Science Forums

# Laying out the representation to be solved.

## Recommended Posts

Hi guys. I'll just return back to the moment this thing went astray.

Which is exactly here;

Time for me to move to the next step, dealing with the notation of how to represent any possible circumstance. Now, what I see missing from this thread is an example of a hypothetical circumstance to use as a teaching tool--to help cement together exactly how the notation represents a specific circumstance. Because the representation must make no presumptions, there should be no problem we can proceed in that direction to help with understanding the presentation.

That impulse, to try to figure out a practical example, will confuse you to absolutely no end, and it serves no purpose at all as far as the actual analysis goes.

Trying to do that is perfectly analogous to someone having made an argument about being able to represent anything with bits, and people trying to validate that argument by thinking up random things to be represented, and then trying to figure out what the bit-wise representation of that would look like as bits "just as an example". Without ever stopping to think of the fact that coming up with any number of examples would never answer their question...

It appears to be a common impulse though, I think it arises because people think there is a clear method to the notation in how it represents things. I can tell you right now, there is not; we are merely focused onto the universality of the notation.

Certainly, you could take something like DD's deduction of Schrödinger's equation as one practical example. But it is not trivially arrived at, and most certainly it is not used as a starting point. Also you should realize how impossible it would be to represent a situation of multiple people solving a puzzle, from a quantum level. I mean, something that you think of as "a person" would hardly be considered as a fundamental entity of an explanation :) It would be a composite object of unbelievable complexity.

A newtonian approximation of the same circumstance, slightly easier, but still something you probably couldn't complete in a lifetime. And you know that discussion would just lead to the philosophy of the mind and things like that, which have nothing to do with the argument of the notation being universal... So let's not go there!

So, being that we are not at all interested of any specific explanation, it means we are not at all interested of figuring out "how to represent any possible circumstance", we are interested of ensuring that any sort of set of defined entities can be expressed in this notation. I.e. that the notation itself doesn't limit the possibilites we are interested of examining.

In order to ensure that, DD has kept things reaaally seriously simple at this step. Think about this; whatever defined entities a given explanation interprets some undefined information as, those defined entities can always be mapped into a notation that is merely expressing "what exists at given t" (according to some explanation). Whatever supposed behaviour there is to those entities, is embedded to whatever changes are visible between different t's.

One thing to note here though, which I think also people easily miss (and should probably be clarified in the presentation). The single indices (may I call them "single points") of the notation can only represent the most fundamental things of an explanation. If the explanation contains entities that are considered to be composites of simpler elements, those can't be represented as single points by themselves, they would be represented as specific collections of points.

That being said, note that DD's deductions of modern physics ends to deductions of the most fundamental definitions of physics. The arguments about the more complex things of our universe being composites of those simple things, are left for physicists.

And that really is all there is to this step!

Now look at this;

$0\;\leq\; P(x_1, x_2, x_3,\cdots, x_n, \cdots, t)\;\leq \;1$

It's the first "universal definition"; first logical constraint we lay down! Follow the paragraphs following it; i.e. the arguments regarding how that definition doesn't limit what can be represented by the notation. And notice especially, that validating that argument doesn't require you to know how some random explanation might express things in this notation; you just need to understand it could be done.

-Anssi

• Replies 113
• Created

#### Popular Days

Trying to do that is perfectly analogous to someone having made an argument about being able to represent anything with bits, and people trying to validate that argument by thinking up random things to be represented, and then trying to figure out what the bit-wise representation of that would look like as bits "just as an example". Without ever stopping to think of the fact that coming up with any number of examples would never answer their question...
You are assuming this to have been "someone"'s intention but you had only missed "someone"'s point!

Also, you are not understanding (or refusing to accept) that some things in information theory can be argued with perfect generality in terms of bit sequences. Anssi if you keep missing "someone"'s point, refusing mathematically demonstrated facts and failing to appreciate the concepts that "someone" is trying to get across, there is no use trying to reach you.

Especially if, every time "someone" says six, you reply: No, it's half a dozen.

##### Share on other sites

You are assuming this to have been "someone"'s intention but you had only missed "someone"'s point!

I wasn't referring to you but I was guessing you might make a connection. I said it because it should be obvious to most people that representations of complex situations are quite incomprehensible from the level of any defined fundamental entities.

At any rate, if you are willing to share whatever point you had in mind, feel free to do so.

Also, you are not understanding (or refusing to accept) that some things in information theory can be argued with perfect generality in terms of bit sequences. Anssi if you keep missing "someone"'s point, refusing mathematically demonstrated facts and failing to appreciate the concepts that "someone" is trying to get across, there is no use trying to reach you.

No, I'm not refusing to accept that some things in information theory can be argued with perfect generality in terms of bit sequences. I'm sure some things can. I'm asking what does this have to do with DD's presentation? Feel free to explain.

