Understanding Reality

[Doctordick]

Consider exactly how one manages to achieve an understanding of reality.

 

It begins with knowledge: the information which you “believe” to stand behind your reality which you take to be important. Given that you have a language capable of expressing the fundamental elements of that information you make an attempt to lay out the possible logical constructs which are internally consistent (think possible truths). You then compare those truths (those logical constructs) with the information you “believe” stands behind your reality eliminating everything inconsistent with that presumed knowledge.

 

At this point you have an internally consistent explanation of what you think you know. At that point one generally presumes that explanation is an accurate reflection of reality and, if one is interested in learning more, they look for extensions of that “truth” which were previously outside their experience. That leads to interest in new information: i.e., it suggests experiments which might lead to additional knowledge concerning what might stand behind your reality.

 

At that final point (of the process called experimentation), only results inconsistent with your earlier conclusions are significant (consistency merely adds nothing beyond confidence in your beliefs). Inconsistencies bring you back to the original circumstance; you have two options, you either change what you “believe” stands behind your reality or you search for additional internally consistent logical constructs which were omitted in your earlier attack.

 

I think what I have just put forth is quite a reasonable and concise statement of the process by which we achieve our understanding of reality. I put it the way I did because my interest is uniquely concerned with that second sentence, ”given that you have a language capable of expressing the fundamental elements of that information you make an attempt to lay out the possible logical constructs which are internally consistent (think possible truths)”. That is absolutely the only issue of concern to me. Anything else is beside the point.

 

The first step is to establish a “language capable of expressing the fundamental elements of that information”. That is exactly what I have done in defining my mathematical expression

[math](\vec{x}_1,\vec{x}_1,\cdots,\vec{x}_n,\cdots, t).[/math]

 

Under my definition of space and time (mere references to specific elements of that information), the expression [imath](\vec{x}_1,\vec{x}_1,\cdots,\vec{x}_n,\cdots, t)[/imath] can be understood as an abstract definition of a specific experience going to make up that information. The abstract language constitutes the sum total of all such expressions necessary to define that information.

 

In essence, your beliefs consist of the probability that some specific set of such explicit expressions are consistent with your experiences: i.e., your expectations are given by the mathematical expression

Probability = [math]P(\vec{x}_1,\vec{x}_1,\cdots,\vec{x}_n,\cdots, t).[/math]

 

What is important is that there exist an infinite number of possible “translations” of that language which constitute exactly the same information independent of what that information might be. It is the necessary validity of certain specific translations (mathematical symmetries) which lead to the fact that my fundamental equation is a truth required by internal consistency of that language itself. That is a fact which can be proved conclusively.

 

The whole thing is that simple. By itself, it is of little significance; however, it turns out that most of the fundamental expressions of truth (equations) of modern physics can be shown to be approximate solutions to that equation. The philosophic issue at hand is the fact that anything which can be shown to be an approximate solution to that equation is a fundamental truth unto itself and has absolutely nothing to do with “the information which you “believe” to stand behind your reality”. That is the conundrum you should consider very carefully.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

PS Rade, you have made it quite clear that you have utterly no interest in what I am talking about. Apparently your true interest is to use the vague and unclear usage of the English language to promote argument. As per Kant, this is totally consistent with the modern concept of philosophic discussion; there is no interest in actually solving any of the problems embedded in philosophy but rather, the only interest is in stirring the pot to generate controversy.

 

I no longer have any interest in your picayune comments and will no longer bother to read your posts. I am putting you on my ignore list.

 

For others who take the trouble to read this, I will comment that I did not “define” either knowledge or belief; I merely used the terms (presuming the common meaning would be understood) to lay out the procedure by which scientific results are accumulated.

 

I am not sure I will still be able to see all other posts as forum software often ignores responses to ignored posts.

[Rade]

Hello DD,

 

Concerning your definition of knowledge:

knowledge: the information which you “believe” ....

 

Well, this just will not do. You cannot define "to know" = "to believe". They are completely two different concepts, in fact, they have absolutely nothing in common. A quick look at Webster dictionary will show:

 

1. know = to have a clear perception or understanding of...

2. believe = to take as true...to assume; expect; suppose...

 

If you have knowledge of information you have 0.0% believe, and if you have believe of information you have 0.0% knowledge.

