Science Forums

## Recommended Posts

do my definitions themselves exclude any possible collection of information
I have a question along this line. It has to do with how you define time (t).

As I understand your definition of time, it is an index of a set of "presents" based on transformation of the future into the past.

Let me use an example. Suppose a runner that must past 5 goal posts while moving from A to B along a track. A watch is used to determine the number of seconds to reach each goal. Suppose the five goals are reached in 2.34, 4.67, 6.66, 9.01, 10.0 seconds. In your definition of time, each goal reached represents a present, and time then is the index we give to the set of presents as measured, or as you say, as "known" {2.34, 4.67, 6.66, 9.01, 10.0}. Each of these presents is what we know about the circumstance under consideration of reaching the 5 goals, and the set represents what is known about the run after the run is completed (which is the "past" = what you know).

Now, consider a second run and the set of presents for the 5 same goals that results is {21.4, 45.3, 100.7, 234.5, 678.8}.

Correct me if I error, but from your definition of time, this second run would be considered to have occurred in exactly the same "time" (t) as the first run because the collection of presents being indexed is exactly the same = 5. In other words, based on your definition of time, we would conclude that the time (t) it took the first runner to move from point A to B on the track was exactly the same as the second runner. Is this not correct ?

So, my first question is--does not your definition of time (t) exclude the possible collection of information as relates to the magnitude of the measures used to calculate each present ? That is, if the past is what you "know" about presents, and your definition of time claims only to know 5 presents for each run, does not your definition of time exclude the important information concerning the magnitude of the measures for each run ? If true, how would you suggest that your definition of time (t) be modified such that it did not exclude this important information about each run ?

My second question is, does not your definition of time exclude the collection of information that is between the "present" numbers indexed ? Is not what you know about the duration of watch measures from one present to another of critical importance to a flaw-free understanding of time ? That is, is it not important to know that in run number 1 the first present was reached in 2.34 seconds, while in the second run it was reached in 21.4 seconds ?

• Replies 135
• Created

#### Popular Days

Thanks, I am much better this morning and I hope it'll last.

It seems that his comment that we are talking past one another is a very apt comment.
Exactly what I've been saying, did you never notice?

Any sane adult must realize that, in natural language, one must take requisites such as no circularity with a grain of salt. Nanny shows Baby a rubber ball and says "This is a baaaaaallllll. It is rooooounnnnd." and offers no definitions. Euclid's elements are not defined in any manner except implicitly by the postulates. Of course circularity is a problem but people try to get over it.

My meaning is quite simple. I am referring to no more than the fact that my fundamental equation looks very much like equations one would expect to find in a study of quantum mechanics and that my definitions for finding your expectations are very analogous to the methods of finding expectations within the field of quantum mechanics. Close enough anyway that the approximate solutions to my equation can be compared to some quantum mechanical results. There should be no expectation that my results should bear any resemblance to quantum mechanics results at all as they are based on entirely different considerations.
You are not addressing my point by saying that you are not talking about physics, and then talking about physics, and then saying that you are not talking about physics, and then talking about physics.......
This comment makes it quite clear that you are missing the point of the presentation.

That a step I take is “ad hoc” (pulled out of my rectum if you would prefer) has utterly no bearing whatsoever upon the issue under discussion. The only issue of any significance is, does that step impose any constraints whatsoever on either the possible problems which can be represented or the possible internally consistent explanations of the associated information. What you seem incapable of comprehending is the fact that those other issues you bring up are entirely beside the point.

The issue is that my equation imposes one and only one constraint on the possible solutions. That constraint is, “that the explanation be internally consistent with the universe of information to be explained and is flaw-free: i.e., does not contradict any known information. The point is that it makes no difference what that information is; the equation is still valid by construction.

I disagree. Are you really sure that your choices impose no further constraints?