-Anssi

##### Share on other sites

Hi AnissH. Thank you for your reply. I think it would help the reader if the first page of this thread was clarified to inform what you have stated above. So, first begin with these claims of Doctordick

Clearly' date=' the first thing required here is a notation capable of representing absolutely any possible circumstance in a form which makes no presumptions whatsoever about any aspect of that circumstance. I assert that absolutely any circumstance conceivable can be represented by an expression of the form: (x1, x2, x3,... xn), where xi is a numerical label constituting a reference to a fundamental element of the circumstances being explained.[/quote']

But' date=' being that we are not at all interested of any specific explanation, it means we are not at all interested of figuring out "how to represent any possible circumstance", we are interested of ensuring that any sort of set of defined entities can be expressed in this notation. I.e. that the notation itself doesn't limit the possibilities we are interested of examining.[/quote']

Now, the only small problem I see is that you say you are only interested in "defined entities" as they relate to the notation, but these clearly must enter the representation to be solved after the (xi) labels are assigned to represent specific fundamental elements. I hope you see the potential confusion here. That is, I do not see how you get to your "defined entities" of interest unless you first represent each specific fundamental element for the circumstance with a specific (xi) label.

Also, is not each "entity" related to a specific "fundamental element" in a 1:1 correspondence linked by the (xi) label, seems to me it should be. So, this picture ?

specific fundamental element ----> (xi) label ----> defined entity (for the specific fundamental element in question)

If true, I do not understand how you are only interested in ensuring that the set of defined entities has proper correspondence to the (xi) label. Seems to me you would also want to ensure that the set of specific fundamental elements have proper correspondence to the exact same (xi) label--correct ?

Finally, while I can appreciate the great complexity of representing specific fundamental elements by (xi) labels for any circumstance, the fact is, this must be possible. So, to move forward, let us concentrate on perhaps the five most obvious (xi) labels that must apply to five specific fundamental elements for the circumstance I presented. Even if there are 10,000 more, understanding the logic that stands behind how the first five were determined would go far to help me move forward. And, I agree, we must limit the discussion to the non-quantum level of representation, I never had this in mind. So, again, here is the circumstance we are dealing with:

Person M was asked to complete a three piece puzzle (pieces A1, B, A2, with the two A pieces being identical)and was told that the time to manipulate each piece would be recorded by person O. At the end of the process it was observed by person O that less time was taken to manipulate the last piece to complete the task, than the time taken to manipulate the first two pieces. One explanation for the observation is that fewer object choices for manipulation were present over time.

Lets move forward with five of the most obvious (xi)labels that must be assigned to specific fundamental elements, and just put aside for now the 10,000+ others that may exist. Now, you indicated that Person M would not be a specific fundamental element of interest, and thus would not receive an (xi) label. So, this is a good first step, but it only tells me about something that is not a fundamental element of the circumstance.

Of course, if you find you really need to use 6 or 7 or a few more to explain the approach properly, please do so. Also, for now, let us limit the situation to a single explanation (I understand that the notation allows for multiple explanations on the same (x) element, but let us make as easy to understand as possible).

##### Share on other sites

I wasn't referring to you but I was guessing you might make a connection. I said it because it should be obvious to most people that representations of complex situations are quite incomprehensible from the level of any defined fundamental entities.
So I guess that "people" wasn't the same party as "someone" then.

No, I'm not refusing to accept that some things in information theory can be argued with perfect generality in terms of bit sequences. I'm sure some things can. I'm asking what does this have to do with DD's presentation? Feel free to explain.
Actually, anything that can be represented as a finite typographical sequence (which means a finite set of glyphs too) can be translated into a finite bit sequence.

Did you think about the meaning of that question I had posed? Are you familiar with the concept of entropy in information theory? Any way it has more to do with what we were discussing a good while ago in other threads, by the time I can get my point across a bit at a time (and yes, I could almost say a binary digit at a time) it ends up there's no hope of getting the original discussion straightened out, so it seems there's hardly any hope.

##### Share on other sites

Now, the only small problem I see is that you say you are only interested in "defined entities" as they relate to the notation, but these clearly must enter the representation to be solved after the (xi) labels are assigned to represent specific fundamental elements. I hope you see the potential confusion here. That is, I do not see how you get to your "defined entities" of interest unless you first represent each specific fundamental element for the circumstance with a specific (xi) label.

What you are saying in your post implies a misunderstanding with the terminology.

A "fundamental element" is also a defined entity, i.e. something defined by a specific explanation. (That definition being based on large number of recurring events on some undefined information)

A defined element is called "fundamental" when it is not a composition of multiple elements; "fundamental elements" are whatever an explanation takes as "indivisible elements". For example, modern particle physics defines these fundamental elements;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle

They keywords there being "not made up of smaller particles".

At any rate, it is a specific explanation that supposes that there are these elements at all (with persistent individual existence to themselves). In terms of undefined information, there does not exist any explicit information about their existence. I.e. these defined "fundamental elements" are also a result of interpretation of some recurring activity of something unknown.

Also, is not each "entity" related to a specific "fundamental element" in a 1:1 correspondence linked by the (xi) label, seems to me it should be. So, this picture ?

specific fundamental element ----> (xi) label ----> defined entity (for the specific fundamental element in question)

No, it's more like;

undefined information -> unknown mechanism of recognizing repetitive patterns -> unknown transformation to a "language" of defined persistent elements (elements that "continuously" exist)

Whatever elements an explanation defines as indivisible, are "fundamental elements". So then we have;

Specific fundamental element (defined by an explanation) = [imath]x_i[/imath] label.

Composite objects, if the explanation defines those things (as they usually do), are made up of fundamental elements of the explanation. Just like in terms of modern physics, everything is made of the particles mentioned in that wikipedia page. I.e. fundamental elements of an explanation can be used to represent the entire universe (all the known accumulated information).

