Laying out the representation to be solved.

[AnssiH]

Thank you AnssiH, again, clear explanations, even if some of the math transformations I must just take on faith (I assume they are correct otherwise some mathematician would have destroyed this presentation long ago).

 

I see only one issue that remains, I do not agree with this comment you made

 

Yes, and that is exactly my point. The presentation of Doctordick also is about "categorization of definitions"--they are what you call "defined elements". The presentation places (defined elements) that derive from |undefined information| into categories, such as the set of all defined elements that are in the category called "the past", the set of all defined elements that can be indexed by a unique (t), etc.

 

So, yes, each unique "defined element" would be the same as each Gibson Les Paul guitar as a "primary substance", as a thing that is an individual, as a UNIT, it is indivisible. I cannot take away any part from the Gibson Les Paul guitar and claim to have the same. It can no more be divided than a photon can be divided, this is what "primary substance" means. Only higher order substances, such as secondary substances, can be divided.

 

Yes but that is to say that without all the necessary features that define "an electric guitar", it's not considered to be an electric guitar.

 

Where as we are concerned with how we can represent all those "necessary features". Think of DD's notation as somewhat analogous to drawing a space-time diagram of the dynamic behaviour of an electric guitar. For instance, you need to actually represent the moving parts (the vibrating strings) somehow as they move in relation to each others. To represent something like that, you need more elements than one.

 

Think about this; if we have an explanation about an electric guitar, that explanation is (by definition) something that allows us to predict how the guitar will behave (how the strings continue to vibrate, etc, all kinds of things that need to be understood in order to play it). In DD's notation, an explanation of an electric guitar is also something that would actually need to represent that behaviour. We can't just lay down an index and expect a reader to understand what it is supposed to mean; that would not be a representation of an explanation of what we call "an electric guitar", it would just be a list of the defined objects of an explanation.

 

It is fairly important to understand the distinction, as we are going to be deriving modern physics definitions, which are actually statements of dynamics of and between some defined elements. Not just statements as to what elements exist.

 

In discussion of an object, you said that a defined object with three defined elements can be represented (x1,x2,x3). In the same way, a three piece band (an object) can be represented as three defined Gibson Les Paul guitars (each a primary substance), attached to three humans (each three other primary substances), as (xiy1,x2y2,x3y3). I just do not understand your reluctance to accept the universal sense in which the English word "element" can have meaning, especially as relates to the presentation by Doctordick concerning his "defined elements" ? From my perspective your worldview adds a massive constraint on the application of the presentation, it does not allow for explanation of circumstances where each (xi) represents a unit of a primary substance as being the same as a defined element.

 

It sounds like perhaps you have a problem with the word "element" (if you understand the requirements of the notation), but I don't really have a good alternative in mind. Certainly, element is also a word that contains unwanted connotations :P

 

-Anssi

[AnssiH]

Actually, I have been cringing whenever you write "undefined information" because I find it meaningless and oxymoronic, I think unknown meaning makes more sense and, strictly, data rather than information. If you start with "data of unknown meaning" and somehow arrive at a meaning of it, you have "turned it into information" or, more precisely, it becomes possible to extract information from it.

 

I know what you mean, but it's difficult to find words that would cause the same spark in everybody's minds. I've been switching to different words every now and then, and it seems sometimes it even helps resolve some ambiguity.

 

I might caution against confusing "different descriptions" with "different realityies" and in the latter case, it is a quite debatable matter but definitely not a new idea. Monism hasn't always been the dominant opinion. So:Well, journalists are always journalists.

 

Caution, caution, caution...

 

There's really no good way to draw a line between "different description" and "different reality" because it all just depends what particular aspects of your world view you happen to believe are real. That is sort of what we are trying to analyze.

 

I would be even more cautious about saying these things. First of all, the old adage: Never judge a book by its cover. Mostly, I have doubts about Dick's analysis being "very much an exact scientific proof of Stephen Hawking's musings about model-dependent realism" and about it being even more than Hawking would dare to think (and how can you make the comparison anyway?).

 

I don't know if it's "more than Hawking would dare to think", but I think it would surprise him how deep into the matter it's possible to get with exact scientific methods, instead of just hypothesizing. I.e. the connection between the symmetries and modern physics is pretty hard to ignore when it's explicitly displayed with mathematical tools. Of course it would be interesting to have competent people look at it and think about the meaning of the steps that got us there, because it shouldn't happen if we expect our current explanation of reality to be valid only for this particular kind of reality that we live in.

 

Yeah, in terms of the second statement, the first is obvious and it goes even if you don't specify "modern physics" so what implications can it have?

 

I was just replying to Rade's question.

 

I would say most certainly the first

 

When people say something like "photons exist", meaning "every valid world view contains a definition of photons", have you ever seen them actually putting forward some sort of attempt to prove this? To me it seems it's always just more or less a thoughtless gut feeling that they are expression.

 

I find you are being very arbitrary.

 

Why so? Don't you agree that a lot of people (esp. non-physicists. Oh, and journalists :D) confuse the minkowski spacetime representation as a representation of ontological reality? And even more people think some aspects of it are representative of this particular reality we live in, as oppose to being embedded to a valid way to represent any recurring events? Without ever seriously analyzing the issue.

 

Yes, it's annoying, isn't it? Very much like presuming to interpret what the author of a book means, without having read it.

 

My comments are coming from the summaries which say he is discussing model-dependent realism, i.e. the idea that multiple perfectly valid ways to understand reality exist. I assume he doesn't discuss it just to say he thinks it's gibberish. I do not know how deep he supposes the issue goes (for instance, I referred to physicists commenting on similar issue about quarks, and that was only limited to quarks, not to object definitions in general)

 

Well, I guess I won't be spending more time on these posts, I would have more interest if the thread could concisely clarify the steps from what's in the OP to Dick's Famous Equation, enough to make a critical examination possible (more than in past times) for me,

 

If you can form some solid questions, I'm sure he will clarify them.

 

-Anssi

[Rade]

Actually, I have been cringing whenever you write "undefined information" because I find it meaningless and oxymoronic, I think unknown meaning makes more sense and, strictly, data rather than information. If you start with "data of unknown meaning" and somehow arrive at a meaning of it, you have "turned it into information" or, more precisely, it becomes possible to extract information from it

Yes, this is a very good point, clearly "data" is at a lower level of abstraction than "information".

 

However, I think Doctordick will object to "data of unknown meaning" because his concept of |undefined information| also includes "that which does not exist". His notation must also explain non-existence, thus, non-data. Therefore, I predict he will not agree to "start" his presentation with "data".

 

This is why I use the term "that which exists PLUS that which does not exist" to help me understand the "undefined information" concept being presented by Doctordick, logically, there is nothing excluded for possible application to his notation. For DD, |undefined information| "is" what |undefined information| is. Because this concept is axiomatic to his entire philosophy, it clearly is not meaningless. Rather than call it oxymoronic, let us call it what it is, tautology.

[Rade]

Think of DD's notation as somewhat analogous to drawing a space-time diagram of the dynamic behaviour of an electric guitar. For instance, you need to actually represent the moving parts (the vibrating strings) somehow as they move in relation to each others. To represent something like that, you need more elements than one.