 

Then, we find the definition for science = (from scire, to know)..the state of knowing...as opposed to intuition, belief..

 

Thus we find that the scientist has interesting in "knowledge" of information, the non-scientist has interest in "believe" of information. Thus understanding of reality, by definition, requires knowledge of information, not believe. And, from Heisenberg, we mathematically understand that scientific knowledge of greater than one aspect of reality (such as position and momentum) comes with a degree of uncertainty.

 

Given the situation that your post begins with the false premise that knowledge = believe, how can one even begin to discuss your post ? First you need to provide a proper definition of "knowledge", then perhaps re-work your logical argument and mathematical presentation. Sorry I could not be more supportive of this thread topic, as I do greatly admire your thinking on things.

[Doctordick]

Please, exactly who is making the false premise here?

Well, this just will not do. You cannot define "to know" = "to believe".

Do you not believe that the information you refer to as facts is true? If not, you must think it is an illusion. That circumstance would make you a Solipsist. Do you consider yourself to be a Solipsist? :(

If you have knowledge of information you have 0.0% believe, and if you have believe of information you have 0.0% knowledge.

What you say there is unintelligible. Don't you mean, “ if you have knowledge of information you have 0.0% via belief” and “if you have belief in information you have 0.0% via knowledge”? It appears to me that you are making the premise that the basis of your world view can not be in error. :hihi:

 

If that is the case, then either you cannot comprehend being in error regarding your facts or your world can contain no facts which would not contradict my definition at all. My definition takes in all possibilities. You ought to think about things a little Rade. :shrug:

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

Do you not believe that the information you refer to as facts is true? If not, you must think it is an illusion. That circumstance would make you a Solipsist. Do you consider yourself to be a Solipsist?

Not at all. You ask a logical question--the logical answer is no. I do not "believe" that information referred to as facts are true, I "know" that information referred to as facts are true. Thus, your conclusion about illusion and Solipsist makes no sense. I am in disagreement with your DEFINITION of "knowledge", that is, you claim that knowledge is based on 100% believe, I claim that knowledge is based on 0.0% believe. What is there not to understand here ?

 

Please note that I provided definitions for both "believe" and "know", whereas you only provide a definition for "knowledge". Thus, it would be helpful that you provide both definitions, then we see how your two differ from the ones I presented, then we see how both relate to the definition of science. So, to summarize, please provide your definitions for:

 

1. know

2. believe

3. science

 

What you say there is unintelligible. Don't you mean, “ if you have knowledge of information you have 0.0% via belief” and “if you have belief in information you have 0.0% via knowledge”?

What I said was:

 

If you have knowledge of information you have 0.0% believe, and if you have believe of information you have 0.0% knowledge.

So, DoctorDick...what you said was unintelligible you repeated word for word as now being intelligible :shrug:

 

It appears to me that you are making the premise that the basis of your world view can not be in error.

Well, in fact, the exact same statement can be said of your OP claim (the one I responded to)...do you not claim that your world view cannot be in error ? But, clearly, I made no such claim at all in my post. What I provided are definitions for the terms "believe" and "know". Now, you must agree, once you (or I) state a definition for a concept, neither of us logically would make a claim that the worldview we develop "cannot be in error". Such a conclusion makes no sense at all because, by definition, all definitions for any concept can be modified over time to fit new information.

 

If that is the case (the DD quote above), then either you cannot comprehend being in error regarding your facts or your world can contain no facts which would not contradict my definition at all.

Well, "that is not the case"..thus the negative of all that follows in your comment is in fact true, that is, both your "either" and "or" statements are false.

 

My definition takes in all possibilities. You ought to think about things a little

I did think about your definition of KNOWLEDGE, in fact, I thought about it more than a little, and I found it to be illogical. Again, YOUR definition of "knowledge", which you claim is the begin of the human process of "understanding" is:

It [understanding] begins with knowledge: the information which you “believe” to stand behind your reality...

demands that information that you "know" is based 100% on "believe"---thus my point---this demand you make is not logical, there is 0.0% believe in knowing.

 

I am sorry, I know you just want everyone to agree with your knowledge definition as the begin of the topic about "understanding reality", but I cannot, and you have provided no logical argument why I should. Stop please with the attacks, just provide a logical argument why you find "believe" in "knowledge", when by all standard dictionaries none exists.