I hope that sorts out some confusion.

Finally, while I can appreciate the great complexity of representing specific fundamental elements by (xi) labels for any circumstance, the fact is, this must be possible. So, to move forward, let us concentrate on perhaps the five most obvious (xi) labels that must apply to five specific fundamental elements for the circumstance I presented. Even if there are 10,000 more, understanding the logic that stands behind how the first five were determined would go far to help me move forward. And, I agree, we must limit the discussion to the non-quantum level of representation, I never had this in mind. So, again, here is the circumstance we are dealing with:

Person M was asked to complete a three piece puzzle (pieces A1, B, A2, with the two A pieces being identical)and was told that the time to manipulate each piece would be recorded by person O. At the end of the process it was observed by person O that less time was taken to manipulate the last piece to complete the task, than the time taken to manipulate the first two pieces. One explanation for the observation is that fewer object choices for manipulation were present over time.

Lets move forward with five of the most obvious (xi)labels that must be assigned to specific fundamental elements, and just put aside for now the 10,000+ others that may exist. Now, you indicated that Person M would not be a specific fundamental element of interest, and thus would not receive an (xi) label. So, this is a good first step, but it only tells me about something that is not a fundamental element of the circumstance.

Of course, if you find you really need to use 6 or 7 or a few more to explain the approach properly, please do so. Also, for now, let us limit the situation to a single explanation (I understand that the notation allows for multiple explanations on the same (x) element, but let us make as easy to understand as possible).

You are essentially asking how the brain activity (i.e. the decision making mechanisms) of the person M would be plotted in terms of DD's notation. You know, in order to have expectations about his future behaviour, in some mechanical terms.

A realistic example of that would be to plot his brain activity in terms of the elementary particles of modern physics, and draw expectations from the known behaviour of those elements. It is of course not plausible to actually do that :)

Probably it would be possible to make approximations that represent the situation in simpler terms (like psychology or something), but we are moving very far from the topic at this point. There is really three-fold problem with these examples that you are asking for;

1. You are describing a situation in terms of a pre-existing explanation (our common everyday world view), and it is not trivial at all to reverse-engineer a pre-existing explanation to the notation.

2. You are describing objects that are, by their definitions, unbelievably complex (like persons and puzzle pieces). I'm guessing you assume they can be approximated as very simple things in the notation. They can't.

3. You are forgetting what an "explanation" was defined as. It is something that predicts undefined information, via transforming it into a "language" of persistent elements. So when you say "One explanation for the observation is that fewer object choices for manipulation were present over time.", you are not really referring to "an explanation" as we mean the word here. Different explanations of the "past" would essentially be different ways to categorize the past information, i.e. different explanations would suppose the existence of different sorts of elements, overlaying the same undefined information. (think of people with different beliefs about the history of the world, for example)

Now, after all that, the most important bit. We will never, in this presentation, face a situation where we have mapped some specific circumstance down, in the attempt to draw expectations from that circumstance. Having to actually come up with a specific "language" (=specific definitions) in order to make any predictions, is exactly the issue DD avoids completely; By only making arguments that are universally valid for any and all explanations, he NEVER needs to define a specific explanation/language. (Note that in his deductions of modern physics, he is certainly intentionally trying to get to that same definitions (or "language"), and he does make undefendable moves to get there, but he only makes moves that are valid for any sort of underlying undefined information)

If you feel uneasy about not knowing how something can be mapped to his notation, I invite you to still proceed forward. And if you ever come across a step that looks to you like you would have to know a specific mapping of a specific explanation, then let us know.

And like I said, his deductions of modern physics can be seen as a very realistic examples of how to map things in this notation; they are an example of the connection between our existing explanations, and his notation. (Answering the question "what undefendable approximations need to be made in order to end up with the same "language" as modern physics?")

So, think about that definition of probability, and simply let us know if you find it to be a universally valid constraint or not, and why.

-Anssi

##### Share on other sites

So I guess that "people" wasn't the same party as "someone" then.

What? :huh:

Actually, anything that can be represented as a finite typographical sequence (which means a finite set of glyphs too) can be translated into a finite bit sequence.

Have I said something to the contrary? What is the connection of this to DD's analysis?

Did you think about the meaning of that question I had posed?

I can't know what question you are referring to. But the answer is probably "yes"; I always think about what someone might mean with their questions. That's not to say I always know what they mean.

Are you familiar with the concept of entropy in information theory?

No.

Quick look to Wikipedia tells me it is the measure of uncertainty associated with some variable being unknown.

Any way it has more to do with what we were discussing a good while ago in other threads, by the time I can get my point across a bit at a time (and yes, I could almost say a binary digit at a time) it ends up there's no hope of getting the original discussion straightened out, so it seems there's hardly any hope.

I remember you said something to the effect that Acrobat files open best with Acrobat reader, i.e. that there exists "correct interpretation" to the information that is those files. Then you proceeded to comment that any information can be represented as bits. I explained that is not on topic, and you said we can't just decide what the topic is, and that you have a point related to this analysis somewhere in there, but refused to clarify. So go ahead, if you want. Or then don't :shrug:

-Anssi

##### Share on other sites

AnissH...thank you for clearing up the "elements" terminology, so easy to get lost in the words.