OK, but, suppose I am not interested in explaining the dynamic behavior of any single Gibson guitar. Suppose I am interested in explaining how one individual Gibson guitar differs from another because it has a different total weight, period. To do this, each Gibson guitar must be viewed as a unique "defined element", a unit (what Aristotle would call a primary substance that has potential for weight attribute within, and potential to interact with another primary substance without). Then, each part of the guitar must be viewed as a "defined element" with actual weight, the sum total of which would then explain the difference in weight between any two.

 

This type of explanation in reference to a Gibson guitar has nothing at all to do with space-time dynamic behaviour. Above, you say that the notation is limited to questions of "dynamic behavior", but, if so, how can the notation be fundamental of explanation itself ? There are many, many types of explanation possible dealing with any Gibson guitar and only a set of them deal with "dynamic bahavoir" between "defined elements".

 

It is fairly important to understand the distinction' date=' as we are going to be deriving modern physics definitions, which are actually statements of dynamics of and between some defined elements. Not just statements as to what elements exist[/quote']OK, this is important, and has great application. But, before you can derive statements of dynamics of and between "defined elements" of physics (say, how the proton and neutron interact to form the deuteron), FIRST, you must explain how you came to the conclusion that "proton" and "neutron" are in fact "defined elements". Now, if you are going to reply---wait--proton and nuetron are not defined elements, then you must explain why they are not.

 

Consider this comment you made in post #76

I'll explain this in terms of "undefined elements" and "defined elements"' date=' where "undefined element" is some, let's say "indivisible piece of information", and "defined element" is some indivisible fundamental element of an explanation (such as photon)...So he is just saying that both x1 and x2 are allowed to both refer to "a photon" [that is, a defined element'], for instance. They are just two different photons [two different defined elements].

[]added for clarity.

 

This continues to be a roadblock for me. I do not understand how the presentation here reaches the conclusion that anything is a "defined element", let alone a "photon", which you clearly claim to have the status of "defined element". Exactly what are the criteria used to define "defined elements", and please give multiple examples, not only those used in explanation in physics (such as photon), but also add some examples from biology, economics, politics.

 

Try to imagine that I have no interest in physics, convince me why this thread about "explanation itself" has any meaning for me.

[Qfwfq]

There's really no good way to draw a line between "different description" and "different reality"

It depends on what you mean by a "good way" and it's you that always accuses me of making ontological assumptions when I'm talking about phenomenology. Let's take a specific (and simple) example: is it hard to draw a line between different coordinate choices and different realities? This is an obvious enough case, I agree there are more subtle cases and also that folks often tend to get confused about them but this isn't an excuse for you to insist so much in misunderstanding me about these things, when I keep clarifying.

 

because it all just depends what particular aspects of your world view you happen to believe are real.

And why should I believe one or the other being real, so long as they are phenomenologically equivalent?

 

I don't know if it's "more than Hawking would dare to think", but I think it would surprise him how deep into the matter it's possible to get with exact scientific methods, instead of just hypothesizing. I.e. the connection between the symmetries and modern physics is pretty hard to ignore when it's explicitly displayed with mathematical tools.

You still seem to be supposing a few things about Hawking and his book. You also seem to be supposing that symmetries are usually ignored. What exactly do you mean?

 

Of course it would be interesting to have competent people look at it and think about the meaning of the steps that got us there, because it shouldn't happen if we expect our current explanation of reality to be valid only for this particular kind of reality that we live in.

I don't lack competence, I have only run out of patience in getting clarifications about what Dick means in all his muddled ramblings. What I don't understand here is what shouldn't happen; I'm not even sure why the validity of an explanation should not depend on the kind of reality.

 

When people say something like "photons exist", meaning "every valid world view contains a definition of photons", have you ever seen them actually putting forward some sort of attempt to prove this? To me it seems it's always just more or less a thoughtless gut feeling that they are expression.

Gosh, I fear I may have fallen into a slight semantic trap, because I was supposing you meant n° 1 to have a very different meaning from n°2 but I guess I simply didn't clarify my own meaning of it. We're grunting like apes anyway, but I'm not sure it makes sense to go into detail here; it would take a whole discussion involving the history of how these things were viewed. I think that a greater familiarity of it would do you good though.

 

Why so? Don't you agree that a lot of people (esp. non-physicists. Oh, and journalists :D) confuse the minkowski spacetime representation as a representation of ontological reality? And even more people think some aspects of it are representative of this particular reality we live in, as oppose to being embedded to a valid way to represent any recurring events? Without ever seriously analyzing the issue.

Oh I would say a few less physicists than journalists.None of them would agree though about it "being embedded in a valid way to represent any recurring events" but I suppose Dick's analysis is the only serious one then? :rolleyes:

 

My comments are coming from the summaries which say he is discussing model-dependent realism, i.e. the idea that multiple perfectly valid ways to understand reality exist. I assume he doesn't discuss it just to say he thinks it's gibberish. I do not know how deep he supposes the issue goes (for instance, I referred to physicists commenting on similar issue about quarks, and that was only limited to quarks, not to object definitions in general)

Well I only read the article you had linked to, this is my sin, what else have you read?

 

I really can't say exactly how Hawking views ontology and I don't find it worthwhile to play guessing games. Apart from his opinion, I find it even becomes a semantic issue: what does the word reality mean? Considering the arbitrarities of description, some of them seem to make it pointless to ask what the ontology is like and the reality would seem to be the class of all equivalent descriptions. Trouble is there are cases which are mathematically like this but we can connect certain choices with something tangible. This advises against making bold assumptions. Physicists tend to have a "we have no idea" attitude about the less directly observable things although I agree that some tend to cling a tiny bit too much to concepts such as the classical notion of corpuscle (despite it being the first and perhaps main thing that makes QM seem so paradoxical).

 

If you can form some solid questions, I'm sure he will clarify them.

It isn't easy to form some solid questions about what isn't solid.

 

His notation must also explain non-existence, thus, non-data. Therefore, I predict he will not agree to "start" his presentation with "data".

Are you sure he said this? So far, you're not one of His disciples, authorized to speak on His behalf.

 

For DD, |undefined information| "is" what |undefined information| is. Because this concept is axiomatic to his entire philosophy,

Like in Euclid's geometry, a straight line is a stright line is a straight line is a stright line is a straight line.......................

 

it clearly is not meaningless. Rather than call it oxymoronic, let us call it what it is, tautology.

I meant about the wording itself, not about the concept. I still think data of unknown meaning is more suitable and I wouldn't say tautology has anything to do with it.

[AnssiH]

OK, but, suppose I am not interested in explaining the dynamic behavior of any single Gibson guitar. Suppose I am interested in explaining how one individual Gibson guitar differs from another because it has a different total weight, period. To do this, each Gibson guitar must be viewed as a unique "defined element", a unit (what Aristotle would call a primary substance that has potential for weight attribute within, and potential to interact with another primary substance without). Then, each part of the guitar must be viewed as a "defined element" with actual weight, the sum total of which would then explain the difference in weight between any two.

 

I'm confused because you first say each guitar must be viewed as a defined element (which makes the guitar itself a fundamental particle), and then you say each part of the guitar must be viewed as a defined element (which makes the guitar a composite object of a collection of fundamental particles).

 

Well, whichever you meant to say, the latter is closer to how it actually works. The notation doesn't have an option to add arbitrary attributes to the defined elements (such as "potential for weight"), but it just so happens that a behaviour corresponding exactly with what we call "mass" is definable and will be derived in future steps (and I mean exactly, to a tee, all the way to general relativistic behaviour of massive things)

 

In other words, the difference in mass does appear as a difference in the number of elements that make up some composite object. Which means you can't consider something that is capable of doing things that a guitar is capable of doing, to be a fundamental element of any explanation.

