how the Fundamental Equation relates to Theory of Knowledge. So, I will ask some questions based on your comments above. But first...

 

Clearly we do not agree on a definition of time, since you make this claim:

..I am saying there is no information between "raw [blink] events" to assign any definitions on..
However, given that there exists a set of possibilities of information on the "extent" of separation between any two blink events, and where such a set is constrained, then the information you look for exists. It is this constraint on the set of possibilities in the length of separation of the "moments" of two blink events that is called TIME. Your problem is that you appear to want TIME to be a physical "field"--a set of "things"--but time is not a "thing"--perhaps this is the essence of where you do not understand what I am saying about time. It does not matter how time is measured, only that IT CAN BE MEASURED and that it has a SET OF POSSIBILITIES for measurement. It is the same with Existence, it does not matter how Existence is given "knowledge" only that Existence CAN BE GIVEN KNOWLEDGE. I must say, I do find it strange that you cannot see how the Fundamental Equation of DD fits exactly with my definition of time. That time is what is intermediate between moments, that the Fundamental Equation is outside time because it is within the moment--perhaps if I qualify and state that the "what" of time is not a thing or field that will help with understanding ?

 

So, to continue, let us put time aside for now, I look for where we reach agreement--so please let me know where I error below:

 

1. There are "undefined noumena" that exist that differ from "ontological elements". Each undefined noumena "is what it is", in other words, "what is = what is". This we call the "Law of Identity" (This Law also goes by the symbols A = A, but "what is = what is" has the same meaning). So, we both start our philosophy from a statement derived from pure logic--and not a "worldview", and that statement is A = A (or, if you like, in the words of DD, "what is = what is"), or, as it has been stated by others "Existence Exists".

 

2 The observer gets from evidence of the senses the fact that some previously undefined noumena exists and places a label on it--this is defined as "having knowledge of undefined noumena". In the mental process of placing the label--this involves the transformation of the undefined into defined ontological elements and this mental process is explained mathematically by the Fundamental Equation. These are called "ontological elements" and not "epistemological elements" to highlight the fact that the essence of these elements is prior to knowledge of them, yet they represent all that can be known. Thus, ontological elements are the epistemological "map" of the ontological undefined noumena "territory". Thus, a "chair" does not exist, because the word "chair" is nothing more than a worldview "map" formed by the observer. What exists is Existence that allows any worldview about anything to be formed, that is, while it must be true that Existence Exists (or that "what is must = what is") any specific example of existence formed by the observer is a worldview that results in the formation of ontological elements that must be explained by the Fundamental Equation.

 

3. The Fundamental Equation has absolutely nothing to say about "how the noumena exist" or the essence of "what is"--only that logically some undefined noumena of some sort must exist. And OF GREAT IMPORTANCE, the undefined noumena as relates to laws of physics MUST agree with the mathematics of the Fundamental Equation (in other words, this is why Newton's Laws are valid, etc). The number of undefined nomunea that exist is finite. While DD and you highlight the importance of the Fundamental Equation to physics (which is fine), I highlight the importance of the Fundamental Equation to the theory of knowledge. That is, the Fundamental Equation is the process of explanation of what we know--explanation itself, (called concepts) put into mathematical form to yield what are called "concepts" (which derive from the differentiation and integration of "ontological elements" (at least this is what you and DD call them). This is why I am excited about the Fundamental Equation--do you understand what I am trying to say here ??

 

4. In the room with blinking lights thought experiment, the lights inside the room represent ontological elements, and there is an ontological order to the sequence of the blinks, but it is not possible to have "knowledge" of the essence of this order, the only knowledge possible is the order of the defined ontological elements. It is an assumption of how the thought experiment is set-up that there must be some relationship between the outside (cause) and the inside blinks of light (effect)--but the true nature cannot of course ever be known with 100% certainty, which is the definition of science = uncertain knowledge.

 

5. Concerning the room with blinking lights--it is given by DD that the past = what we know about these blinks, and the future = what we do not know. So, when we experience the room, consider that we are a brain in a vat--we come to sense and the room is pure dark. Thus we have 0.0% past and 100.0% future as relates to "what we know" about blinks of light (we may have knowledge that we are within a room-but that is a side issue).