You have this very important statement you made, part of which I agree with, part not, for the reasons given below.

undefined information -> unknown mechanism of recognizing repetitive patterns -> unknown transformation to a "language" of defined persistent elements (elements that "continuously" exist)

1. OK' date=' FIRST is |undefined information|. This is clear. I have suggested without complaint from Doctordick that |undefined information| is {what exists PLUS what does not exist}. That is, |undefined information| is tautology. The representation to be solved of Doctordick BEGINS with tautology itself = |undefined information| = {what is "is" what is}. I agree completely. But, please make note here of an important fact--what "exist" is within |undefined information| prior to any explanation of it. This will become important in comment #4 below.

2. I have no idea what you mean the next step is unknown ? How do you define "to know". I define to know (using the terminology of DD) as having a mental grasp of |undefined information|--logically of course only the what exists portion of |undefined infromation|. Thus, the mechanism of recognizing repetitive patterns (which by definition must exist as a subset of |undefined information|) can be known via sensation and stored in memory via perception. It is known by definition of what it means "to know". Now, you will see that this understanding of perception is completely different than how it is commonly given as a type of representation in the history of philosophy. In fact, this is why I agree with Doctordick, for him, there is no direct perception of the essence of object, there is a recognition of what "exists" within |undefined information| as repetitive patterns of energy that enter the mind (for example as photons) that are stored in memory via sensation and perception.

Of course, the "what does not exist" of |undefined information| can never be known directly because it cannot form repetitive patterns, yet the absence of repetitive patterns {i.e., the "what does not exist"} of |undefined information| clearly can be explained.

3. Now, the next step, the transformation, also is known--it is known as being the process of forming a concept. Thus, the repetitive patterns of the |undefined information| that are stored in memory via perception are given a "language" within the mind (first they are formed into concepts, then the concepts are defined). Concepts thus defined within are your "defined persistent elements". (we even have a word for the faculty within the mind where this occurs--but it is of no importance to mention it here).

Do you understand why you cannot claim this transformation process is unknown because you have not offered a definition for "to know" ?

4. Finally, I find that you make a serious error when you claim that the defined elements of the transformation "exist". First is the problem you have never defined what it means "to exist". But, more importantly, in the philosophy of Doctordick defined elements formed within the mind do not EXIST, he has made it crystal clear to me in his comments to me that the subset of "what exist" is found within |undefined infromation| (see comment #1 above).

AnissH...the human mind does not create existence, this is not the philosophy that Doctordick presents, his philosophy places "what exists" as being prior to the human mind and part of |undefined information|. This is why the philosophy of Doctordick is of interest to me, it is a unique form of an objective realist metaphysics, what "exists" is within |undefined information| that is prior to knowledge of it by any consciousness. The "defined elements" are a secondary type of existence (if you must use this term) that take form only after a mind undergoes the transformation to allow the "language" to occur. Perhaps we call it "language existence" to show that it is after the "what exists" of |undefined information| ?

I will stop here to see if you have any comments, then move on to the rest of your reply.

==

Edit: Well, I see there really is nothing else to discuss from your reply, the simple reason being that I had absolutely no idea the level of constraint BY DEFINITION placed on the English word "explanation" in the representation of Doctordick.

You are forgetting what an "explanation" was defined as. It is something that predicts undefined information, via transforming it into a "language" of persistent elements. So when you say "One explanation for the observation is that fewer object choices for manipulation were present over time.", you are not really referring to "an explanation" as we mean the word here.

So, clearly, this definition would never allow you to "explain" the observation made in my example of putting together three puzzle pieces. My example is thus outside the possibility of explanation as so defined by Doctordick. No wonder you have no interest in trying to explain it.

OK, I will move on to the (xi) notation--how it is divided.

Second Edit:

AnissH. I really think you need to discuss with Doctordick YOUR modified "definition" of explanation, given that it differs so much using the English langauge from his--you know, just make sure he agrees with it.

As you know, he goes to great pains to define each and every word he uses in his definition. He also made it crystal clear to me that I must accept HIS definition of explanation before we could proceed. Of course, the same criterion must hold for your definition. However, I cannot at this time "accept" your modification of the definition of explanation given by Doctordick until you provide some definitions of the new words you now add to the definition.

So, here is your modified form of the definition of "explanation" presented by Doctordick

You are forgetting what an "explanation" was defined as. It is something that predicts undefined information' date=' via transforming it into a "language" of persistent elements.[/quote']OK, fine, we can discuss in detail this version. One think I immediately like about it is that it provides a direct word link between "explanation" and |undefined information|, whereas the definition used by Doctordick did not use the words undefined information, they were implied.

Well, first can we both agree that I was not forgetting how Doctordick defined explanation. The definition you present omits all of the key words used by Doctordick, and adds many new words, completely undefined so as we can understand what you are saying. It took me many posts with Doctordick to get to a point where I could "agree" with his definition, but only after I suggested that he remove his words "rational" and "hypothetical", and do you recall you "sort of" agreed with me ?

So, before I could "agree" to your modified definition of explanation you would need to define the following words in your definition of explanation and we can discuss: predicts, |undefined information|, transforming, language, |persistent elements|.