 

It seems to me like you sort of figured it out already yourself towards the end of writing that above paragraph.

 

This type of explanation in reference to a Gibson guitar has nothing at all to do with space-time dynamic behaviour. Above, you say that the notation is limited to questions of "dynamic behavior", but, if so, how can the notation be fundamental of explanation itself ?

 

Ahem. Dynamic behaviour, as in, not static, as in, any representation of any sorts of changes. (Remember the definition of explanation. Obviously we are always concerned with some things that "change" since we are concerned with drawing expectations)

 

I made an analogy to space-time diagrams in the attempt to point out that exactly like a space-time diagram cannot represent any temporal changes with just one "time-slice", also the universal notation doesn't represent any actual changes (any actual behaviour) without multiple "t"'s. You need them to represent something that is supposed to behave in some specific way, in order to be understood as a functional "guitar".

 

I said that because you seemed to think that the idea was to take an index and call it "a guitar", and skip the need to actually represent what sort of behaviour is taken as "a guitar". Well, if you just lay it down as a single how do you think the "future" of the guitar could be represented? It would just look entirely identical all the time. Indivisible entities are the only defined things whose behaviour can be represented that way. Everything else needs to be represented in terms of collections of indivisible entities.

 

OK, this is important, and has great application. But, before you can derive statements of dynamics of and between "defined elements" of physics (say, how the proton and neutron interact to form the deuteron), FIRST, you must explain how you came to the conclusion that "proton" and "neutron" are in fact "defined elements". Now, if you are going to reply---wait--proton and nuetron are not defined elements, then you must explain why they are not.

 

They are still composite objects, but since they are must simpler objects than "persons", it is actually somewhat more feasible to find proper representations of their behaviour. And to explain these issues, is to continue with the presentation :)

 

I think your have enough understanding to be able to follow the next steps, so let's just wait for DD to do the next post, when he gets back.

 

This continues to be a roadblock for me. I do not understand how the presentation here reaches the conclusion that anything is a "defined element", let alone a "photon", which you clearly claim to have the status of "defined element". Exactly what are the criteria used to define "defined elements", and please give multiple examples, not only those used in explanation in physics (such as photon), but also add some examples from biology, economics, politics.

 

Photon is very easy example to make because it is one of the fundamental particles of modern physics, i.e. something that is by definition indivisible. That is also the definition DD places to an "element of an explanation". Simply, that it is not a composite object, it is something taken as a fundamental building block, by a world view.

 

Those other fields seem to operate pretty exclusively with concepts already found from our world views, instead of starting to model their own respective problems from the "unknown meaning" standpoint. Just as a simple example, if you are a professional bicycle mechanic, then when you need to understand why a bicycle doesn't work, you are not exactly facing the problem of "generating an explanation to something entirely unknown". Instead you are using pre-conceived notions to understand the situation.

 

Apparently economics use some methods to predict their chaotic systems, which resemble DD's findings in some ways, but I don't know much of anything about that, and I'm not sure how much about it can be said in exact science terms at this point.

 

Anyway, I guess you are asking that question in order to understand in what sense the explanation is universal, as oppose to only relevant to physics. It is universal in that any explanation of information whose explicit meaning is unknown, will obey the constraints that DD is about to lay down in the next post. Any definitions that can be generated from those constraints alone, are definitions that make up a useful way of predict that information. (as oppose to being entities actually found from the information itself)

 

Try to imagine that I have no interest in physics, convince me why this thread about "explanation itself" has any meaning for me.

 

I think it is meaningful mostly to people interested of ontological questions and epistemoogical questions. That includes at least philosophy, physics and AI fields. Biologists and bicycle repairmen get somewhat diminishing returns towards their respective fields :)

 

-Anssi

[Bombadil]

Anssih I suspect that Qfwfq has a point with bringing up information entropy and I suspect that his comments that he is making about encryption methods has an important point. Although the point is nearly lost with his attempt to show an example.

 

Exactly what that point is I’m not sure of but I suspect that the trouble is due to the word information not yet having a proper definition. Unfortunately I don’t know how to properly define it but if I might make a suggestion, it might be thought of as a way of saying how much one set of elements looks like another set of elements when interpreted in a particular way. That would mean something which contains a lot of information about something also tells you what to expect about it.

 

I think that information entropy might then be a measure of how much information about something is expected to be given by a randomly generated set.

 

Just my take on the thing and probably a lot of it is just guess work but maybe it will help you understand Qfwfq.

 

Indeed we are only interested of explanations of undefined information, and in that sense it is correct to say "probabilistic expectations to a set of undefined elements". Just as long as the reader understands the expectations are not directly referring to undefined elements themselves. (That would be somewhat oxymoronic)

 

Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing, it is the definition that is being placed on the undefined elements that the probability is referring to. In a sense, the probability of a particular definition existing in our explanation. I am saying it this way because I would consider the very location on a coordinate system as a kind of definition and so requires a probability to be placed on it. Just as any other definition that is placed on an element must have a probability placed on it by the explanation.

 

I am actually not a big fan of the term "undefined element" because it implies something recognizable. I find it easiest to just think of "undefined information" as some sorts of events or patterns of unknown meaning and origin. As long as you can take the undefined as something that doesn't limit the possibilities for specific definitions, you should be okay.

 

I think that I would use the word “undefined element” in vary much the same way although I prefer the word element partly because it is being represented in a coordinate system and I am thinking that what I explained above may have some relevance, although this in no way refers to what the source or interpretation of the elements being represented is, only that they can be represented in a coordinate system.

 

Also using the word undefined information makes me think that there is more information in any point then it just being an arbitrary point. Actually this might be part of Rade’s problem. He is thinking that any amount of information can be supplied in a single point and doesn’t realize how simple a definition of a single point must be and how more complex structures must be constructed form basic points.

 

Now, if you think about the same thing in terms of undefined elements, there does not exist a connection between, what in your terminology would be [imath]5_1[/imath] and [imath]6_1[/imath]. I.e. in terms of undefined information, that cannot be taken as "a photon moving from 5 to 6", it is taken as two different elements of information. (Every new bit of information would always just mean new elements came into existance)

 

As a result only our explanation can determine if an element at one point at some particular t can be considered an element at some point at a different t. which is the same as saying that only the explanation can supply the i index for an element. I suspect that I may have been taking the idea of the [imath]x_i[/imath] labels to be referring to orthogonal vectors in a coordinate system a little too seriously.

 

Just to make sure though, the actual [imath]x_i[/imath] is a label saying that the element i is at location x but only the explanation can say that the i label is in fact associated with the x label.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking about, but does it suffice if I say that different explanations simply interpret the undefined information in terms of different defined elements, and thus see a wildly different "subjective reality" as well?

 

I suspect that to say more would be counter productive in that the question that I am asking is probably almost an oxymoron. In that, I am asking how an element can receive a [imath]x_i[/imath] label that the explanation must follow if all such labels must be supplied by the explanation.

 

What he means by "same" there is that two different photons are "the same".

 

So he is just saying that both "[imath]x_1[/imath] and [imath]x_2[/imath] are allowed to both refer to "a photon", for instance. They are just two different photons.