God Qfwfq, it seems to be almost impossible to communicate with you. The algorithm is the mechanism for determining your expectations which had better be in alignment with your past (that is what you know Qfwfq) or you are certainly is not referring to a “flaw free” explanation: i.e., it is your flaw free explanation of the phenomena of interest. You can only be happy with that explanation if it continues to be consistent with the new data as that data is added to “what you know” and that would be the present (the future as it becomes the past; what was unknown becomes known). The “correct algorithm” is thus the mechanism which will continue to yield results consistent with what you are trying to explain. It is in this sense that only experiment (the examination of future possibilities) can determine a “correct algorithm”.
Yes it seems impossible to communicate, when you keep telling me things that I understand and misunderstanding when I talk about them. I would presume that Anssi's "survival machines" meant exactly the above and yet he was refusing to contemplate such a thing as "supported by observation" and of course, it turned out he was mistaking my talk about phenomenology for being talk about ontology! :doh:

And all you can be sure of is that it is the correct algorithm at the moment. The future may destroy that explanation and you will have to come up with another; however, I assert that the new one must also obey my equation.
Just like Russel's chicken. This has been discussed at length especially since Hume. The matter of being self consistent is of course one of the oldest in philosophy. At least you are now granting the benefit of doubt that your definitions might have accidentally imposed some unrecognized constraint on the possibilities. Maybe this is a step forward in communicating?

If that transform exists, there is utterly no way of telling the difference between "reality" and the "alternate reality" (my "ad hoc" creation). Essentially, what lies within the "dotted" circle is exactly equivalent to the transformation performed by the alternate representation of our senses.
Now I can put it in your own words, according to your picture.

To what extent do you reckon the fundamental transform can give a valid Alternate Reality according to an Alternate View of Our Senses? It's quite obvious that Mr. Magoo's isn't valid and maybe it's only due to misalignment in his alternatives, but to what extent could it be done in principle? Photographic emulsions, cloud and bubble chambers, scintillators and other devices that occasionally issue an electric pulse, the equipment designed and tested (independently of the detectors' workings) to process those pulses into data and analyse it, magnets and other objects designed according to classical electromagnetism such that the data shows dependence on how they are adjusted... how heavily are these things subject to the Fundamental Transorm? Does the data from these things count as phenomenology? Does it count as data that we can determine a “correct algorithm” for? Do you and Anssi concur on this?

##### Share on other sites

DoctorDick. I have a question about your fundamental transform between reality <-->alternate reality. Is not your transform represented mathematically by the Wick Rotation -- (see link below) ?

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

##### Share on other sites

Gosh they've got it a bit botched there.

Is not your transform represented mathematically by the Wick Rotation
Rade, Dick wouldn't be meaning one single possible transformation.

In any case the Wick rotation is nothing more than a mathematical trick, it is hard to think of imaginary time values as being an Alternate Reality. Landua-Lifschitz treats the whole of SR this way, without any contention of it being a physical matter. By analogy, you can think of it in this way all the same, but only as one tiny, simple example.

##### Share on other sites

Gosh they've got it a bit botched there.
Maybe you could make correction :)

Rade, Dick wouldn't be meaning one single possible transformation. In any case the Wick rotation is nothing more than a mathematical trick, it is hard to think of imaginary time values as being an Alternate Reality. Landua-Lifschitz treats the whole of SR this way, without any contention of it being a physical matter. By analogy, you can think of it in this way all the same, but only as one tiny, simple example.
Thank you. As to your comment about a "single" rotation and "imaginary"---is not the "tau" dimension of Doctordick an example of "imaginary" dimension, and does not this imaginary dimension relate to physical mass--I mean, is that not what DD is saying--that physical mass is momentum in the imaginary tau dimension ?? Also, is it possible the approach of DD is a type of Feynman sum over history of all possible Wick Rotations (not a single one)--would such a Feynman concept at all relate to the DD "fundamental transform" .