 

Then, the first blink, let the brain give it the symbol A, then some interval of darkness and the second blink B. We are getting excited, then at randomly spaced intervals blinks continue to occur. We notice that the blinks occur at the same locations on the wall, but only four such locations. We begin to put into memory the experience..blink A (then some interval of darkness), blink B (perhaps a different interval of darkness--perhaps not), blink C (interval), blink D (interval)....and so on.

 

As a brain in a vat--what do we "know" about the past, the future, the present, the room ? What we know is the sequence of blink events and intervals between them, thus suppose we "know" this ...A (interval long), B (interval short), A again (interval longer than first interval but shorter than second), C (very short interval), D (very long interval),.....We also "know" if the room is pure dark, or if a blink is in process (this we call the "present").

 

Thus we know (1) the sequence of blink events ..A,B,A',C,D..., which we define as moments "moments" of blink events (2) we know the extent of the intervals between the moments, which we define as being "time", that which is intermediate between the moments--both (1) and (2) represent the "past", and we know (3) the "present"--is the room pure dark or is a blink of light in process. We can say that the "present" represents a transition between what is not known (future) and what is known (past), and this transformation occurs "outside of time" since it is "within the moment". Thus, because the Fundamental Equation the explanation of this transformation, the Fundamental Equation is within the moment, within the present, and the mental process of applying the Fundamental Equation is outside of time.

 

You may ask--does the moment or present have then an extent ? I would answer, yes, it is what we call Planck time (which is completely different concept than the time measured by a clock).

 

What do we not know, that is, what is our future ? Clearly, being a brain in a vat, we do not know (or even have a concept of), "outside the room". Thus, we cannot make any prediction at all about "what is outside the room". Concerning the blink moments and time--what prediction can we make about what is not known, that is, the future ? Of course the prediction about blinks we will make depends on what is known, the past. Was there a pattern to the locations of the blinks, was the extent of the interval of darkness between them in some pattern ?, etc. In your thought experiment you indicated that the blinks occurred at random--thus, our prediction about them after observation will be "what is = what is", or random events = random predictions.

 

Now, if the observer is NOT a brain in a vat, then it must be true that they had prior knowledge of concepts inside and outside room (that is, they walked into the room from outside), then they can logically view a possibility of what happens inside as being the "map"(effect) and what happens outside as being the "territory" (cause). But, it is only a possibility--perhaps what happens inside the room is only a function of the room, and has nothing to do with events outside. The observer in the room cannot have pure knowledge of the territory (outside), human knowledge is always a merge of the undefined cause plus the observer to yield the defined effect. Thus the prediction of a NON-brain in vat concerning what is outside the room will be no different than the prediction of the brain in vat concerning what occurs inside the room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is this constraint on the set of possibilities in the length of separation of the "moments" of two blink events

 

Look at it this way; if there was absolutely nothing changing in the universe, there would be no sensical "time". Nothing could measure or experience "time".

 

The "raw events" (undefined noumena) represent the ENTIRE set of "information" one has about the universe, when building a working world view.

 

"After" one event but "before" the next event, there is no change at all; there is no way to measure a "length" of such thing, by the definitions I have given. If you were able to measure that length, that would imply information between two consequent events, i.e. events in between consequent events. Not possible by definition.

 

Another way to put it, once you have a sensical definition of time inside your world view, you attach it to things you can observe, such as clocks and other things, whose behaviour (change) gives you a sensical definition for time. You explain your conscious experience on a behaviour of neurons and such things, that in your definition actually need to "move" one way or another in order for you to experience time.

 

All those things correspond to a large collection of "raw events". By definition, between two consequent events, there is no "clock" or anything else to measure or experience time. If there was, it would mean there is a large collection of events between two consequent events. That is simply an oxymoron.

 

Don't forget that we already established that any world view must be based on a finite amount of raw data (i.e. we can represent that data as a set of discete events), and that means that a representation of events that constitute ALL known data, cannot contain extra information in the "speed" that they occur.

 

And if that also sounds strange to you, it is completely analogous to imagining that the speed of the entire universe would speed up or slow down. As long as we are talking about "entire universe", that speed up or slow down is obviously not an observable effect.