 

Then we are simply allowing different subscripts, different i labels to refer to the same type of element only in a different location on the coordinate system. We are allowing an element to be referenced twice at different locations. This almost seems like a trivial issue when considering that the i label can only be supplied by the explanation and we aren’t actually saying that they will have the same i label “right?”.

 

Not quite sure what it needs but it might be a good idea to try and clarify the OP some more.

 

And secondly the notation must allow for the possibility that the explanation might assign an index t to a circumstance which would lie between two indices already assigned: i.e., there is always a possibility that the explanation would require one to assign some specific new information to the sequence already defined to be “the past”. For example, archaeologists often discover information which they assign to the past: i.e., the common scientific explanations do not presume those sites came into existence the day the archaeologist discovered them they instead assign a time consistent with their explanations.

 

That is there is no t reference to what is considered the past the present and the future all three of them must be supplied by the explanation being used and not by referencing to the value of t. t is nothing more then a reference to different sets of [imath]x_i[/imath] points

 

Of course, it is always possible these elements are indeed bona fide thus it is necessary to include an underlying x to provision this possibility. Essentially, that expands the number of elements represented by the numerical labels x_i from being a finite set to being an infinite set because, there may exist presumptions within the explanation itself which rely upon an infinite number of elements not actually part of the underlying known circumstances which the explanation was created to explain.

 

In other words we allow the possibility that the explanation will require additional elements to be added and we allow the possibility that there will be an infinite number of these elements added.

[Rade]

Hello, I do not think we are understanding each other concerning "elements", here continue to be my roadblocks:

 

I'm confused because you first say each guitar must be viewed as a defined element (which makes the guitar itself a fundamental particle), and then you say each part of the guitar must be viewed as a defined element (which makes the guitar a composite object of a collection of fundamental particles)

Yes, exactly, the "concept" of "primary substance" is scale and content dependent, it can be applied to many, many different scales and many different circumstances, many of which have absolutely nothing to do with any dynamic behavior of the substance. In the same way, the concept of "defined element" is scale dependent, a defined element can be static yet require explanation.

 

The notation doesn't have an option to add arbitrary attributes to the defined elements (such as "potential for weight")

Yes' date=' exactly. And this then would be an unnecessary constraint placed on the current notation. It indicates to me that the notation needs to be modified to allow this, otherwise it cannot be viewed to be a "fundamental" notation. Also, the "attributes" of a photon are not "arbitrary"--consider how many different physical attributes physicists know about the photon, polarization being one of many. You have just stated that the notation of DD has no option to deal with the polarization attributes of a "defined element" called the photon. I hope you see the serious problem with the notation you have raised here.

 

Which means you can't consider something that is capable of doing things that a guitar is capable of doing, to be a fundamental element of any explanation.

This makes no sense to me as relates to the DD notation. What do you mean by "do things that a guitar is capable of doing" ? A guitar is capable of doing many different things, one of them being displayed on a wall in a case for people to view in a museum. There is no "dynamics" involved in trying to explain this behavior of the guitar.

 

And, suppose I put 100 Gibson guitars into one box, and 100 Gibson guitars into another, and have a need to explain why one box has greater weight than another because I need to ship it oversea. The only way to do this is to treat each guitar as a "defined element", as a "primary substance". I do not understand what is so difficult to understand here in what I am saying about the fact that the concept of "defined element" is scale dependent ?

 

Obviously we are always concerned with some things that "change" since we are concerned with drawing expectations

Again' date=' this comment makes no sense to me. It is not at all obvious that the notation must only be concerned with "things that change", this would add an unwanted constraint on the application of the notation. For example, one interpretation of the proton [P'] in the standard model of physics is that it never changes when separate, as a lone [P]. Why would it be obvious that the notation of DD has no concern with trying to explain this interpretation ?

 

Well' date=' if you just lay it [a guitar'] down as a single how do you think the "future" of the guitar could be represented? It would just look entirely identical all the time. Indivisible entities are the only defined things whose behaviour can be represented that way.

OK, do you see how, with this comment, you agree with me that a single Gibson guitar used by John Lennon, hanging on a wall in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, not only "has a future that can be represented", that "would look entirely identical all the time", and that guitar meets your definitional criterion of being an "indivisible entity as a defined thing whose behaviour [i.e. hanging on a wall] can be represented via the DD notation ?

 

How can this not be an obvious application of the DD notation ?

 

the universal notation doesn't represent any actual changes (any actual behaviour) without multiple "t"'s. You need them to represent something that is supposed to behave in some specific way' date=' in order to be understood as a functional "guitar".[/quote']Yes, I understand the function of multiple "t"s"--makes perfect sense. But, you are not understanding that it is not necessary to assume that a functional Gibson guitar has to emit sound waves, ect. in order for multiple "t's" to be applied to it, it can have "functions" not related to emitting sounds in the present or future--all the sounds it emitted occurred in the past (just think of that John Lennon guitar hanging on that wall !).

 

Photon is very easy example to make because it is one of the fundamental particles of modern physics' date=' i.e. something that is by definition indivisible. That is also the definition DD places to an "element of an explanation". Simply, that it is not a composite object, it is something taken as a fundamental building block, by a world view.[/quote']Again, this will not do, as now you need to define exactly what is meant by "indivisible" and "fundamental building block". Why should I accept as valid what physicists tell me is a "defined element" ? For the representation to be fundamental, what is a "defined element" for any circumstance must be "defined" by each and every individual attempting to make use of the mental process "explanation". As I stated above, a single Gibson guitar hanging in a display case on a wall is by definition "indivisible" and a "fundamental building block" of the wall as a unit where hangs 25 other such hanging guitars, and their collective predicted future dynamic behavior is that they will so hang until taken down by some action of force.

 

Anyway' date=' I guess you are asking that question in order to understand in what sense the explanation is universal, as oppose to only relevant to physics. It is universal in that any explanation of information whose explicit meaning is unknown, will obey the constraints that DD is about to lay down in the next post. Any definitions that can be generated from those constraints alone, are definitions that make up a useful way of predict that information. (as oppose to being entities actually found from the information itself)[/quote']OK, very clear. But that was not my request. My request was that you provide multiple examples of "fundamental indivisible defined elements" for me to apply to biology, economics, politics, etc., that are derived from "logic".

[Rade]

Are you sure he said this? So far, you're not one of His disciples, authorized to speak on His behalf.

If you read the replies of DD to me in the Answering QFWFQ thread, you will see that DD makes it clear that his concept of |undefined information| cannot be considered to be only that which 'exists". When I made this claim, he categorically rejected it, and specifically said that a concept of what does not exist also must be allowed for correct understanding of |undefined information|. His reason was that even "nothingness" (non-existence) must have potential to be applied to his notation prior to placing a definition. Implicit in the representation is the mental act of "defining" something, that is, coming to have what DD calls "defined elements". Such elements must have potential to explain "that which does not exist".

 

I find it is valid to grasp what is meant by |undefined information|, as presented by DD, to be "that which exists PLUS that which does not exist". For me, that which does not exist within |undefined information|,in terms of expectations, would represent "a potential expectation not realized". That which exists would be "a potential expectation realized". Please let me know why you would not agree with this view.

[AnssiH]

It depends on what you mean by a "good way" and it's you that always accuses me of making ontological assumptions when I'm talking about phenomenology. Let's take a specific (and simple) example: is it hard to draw a line between different coordinate choices and different realities? This is an obvious enough case, I agree there are more subtle cases and also that folks often tend to get confused about them but this isn't an excuse for you to insist so much in misunderstanding me about these things, when I keep clarifying.