Finally, is not the approach of DD also a type of "mathematical trick" that allows him to relate his Euclid (4D space dimensions + time) approach to that of Einstein and Minkowski, so anyone can move back-forth between the two approaches depending on the information under study?? As I understand (well, understand is a poor word) the situation, the mathematics of the Minkowski approach can be a bear--so, is it possible that the approach of DD helps simplify the mathematics--in the same way I have read that using the Wick Rotation so helps ? OR is DD saying that Einstein and Minkowski are plain incorrect in how they view the relation of time to space to reality--that only his approach (DD fundamental transform) is correct and valid method to understand "reality" ?

I'm just asking, I do not have any answers. It is interesting that Dr. Wick was a well known physicist in the USA at the time DD was in graduate school--I just wonder if DD read some of his work and used the Wick Rotation concept to help him move forward his "fundamental transform" ideas ?? If there is any possibility of a relationship between the Wick Rotation math and math of DD fundamental transform--seems to me an interesting topic for someone with training in the field to look at.

Oh well, perhaps DD will respond--but I really appreciate your comments Qfwfq because DD does not read my posts.

##### Share on other sites

Qfwfq, has it ever even occurred to you that you are overlooking a very important point; that point being that your complaints are totally off the subject which Anssi and I are discussing. Now Anssi knows very little physics; however, I am quite aware of many of the things you bring up and they have absolutely nothing to do with what I am talking about and Anssi understands that. You don't!

You are not addressing my point by saying that you are not talking about physics, and then talking about physics, and then saying that you are not talking about physics, and then talking about physics..........and then refusing to address my point about what your notion of QM is, whenever you talk about the bearing of your presentation on it.

I am talking about internally consistent explanations of arbitrary information. I am not talking about physics. However, it is a fact that the field of physics does consist of a great number of explanations of rather complex information and is, for the most part, exceedingly internally consistent (at least compared to many other fields) so it does supply some good examples of what I am talking about. I would expect you to be intelligent enough to see the difference.

I disagree. Are you really sure that your choices impose no further constraints?

You disagree? Everyone disagrees (except perhaps Anssi and his experience in the subject of finding explanations is very limited). In fact their disagreement has been sufficiently intense to dissuade every one of them from even looking at my construct. And yes, more and more over the last fifty years I become I have become ever more convinced that I have made no further constraints. I can see the question from six ways from sunday (to use a colloquial phrase.)

Moral of the story: You cannot always induce the truth from past experience!

And that is exactly why I have no interest in “truth”. My concerns are very simple: examine all possible mechanisms for generating expectations (and that is exactly what I define “an explanation” to be) which are consistent with what you think you know. What can be said, “totally independent of what you think you know”. That is the limit and extent of my work. You apparently cannot grasp that as, once again, you bring up specific “things one might know” and want me to explain how those would be handled. I have no answer for that; the issue is simply that “they can be handled” and that is exactly what I show in my proof.

At least you are now granting the benefit of doubt that your definitions might have accidentally imposed some unrecognized constraint on the possibilities. Maybe this is a step forward in communicating?

I have admitted the possibility of error since the word “go” and that has apparently provided utterly no assistance in communicating that I can detect.

To what extent do you reckon the fundamental transform can give a valid Alternate Reality according to an Alternate View of Our Senses?

The fact that you would ask such a question implies to me that you simply have no comprehension of the essence of the picture I presented. All that is required is that the fundamental transform exists; absolutely nothing else is significant. The representation does not imply that the transform be known. And you seem to miss the point that, if the fundamental transform exists and we can form a world view based upon our senses, it follows that the thing referred to as an “alternate view of our senses” must exist as it is no more than the fundamental transform plus our senses as conceived of in the original representation (the drawing on the left). None of this requires knowledge of what our senses actually are or what reality actually is or, for that matter, what our world view is. It is simply a question of the existence of the “fundamental transform” and absolutely nothing else.