Finally, thinking about your statement that the puzzle example I provided does not offer "an explanation" as you mean the term, even though my circumstance does provide "an explanation" of a circumstance that any rational person would recognize as being "an explanation" as the word is used:

you are not really referring to "an explanation" as we mean the word here

I strongly suggest that Doctordick make it crystal clear in the begin of this thread this statement you make. That is, he must make it clear that there exists a set of "an explanation" that rational people use every day(I would think very many) that cannot be applied to "an explanation" as Doctordick presents the word in this thread. In order words, there would be many flaw-free and valid examples of "an explanation" (such as the one I presented in the puzzle example) that cannot by definition be represented by the mathematical notation presented here by Doctordick. You have made this crystal clear in your response and I thank you for it, for it has lifted a great misunderstanding on my part.

##### Share on other sites

1. OK, FIRST is |undefined information|. This is clear. I have suggested without complaint from Doctordick that |undefined information| is {what exists PLUS what does not exist}.

Yes, well, depending on what you mean by exists. I should at least comment that I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that statement.

That is, |undefined information| is tautology.

Or by that.

The representation to be solved of Doctordick BEGINS with tautology itself = |undefined information| = {what is "is" what is}. I agree completely.

Well he means that the undefined information just is whatever it is, as oppose to being how we think about it in our mind (since we do our thinking in terms of some mental definitions).

If that's the meaning of your above statements, then yes.

2. I have no idea what you mean the next step is unknown ?

...

3. Now, the next step, the transformation, also is known--it is known as being the process of forming a concept.

I mean simply that this analysis does not make any arguments about what the actual detailed or specific mechanisms are, that translate undefined information into some defined terminology. Obviously; since it also does not make arguments about "what" exactly is translated into "what" (i.e. no arguments about what the undefined information is in itself, nor arguments what the resulting defined entities are)

So when I said the translation (including the means to recognize repetitive patterns) is "unknown", it was just the same thing as saying; this analysis is about universal characteristics of explanations. I.e. things common to all explanations. If there were any arguments made about what the exact mechanism is, the analysis would be concerning those specific mechanisms, not universal issues.

So we treat that translation mechanism like a black box; some undefined information goes in, some unknown process takes place inside to translate undefined information into some defined terminology. Regardless of what that process is like, the end result must be a self-coherent terminology. All the arguments from this point on revolve around self-coherence (one way or another), not around what happens inside the box.

Thus, the mechanism of recognizing repetitive patterns (which by definition must exist as a subset of |undefined information|)

I'm guessing you are saying the above in the attempt to say that; our understanding of the mechanisms that we use to recognize something from reality, are also something we understand in terms of whatever world view (=explanation) we happen to use.

If so, yes.

But if you literally meant to say that some mechanism is a subset of some undefined information, then that is somewhat non-sensical statement, if you think about it.

The main thing to remember is simply that we can't make any arguments about what that mechanism is. All we need to understand is that "some" mechanism translates undefined information into some defined terminology.

Thus, the repetitive patterns of the |undefined information| that are stored in memory via perception are given a "language" within the mind (first they are formed into concepts, then the concepts are defined). Concepts thus defined within are your "defined persistent elements". (we even have a word for the faculty within the mind where this occurs--but it is of no importance to mention it here).

That sounds like you are thinking of exactly the same issue I am thinking, se we seem to be more or less on the same page. Semantics just confuse the communication.

4. Finally, I find that you make a serious error when you claim that the defined elements of the transformation "exist". First is the problem you have never defined what it means "to exist". But, more importantly, in the philosophy of Doctordick defined elements formed within the mind do not EXIST, he has made it crystal clear to me in his comments to me that the subset of "what exist" is found within |undefined infromation| (see comment #1 above).

AnissH...the human mind does not create existence, this is not the philosophy that Doctordick presents, his philosophy places "what exists" as being prior to the human mind and part of |undefined information|. This is why the philosophy of Doctordick is of interest to me, it is a unique form of an objective realist metaphysics, what "exists" is within |undefined information| that is prior to knowledge of it by any consciousness. The "defined elements" are a secondary type of existence (if you must use this term) that take form only after a mind undergoes the transformation to allow the "language" to occur.

That all also makes me think we are exactly on the same page with this; I definitely wouldn't say the defined elements "exist" (except "in our mind"), and that is the very crux of the presentation too. I.e. I don't think the validity of our predictions also validate the actual existence of the defined entities we use to draw/understand those predictions. If I said something that sounds like I'm implying such a thing, that's just been some semantical difficulty with english language.

So yes I think you could move onwards with the arguments made in the OP.

So, clearly, this definition would never allow you to "explain" the observation made in my example of putting together three puzzle pieces. My example is thus outside the possibility of explanation as so defined by Doctordick. No wonder you have no interest in trying to explain it.

Well, the thing is that we are focusing onto different possibilities when trying to "understand" or "comprehend" some undefined information, so the topic very much revolves around different "mental languages" or "concepts" or "definitions" or "terminologies" to categorize some information whose meaning is explicitly unknown.

The important thing with all such "explanations" is that as long as they provide us with a way to predict the future, they can be, and will be, considered "valid". Which is different from them being ontologically correct; i.e. exactly the issue you are talking about when you say "the human mind does not create existence"

AnissH. I really think you need to discuss with Doctordick YOUR modified "definition" of explanation, given that it differs so much using the English langauge from his--you know, just make sure he agrees with it.