 

Yes it is exactly the subtleties that the analysis addresses, but I'm jumping too far ahead when I'm saying that, so don't jump to conclusions.

 

And why should I believe one or the other being real, so long as they are phenomenologically equivalent?

 

Exactly

 

You still seem to be supposing a few things about Hawking and his book. You also seem to be supposing that symmetries are usually ignored. What exactly do you mean?

 

I don't know what you are referring to when you say I seem to suppose that symmetries are usually ignored, but at any rate;

 

I don't lack competence, I have only run out of patience in getting clarifications about what Dick means in all his muddled ramblings. What I don't understand here is what shouldn't happen; I'm not even sure why the validity of an explanation should not depend on the kind of reality.

 

...

 

Oh I would say a few less physicists than journalists.None of them would agree though about it "being embedded in a valid way to represent any recurring events" but I suppose Dick's analysis is the only serious one then? :rolleyes:

 

It is these kinds of issues that the analysis addresses, so really the best way to have a real, meaningful discussion of the topic, is to get back to the issues presented in the OP. If there is something in the OP that you can directly have a question about, fire away. If not, just lean back, relax, and let's wait for the next step.

 

Just one thing to keep in mind while reading the OP, what "circumstances" always refers to, is not, in the terminology of the analysis, "directly observable" reality, but a representation of something (in this case, some recurring patterns). I'm just saying this one more time, because you used the phrase "less directly observable things". It all always revolves around representations of reality, and epistemological features looking like what we tend to take as ontological reality itself (you know, any object with persistent appearance).

 

It isn't easy to form some solid questions about what isn't solid.

 

Sure, I can relate to that. It was sometimes very hard for me to think of how to ask something about something I felt like I didn't quite get, when the whole thing was still just too fuzzy in my mind. I know that with all the attempts to be unambiguous in the OP, there are certainly very many ways to interpret the thing. I think, in your attempts to interpret it, you can be pretty sure that my explanations are aligned with his explanations as to what this thing is, so if you can find a way to interpret us both coherently, you can be more confident of getting it right. On the other hand, if it sounds like we are contradicting each others, it's most likely a case of mis-interpreting one or the other.

 

-Anssi

[AnssiH]

Exactly what that point is I’m not sure of but I suspect that the trouble is due to the word information not yet having a proper definition. Unfortunately I don’t know how to properly define it but if I might make a suggestion, it might be thought of as a way of saying how much one set of elements looks like another set of elements when interpreted in a particular way. That would mean something which contains a lot of information about something also tells you what to expect about it.

 

When you say "how much one set of elements looks like another set of elements when interpreted in a particular way", do you mean the resemblence between undefined elements and some specific definitions?

 

If so, the problem is that we don't have the undefined elements in any form that they could be used for comparison. The only way to use some information for some analysis like that, is to have a way to interpret the information some way (so to be able to "measure" or "observe" it in any meaningful way at all), which means you have to define the information. At that point you are not talking about undefined anymore, and whatever analysis you were set to do, is really about aspects of your definitions.

 

This is the problem that DD keeps saying he overcomes by keeping the information undefined in his analysis, from start to finish.

 

I think that information entropy might then be a measure of how much information about something is expected to be given by a randomly generated set.

 

Yes, that is my read on it as well. That is, if you know something about the meaning of the information, and what the random variable is about, you have a way to quantify the entropy in the information content.

 

Whereas this analysis that we are talking about, it is really all about undefined information (which is not quantifiable or observable in itself) being turned into an explanation. The information content that it carries (without making assumptions), is in what sort of familiar patterns ("temporally" or contextually otherwise) can be recognized from it. Recurring activity is what can be used as a basis for "persistent object"-definitions. That is what opens the possibility to that any sort of information could become interpreted in the same terminology; that is so if that terminology turns out to be merely a good method to refer to any sorts of recurring patterns.

 

Does the terminology we call modern physics turn out to be that way? It should be an interesting question to everyone, but right now it seems very few people ever even entertain the possibility. Here's a way to actually analyze it properly.

 

 

Just my take on the thing and probably a lot of it is just guess work but maybe it will help you understand Qfwfq.

 

Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing, it is the definition that is being placed on the undefined elements that the probability is referring to. In a sense, the probability of a particular definition existing in our explanation.

 

Nope. It's the probability that universe is found to be at some specific state at some specific "t". Or that some defined entity is in particular location at particular time. It's not a probability of undefined elements (we can't attach any probabilities to themselves, that would be impossible without definitions). It's similar to the idea of probability wave in quantum mechanics (which is also referring to the probability of finding some defined entity at some particular location at some particular time).

 

All the arguments DD makes in terms of probabilities are something akin to "regardless of what the actual definitions of an explanation are, if it is self-coherent and makes no undefendable assumptions, the probabilities associated with anything, cannot be a function of the origin of the coordinate system containing the defined objects" (-> shift symmetry) and so on and so forth.

 

I am saying it this way because I would consider the very location on a coordinate system as a kind of definition and so requires a probability to be placed on it. Just as any other definition that is placed on an element must have a probability placed on it by the explanation.

 

You are probably thinking about the possibility of defining the kind of coordinate system, as part of your world-view, which makes the elements behave differently in different locations of it.

 

If so, you have it little backwards. The issues is that we need some way to handle, or mark down, the elements we have defined. In simplest form, this can be done with the [imath](x_i, t)[/imath] notation, which is perfectly equivalent to marking down dots on an x-axis (and building this for multiple "t"'s). Now you we just made up the whole coordinate system just so we can mark down our circumstances, and as long as we are not making any undefendable guesses, the probabilities of such and such "future", must be actually a function of the circumstances itself (=our comprehension of some situation), not the choices we made as to how which index refers to which defined elment (or equivalently, where did we happen to place the origin of our axis).

 

In a nutshell, the argument is that our expectations are a function of the context (i.e. how defined things are positioned in related to each others), but not a function of something we just made up in order to mark down that context.

 

Note that this is not to say, that a valid world view couldn't have its "space" defined in ways that its origin would affect the expectations. That could be the case. But the above means that a 1:1 transformation exists between that world-view terminology, and a world view where the origin of space is immaterial. I.e. somewhere in any valid world-view, those shift-symmetric features must exist, in some more or less apparent form.

 

Just to make sure though, the actual [imath]x_i[/imath] is a label saying that the element i is at location x but only the explanation can say that the i label is in fact associated with the x label.

 

Hmmm, yes I think you could put it that way.

 

I suspect that to say more would be counter productive in that the question that I am asking is probably almost an oxymoron. In that, I am asking how an element can receive a [imath]x_i[/imath] label that the explanation must follow if all such labels must be supplied by the explanation.

 

It sounds to me that here the idea of referring to "undefined information" as "elements" might make you think of something you shouldn't. If you just take the undefined information as some sort of thing that can be interpreted in multitudes of ways, and the defined elements as some ideas of objects behind some recurring activities to the undefined information, you should be understand that the i labeled elements must be something that come only after you have defined something. Which number becomes associated with which defined element is immaterial, but without making any definitions, there's no way to refer to anything as an element.

 

Like I said, the reason DD uses the phrase "undefined elements", is the fact that the amount of information we are considering, is of finite amount. Which is equivalent to referring to it as discrete points.