 

Here is how I see it. Understanding reality means having a mental grasp of the fact(s) of reality, reached either by (1) perceptual observation or (2) by a process of reason based on perceptional observation. There is 0.0% "believe" in understanding reality, and so then you see where we completely disagree, and that disagreement derives from different definition of terms that we both use.

[lawcat]

DD, I agree with you on most of the OP. Knowledge is database; inputs and outputs, rules and facts, information. Belief is the process, the analysis, the CPU, that results in output(s).

 

To the extent that your formula has to do with the "process," it is a transfer function between inputs and outputs.

 

Now the outputs of the beliefs, the conclusions, certainly have some probability of being true or false.

 

in the end, for sure, most equations can probably be tied back to Schrodinger, and that is Schrodinger's accomplishment, not DDs. But because most equations can be traced to fundamental equation does not mean that all equations that are approximate solutions of the fundamental equation are fundamental truths. If that statement was true indeed, then there would be infinite number of fundamental truths, and that just cannot be.

 

While I agree that there can be infinite number of interpretations of data from input, and therefore infinite number of outputs, the outputs must be not be just internally consistent with the fundamental processing, but externally consistent with other fundamental truths as well. There must be a noise filter.

[Rade]

Knowledge is database; inputs and outputs, rules and facts, information. Belief is the process, the analysis, the CPU, that results in output(s)....To the extent that your {DDs} formula has to do with the "process," it is a transfer function between inputs and outputs.

Lawcat, I do not agree with this, so you need to explain your thinking to me so I better understand your logic. You imply that knowledge = the information (the data, facts, etc), that "to know" is not a "process"----I do not agree. As I see it, to "know" and to "believe" are BOTH "process", they are two completely different ways to "understand reality".

 

Let me explain how I think to "know" and to "believe" mesh with the DD formula, the "transfer function" he discusses. Let us start with some undefined existent that stands behind primary input of information to the mind. The process of the human mind grasping that some undefined existent exists, and that it differs from previously defined existents, is the primary stage in the process "to know". This stage demands "perception" as the primary "operator" function on the unknown existent. Now, as we know from physics, the perception may be direct or indirect, does not matter, both involve the process "to know" the existent exists. Note that I do NOT claim at this stage that anything is known about the existent, other than that it exists--is more than enough to know at this stage. The second stage in the process "to know" is a type of summation or integration operator function, taking the undefined existent, placing a label on it (called a definition), and transforming it into a defined existent. This stage is for me the role of the "transfer function process of DD", but he does not agree with me. Now, once the mind builds a file of many different defined existents, then it can begin to consider attributes of each as relates to others, as mass, charge, spin, etc....At this stage we find that the Heisenberg Uncertainty (HUP) must apply, that is, when mental attempt is made to integrate more than one defined existent, or more than one attribute of any defined existent (such as position and momentum) our KNOWLEDGE of the defined existent MUST BE with a degree of uncertainty. Thus, CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE of reality is very limited, it is limited to those events to which the HUP does not apply. This is why science can be defined as uncertain knowledge of reality.

 

For me, the process of "to believe" differs completely from the process "to know". How many times have you heard someone say..."well I believe that may be true, but I really do not know". The process of believe, imo, involves a modification of the integration transfer function stage of DD "to know" such that mental images are formed not based only on primary perception, but also from illusion or types of imagination--that is, from mental images formed with no link to perception. The mental images derived from believe are then entangled with defined existent(s) derived from knowledge during the transfer function process (the process of placing a definition label on the undefined to make it defined). Thus the use of mental "transfer functions" that involve believe result in a different "understanding of reality" than someone that uses "transfer functions" derived from knowledge. (Edit--understanding based on belief is not then "reality based", it is a type of pseudo-understanding, based on falsely putting primacy on "consciousness").

 

Thus we find that when laws of nature applied to perception fail to offer understanding of reality, one must use belief, but such is not the way of science because there is 0.0% belief in science, for science is knowledge of reality (mostly with uncertainty) all the way down. This is why Intelligent Design Theory is NOT science--it is by definition the use of "belief" to "understand reality" when the laws of nature fail to provide understanding of reality. This is a topic Biology teachers should address in their lesson plans when the topic of Evolution is discussed.

 

This is how I see it, fire away.