In my original paper, I defined that alternate reality to be “a collection of numbers”. I also constrained reality to be comprehensible as, from my perspective, if reality is presumed to be incomprehensible, trying to comprehend it is pretty much a waste of time. Now I wrote that many years ago and I have long since dropped the issue of “explaining reality” and changed my numbers to be “numerical reference labels” for the elements of information upon which the explanation is to be based. Thus changing the circumstance to the simple problem of finding an explanation for some information (a somewhat more general problem). That is, if you can conceive of a problem more general than explaining the universe! :lol:

It's quite obvious that Mr. Magoo's isn't valid ...

That comment just makes it clear that you don't have the slightest idea of what I am talking about. You keep bringing up issues that have utterly nothing to do with the big picture; they are no more than arguments as to why you don't want to consider my proof.

... and maybe it's only due to misalignment in his alternatives, but to what extent could it be done in principle?

To what extent can experiences be explained in principle? That has utterly no bearing on what I am talking about. The question is quite simple; things can be explained (people explain them all the time). My concern is not with how one comes to create explanations; it is instead, exactly what constraints follow from the definition of “an explanation” and nothing else!

Photographic emulsions, cloud and bubble chambers, scintillators and other devices that occasionally issue an electric pulse, the equipment designed and tested (independently of the detectors' workings) to process those pulses into data and analyse it, magnets and other objects designed according to classical electromagnetism such that the data shows dependence on how they are adjusted... how heavily are these things subject to the Fundamental Transorm? Does the data from these things count as phenomenology? Does it count as data that we can determine a “correct algorithm” for? Do you and Anssi concur on this?

As I have said many times in the past, all of what you bring up is entirely beside the point. The only issue is the existence of the “fundamental transform” itself, not the actual form of transformation. If the outcome of the transform is “a collection of numbers” it is pretty well obvious the the fundamental transform exists for all comprehensible concepts of any problem. If a transform didn't exist, we certainly couldn't communicate about the problem via the internet (and that would include all possible presentations of virtual reality by the way): all we are sending back and forth are collections of numbers guy.

I simply can not comprehend how you can be so obtuse on this issue.

Dick

##### Share on other sites

I don't know Rade if imaginary time values are important in Dick's presentation, maybe Anssi could say. As for chances of Dick having been influenced by Wick's ideas, try reading his biography and I somewhat doubt it cuz I don't think Dick would have followed the path of his analysis if he had been familiar with Wick's way of thinking.

##### Share on other sites

they have absolutely nothing to do with what I am talking about
so it does supply some good examples of what I am talking about. I would expect you to be intelligent enough to see the difference.
I would expect you to be intelligent enough to see the difference, and even to understand that you can't have it both ways. Understand? Have you never taught your children and grandchildren they can't have it both ways? You just can't Dick, and I'm so weary of you resorting to examples, even drawing conclusions about them, but I musn't dare mention them.

Dick, you can't keep on telling people that a Granny Smith has nothing to do with what your talking about because you are talking about apples, when you say yourself that it is a kind of apple. We just plain don't fall for it. Either it is a kind of apple, or it has nothing to do with apples, but not both Dick.

Dick, you refuse to address my points because they are not what you are talking about, but perhaps you are simply missing my implications? Perhaps you just see my index finger and not the star I'm pointing at? Anssi was like this too, in the other thread, but perhaps he recently at least got some things I meant instead of supposing something else. That's why you guys keep running into strawman fallacy, repeating things that I understand because you misunderstand me.

Anssi has not yet confirmed the misunderstanding being cleared, that's why I was querying about the extent to which different worldviews could be equally valid. Otherwise, according to Anssi, I could not even consider it a fact that you have posted certain words and phrases because the transform by which we communicate about the problem via the internet, sending collections of numbers back and forth, could be rigged in such a way that different but equally valid words and sentences arrive to destination. Could that be why we fail to understand each other, even though each of our single posts doesn't read gibberish to the other? :rolleyes:

Do you get my point? Anssi? Any hope?