Well he does define his meanings carefully, that is why the first parts of the presentation are such heavy reading to most people. You see that I sometimes replace "explanation" with "world view" in my attempts to clarify. I just do that with hopes that people can come to pick up better what we are talking about.

I know exactly what english language confusion you are referring to; we may explain some things "differently" while using the same exact terminology. As in you example, if a person must guess what is happening inside the puzzle-building room, then all his alternative "guesses" or "explanations" are still just examples of the same world view (he is always using the same mental concepts)

Anyway, I just don't think it can be helped, the reader has to be careful here (and everywhere). "Explanations of undefined information" should imply that alternative explanations offer alternative ways to define the information.

Anyway, my definition of explanation is not different from DD's definition in any relevant way, it is only semantically so and I can't help it.

"[Explanation] is something that predicts undefined information, via transforming it into a "language" of persistent elements."

"An explanation is a procedure which will provide rational expectations for hypothetical circumstances."

Provides expectations = Predicts

Rational = the predictions are not random gibberish, but useful in some way

Procedure = Something that transforms undefined information into "language of persistent elements" (you would just say "concepts")

Hypothetical = those concepts can't be taken to be the reality itself

And like you said, he only implies towards "undefined elements" in the definition, whereas I mention them directly. But for all intents and purposes, our definitions are exactly the same, since in order to get to "hypothetical circumstance", a transformation from undefined information to "mental concepts" must occur.

The only reason I use different words is that it is an attempt to reduce ambiguity; if you manage to interpret both statements as meaning the same, you can be more confident in your understanding of the definition.

I think we are on the same page in all the relevant issues here. So don't get too tangled up to semantical details.

-Anssi

##### Share on other sites

Hello AnissH. Thank you for your reply. I have looked at the (xi) notation section. I only have a few questions.

Concerning the "t" index. Is it correct that each "t" represents a present moment--when the future becomes the past and a new present is added to the set of (xi) ? Because the "t" are continuous it is always possible to add a new "t" between any two already present, thus one can have a sense of a before "t" and an after "t" and some between where a new "t" can be added ?

The section ends with this statement

Thus it is the primary conclusion of this presentation is that there exist no circumstances which cannot be represented by the purely numerical symbolic notation.
Of course we have shown above that this is true only for circumstances that fall within the constraints of the definition(s) of explanation used by Doctordick and you. There are many circumstances (such as the puzzle example) that provide a different type of explanation than is being presented here and can never be represented by the numerical notation.

Edit: I would like to suggest a combination of the definitions of explanation used by Doctordick and you--here it is:

An Explanation is a procedure that predicts undefined information and which will provide rational expectations' date=' via transforming undefined information into a "language" of persistent elements, for hypothetical circumstances. [/b']

For me, this definition adds clarity to the presentation and also helps with understanding of the notation presented.

I'll move on to the next section.

##### Share on other sites

AnissH. A quick question and comment concerning your analogy of the black-box to the representation being presented.

Your worldview is that there are two separate black-boxes involved in the presentation--correct ? The first would be where the recognition of repetitive patterns occurs that derive from |undefined information|--let us call this black-box A. The second would be where transformation of the repetitive patterns occurs into a language of persistent elements--let us call this black-box B. You indicate that both black-boxes are unknown--meaning that how events occur within each box is not known, but perhaps the areas of the brain where these processes occur is "known" (but maybe not). But, clearly you are not saying that what happens inside the two boxes can never be known--correct ?

So, are you aware of the research on black-boxes using information cybernetic theory ? There is an active science of "knowing" what goes go inside a black-box (such as the two you present). The study of Black Boxes arose in electrical engineering--in dealing with practical problems. But, the science has evolved into many if not all areas of science--medical applications are widespread. The brain itself is a complex system open to Black-Box type investigation. In short, all knowledge obtainable from any black-box (of given input and output) is the information that is obtained by re-coding the protocol showing the sequence of input and output states.

So, imo, rather than take the worldview that what is going on inside the two black-boxes involved in the presentation of Doctordick is unknown and of little interest to the presentation, I would suggest you give future consideration into these types of questions:

1. What properties of Black Box A and Black Box B are discoverable (can be known) and what properties are fundamentally undiscoverable (can never be known).

2. What methods should be used if Box A and Box B are to be investigated efficiently, starting from the approach of making absolutely no assumptions at all about the nature of either Box nor its contents ?

##### Share on other sites

Concerning the "t" index. Is it correct that each "t" represents a present moment--when the future becomes the past and a new present is added to the set of (xi) ? Because the "t" are continuous it is always possible to add a new "t" between any two already present, thus one can have a sense of a before "t" and an after "t" and some between where a new "t" can be added ?

It is up to a given explanation whether "t" is taken to be continuous. In terms of available information, "t" is always discrete. Obviously; explicitly continuous "change" to something would imply infinte amount of information available to us between two "t"'s (so to speak).

Don't worry about it too much, just let it be said that to add new "t"'s in between the existing ones would mean to assume additional information, i.e. "what would be there according to some specific explanation".

Of course we have shown above that this is true only for circumstances that fall within the constraints of the definition(s) of explanation used by Doctordick and you. There are many circumstances (such as the puzzle example) that provide a different type of explanation than is being presented here and can never be represented by the numerical notation.

Uhm, well no, see, the dynamics of those puzzle pieces and the dynamics of those people etc, could in principle be represented by his notation, just like they could in principle be represented by the elementary particles of modern physics. It's just very far away from practical possibility.