 

Then we are simply allowing different subscripts, different i labels to refer to the same type of element only in a different location on the coordinate system. We are allowing an element to be referenced twice at different locations. This almost seems like a trivial issue when considering that the i label can only be supplied by the explanation and we aren’t actually saying that they will have the same i label “right?”.

 

Yes.

 

That is there is no t reference to what is considered the past the present and the future all three of them must be supplied by the explanation being used and not by referencing to the value of t. t is nothing more then a reference to different sets of [imath]x_i[/imath] points

 

Yes. The actual value of t is somewhat immaterial, and actually also gives us another shift symmetry, but DD will talk about that later.

 

In other words we allow the possibility that the explanation will require additional elements to be added and we allow the possibility that there will be an infinite number of these elements added.

 

Yes, in plain terms, we allow the possibility that an explanation has continuous aspects in its definitions.

 

-Anssi

[AnssiH]

Yes, exactly, the "concept" of "primary substance" is scale and content dependent, it can be applied to many, many different scales and many different circumstances, many of which have absolutely nothing to do with any dynamic behavior of the substance. In the same way, the concept of "defined element" is scale dependent, a defined element can be static yet require explanation.

 

I'm still confused about what you might be thinking. Are you asserting that both "a guitar" and "any sub-part of guitar" should look exactly the same in the notation? Both would just be an index? If they look exactly the same in the notation, it means the explanation considers their definition to be exactly the same.

 

Yes, exactly. And this then would be an unnecessary constraint placed on the current notation. It indicates to me that the notation needs to be modified to allow this, otherwise it cannot be viewed to be a "fundamental" notation. Also, the "attributes" of a photon are not "arbitrary"--consider how many different physical attributes physicists know about the photon, polarization being one of many. You have just stated that the notation of DD has no option to deal with the polarization attributes of a "defined element" called the photon. I hope you see the serious problem with the notation you have raised here.

 

I suppose you are thinking that these properties cannot be represented in the notation?

 

Actually this touches the subject that we will be getting into in the final analysis. The point of it is exactly that these "attributes" arise from the behaviour of defined elements, in very unobvious ways, when you apply the universal constraints on them. The fact that they arise the way they do, is exactly what we want to get to discuss to.

 

This makes no sense to me as relates to the DD notation. What do you mean by "do things that a guitar is capable of doing" ?

 

I mean that the representation of a guitar actually captures the supposed definition of a guitar. If you take just a guitar shape as the definition of a guitar, it still requires a collection of elements. (how do you differentiate the shape of a guitar and the shape of a horse otherwise?)

 

Again, this comment makes no sense to me. It is not at all obvious that the notation must only be concerned with "things that change", this would add an unwanted constraint on the application of the notation.

 

I was referring to the definition of an explanation;

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

 

What do you suppose "expectations" would refer to, if not to some sort of prediction of future circumstance or information, that we don't yet have?

 

And, what does it mean to have a prediction, without anything that changes?

 

If you don't have a time-wise evolution of anything, you don't have an application to an explanation, as it's been defined, either.

 

The same goes to when you refer to Aristotle's categories as an "explanation". What expectations does it give to some hypothetical circumstances? Like I said as the first thing when you brought it up, he is talking about a categorization of human definitions, he is not putting that forward as something we would refer to as an "explanation" in terms of this analysis.

 

For example, one interpretation of the proton [P] in the standard model of physics is that it never changes when separate, as a lone [P]. Why would it be obvious that the notation of DD has no concern with trying to explain this interpretation ?

 

Bit of a semantical pitfall here, but the explanation which says that something stays the same through some evolution of "t"'s, still requires you to lay down those t's. I.e. you can at that point say that according to your world view, you have such and such expectations that the "proton" is still just a "proton" at "t=x".

 

OK, do you see how, with this comment, you agree with me that a single Gibson guitar used by John Lennon, hanging on a wall in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, not only "has a future that can be represented", that "would look entirely identical all the time", and that guitar meets your definitional criterion of being an "indivisible entity as a defined thing whose behaviour [i.e. hanging on a wall] can be represented via the DD notation ?

 

What I had in mind when writing that comment was that you would have to represent the definitions of what makes something a guitar, i.e. how it functions. Assuming that you want to actually represent expectations of the functions of that guitar (such as, how the strings work).

 

But if you have an explanation where a guitar is just a collection of elements, which define the shape of a guitar, then that's also all you can say about the guitar. And if you just represent the shape, it's still is not a single index. If it was, how would you represent a different looking guitar? Or a chair, or anything other shape?

 

How can this not be an obvious application of the DD notation ?

 

Would it tell you something about epistemology or about anything, if you did this? Look, clearly you are struggling because you don't quite know where this is headed, and you don't quite see how things will work out. So, maybe just wait for the next bit, things should become clearer down the road :)

 

Just one more comment;

 

Again, this will not do, as now you need to define exactly what is meant by "indivisible" and "fundamental building block". Why should I accept as valid what physicists tell me is a "defined element" ?

 

It is whatever the world view doesn't see as a construction of other simpler objects. I.e. the simplest building blocks (by their own structure) of reality, as an explanation sees it.

 

I.e. an explanation that takes a guitar as a fundamental element of reality, would see everything is made of guitars, and guitars themselves don't have any sub-parts.

 

-Anssi

[Doctordick]

Well, I am back and I have scanned all the new posts to the two top threads. Anssi, I appreciate your attempts to clarify things but I don't think any clarification with Qfwfq has been achieved. From reading his comments, I only see two possibilities: either he is intentionally trying to stir up general confusion or he actually has utterly no concept of what we are talking about. Either way, I applaud your attempts but feel there is no possibility of any fruitful discussion with him. :shrug:

 

Rade, on the other hand seems to be trying to understand but seems to have a lot of simple misinterpretations of what I have said. He appears to be approaching the problem from Qfwfq's distorted perspective. I will do my best to point these out and explain why Rade's interpretations simply do not hold water (so to speak). I will not comment on every post which I find problematical as that would make this post far too long; however, if the comments I will make are carefully considered, the implications regarding the remaining posts should be somewhat clarified.

 

Anyone interested in what I am presenting should read this post carefully and request clarification of anything they find confusing.

 

I will start with Anssi's post #52 on page 4.

 

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.

Anssi is absolutely correct but his explanation of the problem is a little askew of the thing. It isn't that Rade's supposed explanation isn't based on sufficiently fundamental elements, but rather that his description of the explanation lacks definition: i.e., he is presuming gobs and gobs of unexpressed elements (essentially the same thing Qfwfq always does). My statement that, “absolutely any circumstance conceivable can be represented by an expression of the form: [math](x_1, x_2, x_3,\cdots, x_n)[/math], where [math]x_i[/math] is a numerical label constituting a reference to a fundamental element of the circumstances being explained” is correct.

 

The problem is that Rade is presuming that most of the information upon which the explanation is based is understood and thus fails to include the great majority of the information standing behind his explanation. As I have said a number of times, I have proved that explanations are little more than “data compression mechanisms” used to essentially express what is presumed known rather than just specifically listing all of the circumstances standing behind your beliefs (what you think you know) which would be an almost impossible task.

 

From Rade's post #55 on page 4

 

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.