Now Dick, don't get so irked at my disagreement, dismissing it on the grounds of having become ever more convinced over the last fifty years of have made no further constraints, when in the same post you repeat that you have admitted the possibility of error since the word “go” and, if that has apparently provided utterly no assistance in communicating, perhaps it is because you never cooperate with any effort of mine.

##### Share on other sites

I don't know Rade if imaginary time values are important in Dick's presentation, maybe Anssi could say. As for chances of Dick having been influenced by Wick's ideas, try reading his biography and I somewhat doubt it cuz I don't think Dick would have followed the path of his analysis if he had been familiar with Wick's way of thinking.

Believe me, I was aware of the relationships expressed there. And I am certainly familiar with “Wick's way of thinking” as it is entirely consistent with the standard analysis of most all theoretical analyses in physics and does not even approach the question I have been concerned with. I had and have no interest in following his way of thinking. You just make it more and more clear that you do not comprehend what I am talking about: “representing the consequences flowing from the definition of an explanation and nothing else”. Everything you keep bringing up is “something else”.

In order to discover those consequences, one must be very exact in one's definition, being fully aware of what is not specified in that definition and being very careful in constructing a general representation of the consequences such that the representation does not imply anything not specified in the definition. Just think about the issue a little; that's all I ask.

Now Dick, don't get so irked at my disagreement, ...

I am not irked at your disagreement; I am irked at your utter refusal to look at the problem being discussed!

Have fun – Dick

##### Share on other sites

DoctorDick....you said above that..."All that is required is that the fundamental transform exists". This is all that is required for your presentation to be true.

OK..let me take the position that "your fundamental transform does not exist". Furthermore, let me offer as the explanation that it does not exist by definition. Thus, the logical conclusion is that your presentation is not true--correct ?

So, do you see any reason to continue this thread ?

##### Share on other sites

You just make it more and more clear that you do not comprehend what I am talking about: “representing the consequences flowing from the definition of an explanation and nothing else”. Everything you keep bringing up is “something else”.
Dick, it is you that brings up the “something else” and drawing conclusions about it, only when I reason on those same things they magically become “something else”. They aren't “something else” when you draw conclusions about them, only when I cast doubts over those conclusions.

Dick, I've still got my old copy of Itzykson Zuber so I don't see why I should need that wiki, do you reckon it's more reliable? The only reason I mentioned Wick was due to Rade, I know he is on your ignore list but that doesn't prevent you from discerning when it is him I am replying to, surely. :doh: I still remember you long ago saying you had no idea of what I was talking about when I raised a point about Fock space and that kind of thing; when I told you more in detail you indignantly said you used to work on those things, caculating Feynman graphs and so on. Not to even mention local vs. global gauge invariance; after that discussion, every time the word local cropped up you pounced on it as being what I had mentioned. Yeah, sure you are fully familiar with “Wick's way of thinking” and of course his masterly use of symmetries does not even approach the question you have been concerned with. :rolleyes: :doh:

If you can't show me that you see my points and instead just refuse to address them, there's no use just repeating that they have nothing to do with what you are on about. It's no use repeating the same things without proving your points against mine, that's not how debate works. No wonder the world has ignored your presentation. How come the whole, extremely complicated formalism that Wick and others constructed wasn't ignored?

I am not irked at your disagreement; I am irked at your utter refusal to look at the problem being discussed!
It was the words "I disagree" that set you off. I have tried to address problems in your presentation that you seem impervious to, but you always just evade and refuse to clarify.
##### Share on other sites

I was not presuming this at all and, if you thought so, it is because you keep totally missing my points.

Okay, but then what do you take as "known" information, when facing the task of predicting undefined information?

That might be one of the things you are planning to address in the other thread, and if so, no need to hurry into addressing it here as well.

Having hear it so many times is not a good reason to presume it about me, instead of getting my points.

So did you pick up what I referred to as "duality"?

Now I haven't been well at all since Sunday and it adds to all the other difficulties. I really don't know when I'll resume replying to the other thread because I find it less and less woth the time, except that I had already addressed many of those points on Thurday with efforts toward overcoming the misunderstandings. I don't know, for the moment I'll just try to get better.