Of course then if different people assume different history to those same defined elements (i.e. different opinions about what happened inside the room), that can also be represented in this notation, but that is not the kind of thing we are trying to analyze. Their "alternative explanations" are not "alternative explanation to the same undefined information", in the sense of ending up with different "defined elements".

AnissH. A quick question and comment concerning your analogy of the black-box to the representation being presented.

Your worldview is that there are two separate black-boxes involved in the presentation--correct ?

Well no. It is entirely irrelevant. I just separated these steps because I wanted to underline the fact that we can't make any assumptions about how some recurring things are being recognized. I could have just as well said;

undefined information -> black box -> explanation

But, clearly you are not saying that what happens inside the two boxes can never be known--correct ?

I'm saying, we shouldn't constrain the analysis by making any guesses here. We want to analyze all the possibilities, as oppose to the possibilities available "if the transformation is such and such". You know, we don't want to talk about brains or any associated ideas to how brain does it, as that would be a case of constraining ourselves to the paradigm or terminology that we use to discuss things like brains.

So, simply but, you are on the right track if you just manage to drop all ideas about "how" undefined information is translated into a terminology of some defined objects or "concepts", as you'd say it.

Another way to answer that question would be, "sure it's possible to know what happens inside the brains in terms of some specific terminology, but we are interested of discussing what sorts of terminologies are available to us when trying to understand reality, from the very fundamental level of information available to us." And that would of course also affect how we think about "brains".

And if you think about what the "information available to us" is supposed to be, you should understand why this analysis works via considerations of how undefined information can be handled, when not making any undefendable guesses about what it is.

In other words...

I would suggest you give future consideration into these types of questions:

1. What properties of Black Box A and Black Box B are discoverable (can be known) and what properties are fundamentally undiscoverable (can never be known).

2. What methods should be used if Box A and Box B are to be investigated efficiently, starting from the approach of making absolutely no assumptions at all about the nature of either Box nor its contents ?

...that is sort of what this analysis is. It does concern what we can actually know epistemologically or ontologically. And that is very little! But we can draw some very surprising conclusions from that very little. Surprising but also very revealing.

To move onwards with that topic... ...do you find the arguments concerning the "probability constraint" (in the OP) to be valid?

-Anssi

ps, It's "Anssi"; not "Aniss" :D

##### Share on other sites

Hello AnssiH, a few comments. Not sure about you, but I think we move along nicely, I do my very best to be cordial. My major roadblock was that I previously had absolutely no idea what Doctordick meant by |undefined information|, and everything else flows from this. Now that I do have this understanding, I can think about the presentation in a "new light", and I must say I am finding many aspects I can apply to my worldview, my philosophy. So, I will keep moving forward with trying to understand the representation presented.

just let it be said that to add new "t"'s in between the existing ones would mean to assume additional information, i.e. "what would be there according to some specific explanation".
Yes, and it also then means there is a concept of "between" the two "t"'s, and that this in-itself can play a role in the representation, given that each "t" represents a type of change (from what is undefined to what is defined), and all change represents a type of motion. I can appreciate that my interpretation and use of words here may have no meaning or interest to you, but again, my interest in the topic is to see how this presentation of Doctordick can be applied to my worldview. And the concept of between any two "t" moments has great importance to my worldview, and I may bring it to discussion as I read more.

Of course then if different people assume different history to those same defined elements (i.e. different opinions about what happened inside the room)' date=' that can also be represented in this notation, but that is not the kind of thing we are trying to analyze. Their "alternative explanations" are not "alternative explanation to the same undefined information", in the sense of ending up with different "defined elements".[/quote']Yes, this would be what I was referring to, that there exist "alternative explanations" to circumstances that are not the kind of thing you are trying to analyze.

undefined information -> black box -> explanation
Yes' date=' I understand you have no interest in what is inside the black box, but, clearly there does exist two block boxes in your explanation of the process undefined information ---> explanation. I thank you for clearly stating them, this is the type of detail that really helps with understanding.

So, simply but, you are on the right track if you just manage to drop all ideas about "how" undefined information is translated into a terminology of some defined objects or "concepts", as you'd say it.
I am trying to stay on track and not be viewed as a troll I'm sure DD thinks I am. It is just that a great interest of mine in this presentation has to do with the "how"--but I can appreciate the importance of the overall presentation without consideration of the "how". There must be a "how" to the black-box, and we can leave it as a topic of another possible thread discussion.

And if you think about what the "information available to us" is supposed to be' date=' you should understand why this analysis works via considerations of how undefined information can be handled, when not making any undefendable guesses about what it is.[/quote']Yes, by definition the |undefined information| "is" what it "is" without constraint, that is why I view it as |what exists PLUS what does not exist|, logically nothing else is possible for it to be, and in this sense nothing is left out as being possible, given that both existence and non-existence are possible and thus must be available for "an explanation". One aspect of |undefined information| that is not a guess is that the source of repetitive patterns that require explanation is directly from |undefined information|, thus in black box terminology, it serves as an input to the first black box you discussed--this we know, not guess.