[lawcat]

Rade,

 

I think we are pretty much in agreement on definition of belief. Let me spell it out here to clear up any misunderstandings: A Belief is (1) conviction, in (2) perceived, (3) subject matter. (Subject matter being an equivalent of existent in your post.)

 

Belief is all that; it consists of inputs (existents) and outputs (convictions), but only to the extent that convictions, the outputs are processed from perception of inputs. The knowledge consists only of existents and convictions; it is what beliefs draw on.

 

Now to Heisenberg. The uncertainty principle applies to perception component of the belief process; not to the outputs. Since we can not perceive all existents at the same time, then we can not process them together without error. But the error is inherent in the perception component, and therefore the outputs; inputs must be classified inaccordance with what can be perceived correctly, or he process must account for the error if processing perception which is subject to error.

 

The intelligent design is not science because the "existent," the subject matter of perception, is not available to testing, and therefore the conclusions reached are not subject to determination of truth or falsity, they are not falsifiable.

[Rade]

I think we are pretty much in agreement on definition of belief. Let me spell it out here to clear up any misunderstandings: A Belief is (1) conviction, in (2) perceived, (3) subject matter. (Subject matter being an equivalent of existent in your post.). Belief is all that; it consists of inputs (existents) and outputs (convictions), but only to the extent that convictions, the outputs are processed from perception of inputs. The knowledge consists only of existents and convictions; it is what beliefs draw on

:eek2: I am confused--how can making a claim to have "knowledge" of "subject matter" (existents) bypass the process of "perception", which you imply in the red text above ?

 

==

 

ps/ to DD. I see from your OP edits that you claim you did not "define" knowledge, yet it is clear to anyone that reads your post that you provided a very formal definition of knowledge:

...It (understanding reality) begins with knowledge: the information which you “believe” to stand behind your reality which you take to be important

. There is nothing abstract about this definition of knowledge you give, it is very clear--it is only that I do not agree with it--and since you claim the topic of "understanding reality" begins with this definition, I really do not think that anything after this definition helps at all with "understanding reality". Perhaps what follows will help others better understand your Fundamental Equation--OK--but as you have said many times, your Fundamental Equation has nothing at all to do with "reality"--if you wish, I will go back though your posts on other threads to support this. I also see you will no longer respond to any of my posts--OK--then I will just have to continue posting my questions to the forum as a whole about your statements and claims and see if anyone has interest to help clarify what you claim.

 

pss/ I write this to you DD not at all thinking that you will read it, but to help clarify to others the comments you made.

[lawcat]

I generally have no problem using any given definitions. I would adopt your definition for the purposes of DDs problem without any objection. But I have hard time equating clear perception and understanding. One can have clear perception of sunlight but have no understanding of it. Similarly, equating beliefs and assumptions is also problematic. I think you got it all unstructured and mixed up. I can not agree.

 

DD clearly approaches the problem from the perspective of: knowledge is in the past. He's said that much repeatedly. I accept that for the purposes of information processing. Knowledge is stored, it is database. There is no perception. Belief is the process of knowing. There can be no knowledge without the process, without the belief.

 

For example, you can believe that the paper in front of you is red, you perceive the inputs through your eyes, you perceive the inputs from the knowledge database of what is red, and you come to conclusion that what is in front of you is red. You believe it is red. Now you store that information, and once stored that information becaomes a part of the knowledge database. The thing is red. You can go now to court and testify that what you saw was red, because you know it, and you know it because it is stored. Knowledge is stored.

[Rade]

Thank you Lawcat. I really do appreciate your comments. Once again, here is what I posted about what I think "understanding reality" means:

Understanding reality means having a mental grasp of the fact(s) of reality, reached either by (1) perceptual observation or (2) by a process of reason based on perceptional observation

First, note that I claim there are two equally valid "processes" involved in understanding reality, (1) pure perception (2) use of reason. But, they are not equal in the degree of understanding obtained, and, as I discuss below, "to believe" can be included in the process of understanding reality if one is so motivated--(but I hold that it is not a necessary condition of the process). I do not know if what I present about how I think humans understand reality has been presented before, but it is how I look at the OP question. Perhaps my understanding is unique to me, but I do not believe that it is "unstructured and mixed up", I find that is follows logically from my "definition" of terms.