Let us take that to be Rade's entire explanation: i.e., nothing not specifically expressed in his explanation is presumed. This means that the meaning of every word in that explanation is immaterial to the explanation. Of course, Rade didn't intend such a thing. I think he pretty well made the presumption that every word in that structure would be understood. In order to qualify as a bona fide explanation, every element standing behind the explanation must be included. If he understood the problem here, it would be clear to him that the amount of presumed information omitted from his explanation far exceeds what he could write down in his lifetime.

 

Rade, try to comprehend that your explanation (as you see it in your head) is a far more complex thing than what you have written down. Suppose for example that the explanation you have just given were written in Minoan Linear A instead of English. How much additional information would be required in order to communicate that explanation as you see it in your head? The answer is, more information than currently exists regarding Linear A as the script is as yet undeciphered and many people have made a profession out of trying to decipher it. Your supposed “simple explanation” is simply not simple.

 

Furthermore, you seem to confuse the purpose of the “x” and “i” indices. The expression [math]x_i[/math] is a numerical index used to explicitly represent specific elements standing behind the represented explanation; “i” is a numerical index used to refer to the definition of a specific element as presumed defined in the explanation and “x” is the associated numerical index used to refer to the same specific ontological element standing behind that explanation (which is of course, unknown).

 

From post #59 on Page 4,

 

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.

[math]\cdots[/math]

In other 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.

No, I do not think any misunderstanding has been lifted. These are not examples outside the possibility of explanation as defined by me. Rather, your description of the circumstances standing behind the supposed explanation are totally inadequate to the complexity you perceive being expressed. We are discussing the constraints imposed by the “definition of an explanation” and presumptions must be avoided at all costs; even at the cost of making a specific detailed representation beyond our capabilities. The same point Qfwfq seems to invariably miss.

 

As an aside to Qfwfq's assertion that “undefined information is an obvious oxymoron”, information expressed in the Minoan Linear A script would certainly qualify as “undefined information” so long as that script has not been deciphered. The point is that people ordinarily consider their underlying concepts to be clearly necessary and that is a presumption. The fact that it is a presumption should be clear to anyone who has looked at the significant breakthroughs of science made throughout history. Almost all major breakthroughs can be traced to an erroneous underlying concept presumed to be valid by everyone except the one who saw the breakthrough.

 

Post #61 on Page 5,

 

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 ?

You have this somewhat backwards. The index “t” is an index on the circumstances standing behind the explanation where “order” of the circumstances is of importance. The actual number of such “circumstances” cannot be infinite as, an infinite amount of information can not be written down or remembered. The definition of infinity is, no matter how many you have, there are more. Thus the index “t” on the circumstances standing behind the explanation represents a finite collection and thus may be ordered. An infinite set of undefined elements can not be ordered and that is the source of a significant difficulty.

 

The actual order is a function of your explanation! Changes in the information standing behind your explanation (experimental results) have two very different characteristics. The order of that information becoming available and the position of that information as to order within your explanation. Many times the appropriate “t” index is the same for both characteristics; however, there are cases where the attached “t” index need not be the same. Consider the case of uncovering an archaeological site or for that matter, seeing a star go nova. The explanations often require the order of these circumstances to be far different from the order that the information became available.

 

The issue is that “ALL” explanations must be representable. Since it is possible that your explanation may acquire additional circumstances which it wishes to assign order between any two indices already assigned, the field of numbers required to represent that order may become continuous. Actual discreteness or continuity depends entirely upon the explanation being represented.

 

Post #62 on page 5 is pretty well off subject. The black box analysis is of no interest. We are trying to find the constraints imposed on an explanation by the definition of an explanation and has nothing to do with actually finding explanations: i.e., all explanations must be representable in this notation or the notation fails.

 

Post #64 on Page 5

 

And the concept of between any two "t" moments has great importance to my world-view, and I may bring it to discussion as I read more.

Without any circumstance assigned to each and every “t” index between every two circumstances standing behind your explanation, the existence of that circumstance is a presumed thing and you cannot prove it exists: i.e., assigning existence to “t” between two “t” moments is a presumed thing and can not be logically shown to be a requirement.

 

Post #68 on Page 5

 

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.

I do not know how you decided that “[of an action]” belonged in my assertion as it totally changes the meaning of what I said. What I said was “rational means a result that does not generate an emotional negative response as to its truth” and it applies to statements and/or beliefs, not to actions. It identifies when the truth of a statement is considered to be a “rational” presumption.

 

The question was not “was your decision rational”, what it has to do with is “was the presumption of your statement being true” rational. The only statement of supposed truth (supposed in that the actual truth of it can not be proved) is that he decided not to attend the funeral because he knew he would cry and did not want to upset his friend. Maybe he is lying but it seems like a rational statement to me: i.e., it generates no emotional negative response “as to its truth”. In your example you seem to have totally neglected to pay any attention whatsoever to those last four words.

 

This brings up a second complaint about your complaints. You deny that emotional responses have anything to do with rational thought and yet almost all of your complaint are grounded entirely on your emotional responses to my propositions. Your desire to hold your concept of time as “true” is exactly because alternate possibilities generate (within you) an emotional negative response. The “truth” of your world view is an emotionally defended thing: i.e., you think it is rational because “it generates no emotional negative response” (within you).

 

Post #71 on Page 5,

 

Not according to Cauchy mathematics, there are many explanations of it, but, by definition, none of them have any expectation.

And exactly what does that mean. If an explanation exists, then the explanation has some conclusions; those conclusions are “your expectations”. I am merely expressing those expectations as a probability of the various possibilities (think of an extended game of 20 questions). Your assertion is a meaningless statement with regard to these discussions.

 

Post #74 on Page 5,

 

A major roadblock for me. I do not understand why we "must" avoid that constraint.

If we are going to express expectations as the probabilities of the possible answers to an extended game of 20 questions, then we must abide by the definition of “probability” (a number bounded by zero and one). If not then you had better show me another way of “exactly” representing your expectations (no matter what those expectations are). Now the definition of “probability” is not part of the “definition of an explanation” thus, if we cannot avoid that constraint, we cannot express the constraints solely required by the definition of an explanation: i.e., we have other constraints impinging upon our representation and it is thus not universal.

 

Again, you are not thinking things out but are instead depending upon your emotional reactions to lead you to the correct answers. If you read over my post on rational thought, it should be clear to you that, though rational thought guided by emotional reactions are the very best way to guarantee your survival, they certainly can not be depended upon to be correct. Since we are concerned with an “exact” representation, we must prove it is correct, not rely on our emotional responses.

 

Post #76 on Page 6,

 

It would have a different "x" value to it in each "t", so yes this can be interpreted in terms of "x" determining its position in a coordinate system.

At this point in the presentation, “x” can "NOT" be interpreted as a position in a coordinate system for some very important reasons to be covered down the line. For the moment, it must be seen as no more than a numerical label referring to a specific undefined element underlying the represented explanation. The issue here is that the specific element being referred to must be representable in every possible explanation and though one explanation may presume the numerical reference “i” refers to a specific element defined in that explanation, it should be clear that there might exist other explanations which would identify that same “i” reference with different element. But, since the two explanation are explaining the same underlying information (the undefined information referenced by “x”) the possibility of different values appears.

 

If “i” specifies a photon and x specifies that same photon in all explanations, all we can say at this point is that we need to attach some numerical reference which separates the many occurrences of “i” (that persistence presumed in our explanation) into different numerical labels for the underlying undefined information. This step provides a numerical argument for the function representing the explanation thus satisfying the presentation in this post but seeing it as a position on a coordinate axis makes one very major presumption which cannot, under the current representation, be defended. That is a very serious issue which will be brought up in my “Rules Representation” post.