...that is sort of what this analysis is. It does concern what we can actually know epistemologically or ontologically. And that is very little! but also very revealing.
Well' date=' perhaps, but you would need to define what you mean "to know". Once again, for me, as relates to this presentation, there are two aspects to "knowing" that unite ontology and epistemology as a dialectic: (1) a mental grasp [the first black box workings'] of the repetitive patterns derived from |undefined information|as facts of energy recognized and stored in memory for recall, (2) transforming those stored energy patterns into defined elements [concepts] such as to allow for rational expectations as needed for an explanation of some circumstance to which they apply [the workings of the second black box]. I give names to these two types of knowing in my worldview, but that is not of interest here, it just adds unneeded words.

To move onwards with that topic... ...do you find the arguments concerning the "probability constraint" (in the OP) to be valid?
I have not done much investigation but the "probability constraint" of expectation to be greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 1 does not apply to at least one situation' date=' where the (xi) defined elements would represent Cauchy variables (see Google on this name). The Cauchy function has no probability expectation--the word expectation has no meaning to this type of circumstance. Thus, if the goal is to represent expectations generated by explanation of a circumstance dealing with a set of Cauchy (xi) variables, the "probability constraint" presented would not be appropriate. At least this is my read of the situation.

But, just as above where you indicated "that there exist "alternative explanations" to circumstances that are not the kind of thing you are trying to analyze", all this means is that there likewise would be statistical circumstances where the "probability constraint" presented cannot be applied to the explanation. Of course, this does not mean that the presentation of Doctordick is not valid, clearly it is of value to those circumstances of explanation to which it can be applied.

I see no problem with proceeding using the "probability constraint" to see how it is applied. It relates nicely to the topics of the past, future, present, and the "t" index moments where some repetitive pattern from |undefined information| [what is unknown'] becomes a defined element and is placed into the memory of the past [what is known]. It informs we have either (1) 0 % knowledge (2) 100 % knowledge (3) or some probability of knowledge of all possible (xi) labels. It is a truth statement that where any constraint exists, advantage can be taken of the fact. For example, all laws of nature are by definition a type of constraint, and I take advantage of the constraint dealing with the law of gravity each time I rake leaves on a hill, I always rack downhill. So, I see no good reason for Doctordick not to make good use of his "probability constraint".

ps' date=' It's "Anssi"; not "Aniss"[/quote'] Sorry.
##### Share on other sites

Have I said something to the contrary? What is the connection of this to DD's analysis?
Gee, you dismissed my argument about bit sequences claiming Dick's notation couldn't always be translated into a finite sequence.

I can't know what question you are referring to. But the answer is probably "yes"; I always think about what someone might mean with their questions. That's not to say I always know what they mean.
Indeed you are in the habit of dismissing things all too quickly and easily, only because you don't understand them. This doesn't help someone trying to reach you.

Quick look to Wikipedia tells me it is the measure of uncertainty associated with some variable being unknown.

Well it seems you took a very quick look indeed. It also has to do with information content.

I remember you said something to the effect that Acrobat files open best with Acrobat reader, i.e. that there exists "correct interpretation" to the information that is those files. Then you proceeded to comment that any information can be represented as bits.
I did not STATE to that effect, I ASKed a question regarding it and it's the very question I asked again if you had thought about. You definitely haven't. But of course it is no use.

I can't waste too much time if you make no effort to follow my points. We've been hopping and skipping around to no avail.

Edited by Qfwfq
dumb typos
##### Share on other sites

Hello Doctordick. You may wish to consider posting your representation on this philosophy of science forum. I promise never to comment to anything you post.

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/philosophy-of-science/

##### Share on other sites

Hello AnssiH. Going over the posts for review and saw this comment you made about the puzzle circumstance I presented, and my suggestion that it cannot be represented by the (xi) notation:

the dynamics of those puzzle pieces and the dynamics of those people etc' date=' could in principle be represented by his notation, just like they could in principle be represented by the elementary particles of modern physics. It's just very far away from practical possibility.[/quote']I would like to point out that the (xi) in my circumstance do not refer to "dynamics", they refer to elements. So, even if by some way the "dynamics" of the puzzle pieces could be represented, the pieces as elements could not. This is clear because you find it impossible to present even one example, out of perhaps 10,000+ possibilities. So, I can see absolutely no way the (xi) notation could be applied, it is not possible even in principle. But, this is OK, because neither could the (xi) notation be applied to explain why I had bacon this morning for breakfast, if I explained the reason of the circumstance was my expectation that it exists in my kitchen. Just wanted to make sure my position on this point was clear. It is of absolutely no importance that the (xi) notation is not universal for all possible senses of the word explanation, it works where it works as defined. I am moving on to the next section to review.
##### Share on other sites

Hello AnssiH. I am sort by backtracking, but I see you question Doctordick about his use of the word "rational" in his definition of explanation. Previously, I did the same, and made some suggested word change. But, now, looking again at the definition of rational used by DD in his answer to you, I am convinced it should be removed from the definition, because the definition does not hold true. Again, my goal is to make the presentation as sound as possible, not to be a troll.

So, to explain, here is the definition provided by DD

rational means a result [of an action] that does not generate an emotional negative response as to its truth

Ok, suppose the mother of a friend dies. You decide not to attend the funeral because you know you will cry and you do not want to upset your friend. However, your decision evokes an emotional negative response about the truth of your decision because you have a sadness of not being present. According to Doctordick your decision was not rational, that is, does not make sense, where it clearly does make sense to you.

## Join the conversation

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

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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