There is no hurry. As you have probably noticed, it sometimes takes me weeks to reply. Internet is not going anywhere :) Besides, a slower pace usually gives you more time to try and figure out where the other party is coming from exactly.

-Anssi

##### Share on other sites

Any sane adult must realize that, in natural language, one must take requisites such as no circularity with a grain of salt. Nanny shows Baby a rubber ball and says "This is a baaaaaallllll. It is rooooounnnnd." and offers no definitions. Euclid's elements are not defined in any manner except implicitly by the postulates. Of course circularity is a problem but people try to get over it.

The point is precisely that it is not possible to get over it. The circularity is a character of any explanation that is explaining information whose explicit meaning is unknown. Or, another way to put the same thing, no definition is in itself is ever based on explicit knowledge of such a thing existing. Every definition is associated with some familiar pattern in some sense, and also any definition is something whose validity is based on the validity of very many associated concepts, which need to be simply accepted before the definition under discussion is sensible at all.

Just to ground this into more practical terms, understanding what is meant by a "photon" obviously requires that you also explain the meaning of very many associated definitions (so that you can explain how photons supposedly manifest themselves). Like space, time, matter (mass, solidity, atoms, electromagnetism etc) and so on and so forth.

The existence of that circularity in our view of reality also means there always exists semantics to our views, i.e. it is always possible to communicate reality in terms of very different concepts and ideas, but still yield equally valid predictions. You are probably aware of very many views that are only semantically different in terms of predictions, but orthogonally different in terms of what they imply about ontology (i.e. stuff that is just up to everyone's personal beliefs)

Also, not recognizing that that circularity as a very fundamental aspect of our world view, it causes people to spend a lot of time arguing about things that are entirely semantical in nature, and both parties thinking that their view is well supported by "observation" (when actually they are talking about how they interpret the same observations very differently)

The crux of DD's presentation is that there are ways to build a valid set of definitions that corresponds exactly to modern physics, without ever having to make any guesses about what sort of ontological idea is correct. His definitions are ad hoc in terms of what the reality is supposed to be. Which is the same as saying, that his definitions must not make any assumptions about the nature of the information-to-be-explained, i.e. they need to be universally useful.

You are not addressing my point by saying that you are not talking about physics, and then talking about physics, and then saying that you are not talking about physics, and then talking about physics..........and then refusing to address my point about what your notion of QM is, whenever you talk about the bearing of your presentation on it.

He is saying he is not talking about the ontological correctness of specific physics concepts, but just about their epistemological validity. When he uses bunch of universal definitions to get to the same expression as modern physics, then that is to imply that modern physics is not rooted to knowing or having guessed what the nature ontologically is like.

I disagree. Are you really sure that your choices impose no further constraints?

Now disagreeing about the universality of his definitions is a relevant subject, and you should explain what do you see in there as not being universally valid (i.e. what sorts of hidden assumptions you find)

I realize this task is made little bit difficult if you don't have a clear picture of the universal notation itself, but the least you could do is try to communicate as clearly as possible, what hidden assumptions you think you see (i.e. what sort of undefined information could not be categorized according to the definitions he makes).

And since you disagree, it would be only polite to also say what exactly causes your disagreement.

Yes it seems impossible to communicate, when you keep telling me things that I understand and misunderstanding when I talk about them. I would presume that Anssi's "survival machines" meant exactly the above and yet he was refusing to contemplate such a thing as "supported by observation" and of course, it turned out he was mistaking my talk about phenomenology for being talk about ontology! :doh:

I provided a lot of commentary to the idea of something being supported by observation, and the problem seems to be that we are thinking of some very different things here.

Let me explain my mind; since we are talking about explanations to information whose meaning is entirely unknown, then from my perspective, to have something that is "supported by observation", would mean to know something about the information that is entirely unknown. I.e. pretty trivially oxymoronic idea.