 

So, your concern with sunlight, I agree, we can understand little about the reality of sunlight by only observation of pure sunlight, but we can learn one thing of value--that sunlight exists. And, as Newton did, we can understand via perception that sunlight as input passing through a prism has a rainbow color output--this we can clearly mentally grasp about the reality of sunlight.

 

Now, what does it mean to use "reason" as a process to understand reality, say to understand sunlight ? One of the many valid and internally consistent definitions of reason is "to think coherently and logically; to draw inferences or conclusions from facts known or assumed"(Webster). OK, now, take a look at my definition of "belief" in my previous post...one type of believe is an assumption. Thus, it is clear that my definition of "understanding reality" DOES allow for reason to be used to draw inference logically from "facts" assumed--that is, from believe. So, one could understand sunlight by using reason to bring "assumed facts" into the equation (the "assumed fact" that sunlight moves along lines of the aether), and, at the same time, one could understand sunlight by bringing "known facts" into the equations (such as the measured wavelengths of the different colors of sunlight that passes through a prism). Both types of "facts" are open to use by reason. Again, that these two types of "facts" exist logically to be used in any discussion derives from the definition of "reason" (see Webster).

 

But, KNOWN FACTS (knowledge obtained via science) used by reason are not the same as ASSUMED FACTS (believe obtained via pure reason). Again, definition is important--thus "science" BY DEFINITION is the process of using reason "to know" (Webster). There is no other way "to know" anything via reason other than by science. If anyone claims to have knowledge (opposite of belief) of anything USING REASON, and they claim they use a method other than science to obtain the knowledge, then their claim is based on a false premise and thus logically false. This is the basis of MY philosophy, just to help clarify what I am saying about the relationship of knowledge, believe, reality, reason, facts, science to process of "understanding".

 

I find that understanding reality based on 100% KNOWN FACTS (i.e, via science) is of greater predictive value for the future than understanding reality based on 100% ASSUMED FACTS (i.e., vis belief). Why ? Well, known facts would be those derived from experiment or measurement using science as the "method" whereas assumed facts have absolutely no direct scientific basis (that is, if assumed facts were based on science they would not be assumed, but known).

 

Now, while I agree completely with you that DD has set up a philosophy where he claims the "past is what is known"--where the problem for me lies is how he DEFINES to know. For DD, knowledge of the "past" is 100% based on ASSUMED FACT because he defines the process of "to know" as being 100% based on "belief" (which is the reason for all my posts, I do not agree with his definitions). For DD, "belief" is not the "process of knowing facts" by reason, belief is the "process of assuming facts" by reason. They are not the same processes! Such a claim goes against the common sense Dictionary definition of "reason", which clearly separates using "known facts" from "believed facts" to obtain understand of reality. Thus, facts of reality that result in an output of a "conviction" (a term you used Lawcat) are derived 100% from believe, since by definition a "conviction" is a "strong believe" of something that exists, and not a knowledge of something.

 

Thus, my first problem with this thread OP is how DD first defined "knowledge", so as to place the "past", (i.e., the past is what is known) as being based on "assumed facts" (belief), and not allowing for use of "known facts" derived from use of science.

 

Also, consider what DD is claiming here

 

At that final point (of the process called experimentation), only results inconsistent with your earlier conclusions are significant (consistency merely adds nothing beyond confidence in your beliefs) Inconsistencies bring you back to the original circumstance; you have two options, you either change what you “believe” stands behind your reality or you search for additional internally consistent logical constructs which were omitted in your earlier attack.

Suppose you conduct an experiment in attempt to falsify some earlier experiment by someone else. What DD is claiming is that, only results that do not confirm the first experiment are significant--he finds no significance in experiments done time after time that confirm that the first experiment holds true--yet--are not such repeat experiments of GREAT SIGNIFICANCE to science--are these not the types of experiments that lead science to move from hypothesis to theory ? Thus it seems that DD is claiming that scientific THEORY is of no significance to understanding reality, which is clearly false. Now, while I agree with DD that experiments that do show inconsistencies are also of significance, they do not result in that you change what you "believe" stands behind your reality, you change what you "know" stands behind your reality, because you know that what you know is always "uncertain knowledge" since the information that stands behind your reality was derived via experimentation--that is, 100% of information derived from experimentation is "uncertain knowledge".

 

So, another problem I have with the OP comments of DD

 

This is my understanding, or lack of, fire away.