 

Or yet another way to put it, if you had to build your entire world view based on nothing but TWO data points and nothing else, you could not in any way say how long it took between those two events. (Well you could not say much of anything :singer:)

 

Maybe if you had four data points, you could say something about how events 2 and 3 occurred between 1 and 4, but not much more. You'd need a very large collection of events to be able to define what patterns mean some specific "processes", and then compare the time wise lengths of those "processes". A circumstance where a stop watch was actually measuring how long it takes for a tree to fall down, would alredy imply an unbelievable amount of raw data.

 

Your problem is that you appear to want TIME to be a physical "field"--a set of "things"--but time is not a "thing"--perhaps this is the essence of where you do not understand what I am saying about time. It does not matter how time is measured, only that IT CAN BE MEASURED and that it has a SET OF POSSIBILITIES for measurement.

 

I don't want time to be a physical field or otherwise claim anything about its ontological nature. If it makes you feel better, you can think of a new name to the epistemological requirement that a world view is built on a finite set of information that "changes" (i.e. is not static).

 

After that, I'd expect you to be interested about how the definitions for relativistic time relationships arise from entirely epistemological constraints?

 

1. There are "undefined noumena" that exist that differ from "ontological elements". Each undefined noumena "is what it is", in other words, "what is = what is". This we call the "Law of Identity" (This Law also goes by the symbols A = A, but "what is = what is" has the same meaning). So, we both start our philosophy from a statement derived from pure logic--and not a "worldview", and that statement is A = A (or, if you like, in the words of DD, "what is = what is"), or, as it has been stated by others "Existence Exists".

 

Yeah I guess you can say that, and it's a good idea to not over-analyze too much what the noumena is, the point is in being able to represent "unknown information" as a finite amount of data; as a set of discrete events, and being able to investigate consequences of some simple symmetries that our world view must contain due to the fact that the meaning of the information is unknown.

 

Such as the symmetries springing from the fact that a specific defined pattern must mean that same thing wherever the pattern occurs. By definition; it's a defined pattern!

 

Just to clarify, you can think of each "ontological element" as being an object definition; it is something that correspond to a large collection of "noumena" (=raw events); an ontological element is a specific defined pattern arising in the "unknown information".

 

I.e. we are talking about a way to interpret unknown information in meaningful ways (to be able to make meaningful predictions).

 

I think the term "ontological element" may have caused confusion to some, but it is referring to a defined object, i.e. whatever a specific world view may regard as an object that "exists" (or can be sensically defined), and that corresponds to some specific pattern of raw events

 

2 The observer gets from evidence of the senses the fact that some previously undefined noumena exists and places a label on it--this is defined as "having knowledge of undefined noumena". In the mental process of placing the label--this involves the transformation of the undefined into defined ontological elements and this mental process is explained mathematically by the Fundamental Equation..

 

I think the first sentence is a bit clumsy in the sense that perception is already by definition an interpretation of a sort (you can't say you perceive unknown patterns directly, you always perceive something you regard as a sensible thing, even if it's "strange noise"), but if you did not mean to refer to conscious processes, then I guess you could say that.

 

These are called "ontological elements" and not "epistemological elements" to highlight the fact that the essence of these elements is prior to knowledge of them, yet they represent all that can be known.

 

The raw events represent "all that can be known", the defined ontological elements are an interpretation regarding the "meaning" of the raw events.

 

Thus, ontological elements are the epistemological "map" of the ontological undefined noumena "territory". Thus, a "chair" does not exist, because the word "chair" is nothing more than a worldview "map" formed by the observer.

 

Yes.

 

What exists is Existence that allows any worldview about anything to be formed, that is, while it must be true that Existence Exists (or that "what is must = what is") any specific example of existence formed by the observer is a worldview that results in the formation of ontological elements that must be explained by the Fundamental Equation.

 

If by that you mean "something exists", then yes, I think one could say that :singer:

 

3. The Fundamental Equation has absolutely nothing to say about "how the noumena exist" or the essence of "what is"--only that logically some undefined noumena of some sort must exist.