 

Other than that, your answers to Bombadil are quite satisfactory; my only complaint being that only the representation and the development of the function representing the explanation are being discussed in this post and many responses actually amount to attempts to jump ahead in the presentation: i.e., these other issues will be covered later.

 

As I said to Rade, this is an exact logical presentation and attempts to map it into your world view will directly confront many (quite rational) aspects of your world views which, to date, generate no negative emotional reactions. My presentation, on the other hand, clearly does generate negative emotional reactions. This leads most to consider following that path to be unrewarding. I want you all to know that I am presenting an exact logical construct and thus emotional reactions actually have no bearing upon the issues. If you want to find an error, find an error in my logic and don't worry about the implications of the logic.

 

Post #92 on Page 7,

 

Exactly what that point is I’m not sure of but I suspect that the trouble is due to the word information not yet having a proper definition.

Suppose that I simply define “information” as, “whatever the explanation is to explain”: i.e., that would make it identical to the collection of “circumstances” each represented by the expression [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n,t)[/math]. Regarding Qfwfq's complaint that the category “information” is reserved to defined data, I suggest that such a definition of “information” would totally remove all information from our interest as the definition can only precede from presumption and we wish to make no presumptions: i.e., the requirement presumes an explanation and is thus a situation not universally applicable to all explanations of “whatever it is that is being explained”.

 

Come on guys; we have to think about these things a little.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

Welcome back Doctordick. I have read all your comments, thank you. I only have a few comments to them:

 

These are not examples outside the possibility of explanation as defined by me.

What I was trying to say was' date=' that there are examples of common sense "explanations", that are outside your definition of explanation, thus your notation would not apply to them. That is, there are many different ways to define "explanation", and your notation is of value to only one of them--your definition of explanation. Not that this is bad or good, just fact.

 

assigning existence to “t” between two “t” moments is a presumed thing and can not be logically shown to be a requirement

Yes, I agree, but this is not what I was talking about. I was not assigning existence to t between two t moments. I was only stating the obvious, that if you have a first "t" represented, then you add a second "t" represented, logically there must be a "concept of between" the two "t". But, I understand that you would have no interest in this "between" concept because it is not part of your representation. However, I do have an interest in it, that is all I am saying. No emotion at all involved, pure logic.

 

I do not know how you decided that “[of an action]” belonged in my assertion as it totally changes the meaning of what I said. What I said was “rational means a result that does not generate an emotional negative response as to its truth” and it applies to statements and/or beliefs' date=' not to actions. It identifies when the truth of a statement is considered to be a “rational” presumption.[/quote']Well, sure, but I had no idea that you did not believe it possible for {actions} to be rational or not. You did not at all make it clear that in your world view the English word "rational" is only used in reference to "statements and/or beliefs" when your said "rational expectation" in your definition. I find your position rather odd, that expectations of actions cannot be rational or not--but--it is your world view, so I will just go with the flow on this issue. But, your response indicates to me that if the word rational does apply to expectations of actions, then your use of rational in your definition of explanation would be incorrect.

 

Moving on......

 

Perhaps you could answer a question not yet answered by AnssiH. Could you please define the word "element" as you use it in many different ways, (defined, undefined, known, unknown, indivisible, fundamental building block, etc.). I have no idea at all how anything comes to be some type of "element" for you, I need your help.

 

You indicated to me that you try to use common sense definitions, one reason you do not bother to post a list of definitions. Well, a common sense understanding of "element" from physics would be Helium (He), and it has many different isotopes, etc. However, it is not in any way "fundamental", yet in your presentation, an "element" must by definition be fundamental and indivisible.

 

Also, as I requested to AnssiH, I need to understand examples of "defined elements" from areas outside physics, such as biology, economics, politics. All these subjects need to use explanation for hypothetical circumstances, and without a clear understanding of how "defined elements" would be used, I find it impossible to see how your presentation can be considered fundamental (used outside physics and chemistry). AnssiH has many times told me that the English word "photon" is a "defined element"--but such a word would have no use at all for explanation of any economic circumstance. It would, however, have important application in photosynthesis in biology explanations.

 

Finally, suppose there is some undefined repetitive pattern of energy of finite duration that requires explanation. Would not the limited set of discrete units of energy forming the pattern represent an "undefined element", given that the source of such energy would be a "photon", a recognized defined element used in hypothetical circumstances? It seems logical to me, but this understanding may not match what you are claiming.

[Rade]

Suppose that I simply define “information” as, “whatever the explanation is to explain”: i.e., that would make it identical to the collection of “circumstances” each represented by the expression [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n,t)[/math]

OK, so the way this would apply to your concept of "undefined information" would be:

 

"undefined whatever an explanation is to explain" = "undefined information"

 

It seems to me, however, that your "whatever" must be the sum total of "that which exists PLUS that which does not exist", for that logically would include 100% of whatever, nothing else being logically possible. Correct ?

[Qfwfq]

Well, I am back and I have scanned all the new posts to the two top threads. Anssi, I appreciate your attempts to clarify things but I don't think any clarification with Qfwfq has been achieved. From reading his comments, I only see two possibilities: either he is intentionally trying to stir up general confusion or he actually has utterly no concept of what we are talking about. Either way, I applaud your attempts but feel there is no possibility of any fruitful discussion with him.

Redundant, totally. We already know you will say this and consider my perspective distorted, no matter what.

 

As an aside to Qfwfq's assertion that “undefined information is an obvious oxymoron”, information expressed in the Minoan Linear A script would certainly qualify as “undefined information” so long as that script has not been deciphered.

I would call them "markings of unknown meaning" before, whereas after being deciphered the constitute information. :shrug:

 

Regarding Qfwfq's complaint that the category “information” is reserved to defined data, I suggest that such a definition of “information” would totally remove all information from our interest as the definition can only precede from presumption and we wish to make no presumptions: i.e., the requirement presumes an explanation and is thus a situation not universally applicable to all explanations of “whatever it is that is being explained”.

This is due to your choice of words man. Calling it with a more appropriate name doesn't remove it from your interest, it only means that your interest concerns data rather than information.

 

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;

Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.

What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,

Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part

Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!

What's in a name? that which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet;

So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,

Retain that dear perfection which he owes

Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,

And for that name which is unappropriate, use data instead...

[Rade]

Just one thing to keep in mind while reading the OP, what "circumstances" always refers to, is not, in the terminology of the analysis, "directly observable" reality, but a representation of something (in this case, some recurring patterns).

This makes sense to me in terms of the DD presentation, but only if it is also made clear that the "something" that is the source of the "recurring patterns" is the undefined information that is DIRECTLY observable. There are two logical ways for undefined information (more correctly data) to relate to "circumstances" in terms of perception (1) directly and (2)indirectly. The DD approach is an indirect approach. That is, there is a representation step between "recurring patterns" and "circumstance", i.e., one must form a "representation" of the patterns that enter the evidence of the senses. Of course, by definition of the term "undefined information (as data)", the recurring patterns derive from something of whatever it is they derive from, which is completely unknown (in fact, outside the possibility of being known by humans).

 

Also, I think it most useful that you always add the term energy, that is, use the term "recurring patterns of energy". This is what is referred to in terms of a state function evolving prior to observation, whatever it is you seek to explain.