 

Or rather "--only that logically a world view is based on a finite amount of information whose real meaning is unknown, and thus a world view based on such information obeys the constraints represented by the fundamental equation"

 

And OF GREAT IMPORTANCE, the undefined noumena as relates to laws of physics MUST agree with the mathematics of the Fundamental Equation (in other words, this is why Newton's Laws are valid, etc).

 

Yes, via the fact that logically (constrained by the fundamental equation) only certain types of circumstances/patterns inside the raw data can become treated as persistent object, and those are objects that approximately obey newtonian laws... ...or at least any valid set of definitions can be interpreted in that way (they can be semantically different, but a transformation from there to newtonian representation exists)

 

And the other, prediction-wise more accurate representations of reality were shown to also be approximations of the fundamental equation, given specific definitions that can always be given (and in modern physics have been given).

 

While DD and you highlight the importance of the Fundamental Equation to physics (which is fine), I highlight the importance of the Fundamental Equation to the theory of knowledge.

 

Yes it is equally important and these issues are related to each others. And it is sort of funny how they meet in quantum mechanics, in a way that is very mystifying to everyone, until you realize WHY they meet (i.e. how sensical object definitions arise from unknown data and why those definitions consequently lead to quantum mechanical predictions for the dynamic behaviour of those defined objects), and that is one point where DD's analysis shines, if you ask me.

 

That is, the Fundamental Equation is the process of explanation of what we know--explanation itself, (called concepts) put into mathematical form to yield what are called "concepts" (which derive from the differentiation and integration of "ontological elements" (at least this is what you and DD call them). This is why I am excited about the Fundamental Equation--do

you understand what I am trying to say here ??

 

No, I'm afraid I don't :(

 

4. In the room with blinking lights thought experiment, the lights inside the room represent ontological elements

 

No, they represent the raw events, the undefined noumena, or "the finite set of information that changes/accumulates".

 

and there is an ontological order to the sequence of the blinks

 

Possibly, possibly not. A relativistic definition of simultaneity for instance, does not assign a "real" ontological order between some events at all. At any rate, that's an issue of being able to interpret the events in some meaningful way.

 

but it is not possible to have "knowledge" of the essence of this order, the only knowledge possible is the order of the defined ontological elements. It is an assumption of how the thought experiment is set-up that there must be some relationship between the outside (cause) and the inside blinks of light (effect)--but the true nature cannot of course ever be known with 100% certainty, which is the definition of science = uncertain knowledge.

 

Yes.

 

5. Concerning the room with blinking lights--it is given by DD that the past = what we know about these blinks, and the future = what we do not know.

 

The past = the logged history of the raw events we have accumulated thus far. Not an interpretation of those raw events.

 

The future = whatever blinks we might still get added to our set of "known events".

 

So, when we experience the room, consider that we are a brain in a vat--we come to sense and the room is pure dark. Thus we have 0.0% past and 100.0% future as relates to "what we know" about blinks of light (we may have knowledge that we are within a room-but that is a side issue).

 

No, it's imperative that we take the raw events (blinks) as "ALL the information we are working with", nothing about or inside the room can affect the resulting world view. That's why I said that the reality "out there" has got nothing to do with the reality inside the room.

 

It would not really be an epistemological analysis if we began with defined reality that has got a "room" and certain type of "space" and "time" to it already.

 

All the definitions of a world view must be a function of the information that one's world view is based on.

 

Likewise, the fact that I'm talking about "lights" means nothing to our resulting world view; we are not trying to understand how the lights work, but what sort of reality is "out there". Consider the blinks simply as data points stacking up, and nothing else.

 

As a brain in a vat--what do we "know" about the past, the future, the present, the room ? What we know is the sequence of blink events and intervals between them, thus suppose we "know" this ...A (interval long), B (interval short), A again (interval longer than first interval but shorter than second), C (very short interval), D (very long interval),.....We also "know" if the room is pure dark, or if a blink is in process (this we call the "present").

 

So here you have already made a mistake of using information that was not part of the "entire set of information one's world view is based on". I hope the first part of this e-mail clarified this a bit.

 

I wrote this in a hurry and must get some sleep too so I must cut my reply here...

 

But you are closer on some things, and I hope my clarification about the blinks representing "all known information" is helpful.

 

Later!

-Anssi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...