But it seems to be very common idea when people think about something like physics, because the whole idea is supposed to be that we make experiments and only believe them, without making an effort to discuss what does it mean to understand any single experiment; i.e. what goes into the representation that we mentally have about reality (that we use to "observe reality").

That "everyday mental representation" contains the same circularity issue, and essentially when people say that something is supported by observation, they also imply a blind faith to the correctedness specific definitions that go into their everyday representation of reality.

I don't think it is fair to say that I refused to talk about that. But you saying so means you don't think I addressed anything about what you were referring to. So maybe you could explain your mind more, for one, tell me what sorts of things are you thinking about, when you say something is supported by observation. An example would be perhaps useful.

To what extent do you reckon the fundamental transform can give a valid Alternate Reality according to an Alternate View of Our Senses? It's quite obvious that Mr. Magoo's isn't valid and maybe it's only due to misalignment in his alternatives, but to what extent could it be done in principle?

Do you realize that this is exactly the same issue as the circularity issue discussed in the beginning of this post? You are implying that everyone realizes that circularity, but still you doubt something that is a direct consequence of exactly the same issue...? Or, maybe the problem is that you keep thinking of an idea of taking a valid world view, and then switching a single definition in it, and trying to figure out a valid mapping to such a thing? Do you understand that that is the same thing as making a world view incoherent?

The issue is very much about the circularity to the definitions, and the consequential ability to make self-coherent changes to some circular "set of definitions", and yet remain entirely valid (and yet be able to predict the exact same raw information).

ps, try not to get agitated when DD keeps saying you don't understand what he is talking about. He is not implying you are just too stupid to understand this, he is expressing frustration about the lack of successful communication. Just take it as a sign that you should try and re-interpret what he's trying to say. I think that idea about "something supported by observation" would be a good place to start, because in our terminology, there is no such thing, by definition. If you can't figure out how we mean that, then let's try to solve that puzzle. We can start by hearing what are you thinking when you refer to something "supported by observation".

-Anssi

##### Share on other sites

AnissH....You asked for examples of "Something supported by Observation". If I understand you, you claim this is an impossible task for the human mind. That is, whatever you claim observation can do, the one thing it cannot do is "support something".

I think it important you provide a definition of "supported" Thank you.

==

Edit: Let me make a stab at an example of "support" as would relate to "something observed". I will use the standard traffic light as my example of a thing under observation--you know--the one with the three color lights.

Suppose I come to the thing and see only the red light shinning, that is, photons of light energy in the red wavelength reach my sense of visual observation. Now, how can we say there is "something supported by observation". Can we say that the photons of red wavelength are "supported" -- I would claim no, because each observer would have a different worldview of what this means.

Does this mean that nothing is supported ? I would claim no again. I would say that the constraint on possible variety of photon wavelengths reaching my senses that is intrinsic to the design of the thing (the traffic light) is "SOMETHING SUPPORTED BY OBSERVATION". What is universal to any human mind with visual sense ability (i.e., they are not blind) is that all will conclude that wavelength of light from the two other possible light positions (those that shine green and yellow) do not exist, and this non-existence of a possibility of existence, this constraint on possible variety, represents "SOMETHING SUPPORTED BY OBSERVATION".

So, as you see, I would disagree with your worldview that this is an impossible task for the human mind. But, perhaps I have a wrong understand of what you mean by "support" and/or "something" and/or "observation" ??

##### Share on other sites

AnissH....You asked for examples of "Something supported by Observation". If I understand you, you claim this is an impossible task for the human mind. That is, whatever you claim observation can do, the one thing it cannot do is "support something".

I think it important you provide a definition of "supported" Thank you.

Supported as in "revealed by" or "proven by".

Don't forget the context here; we are talking about the ability to explain information, whose meaning is entirely unknown at the get-go.

By "explaining" the information, I mean essentially being able to infer some "meaning" from the information, for prediction purposes. (This is somewhat analogous to being able to infer the meaning of the sensory data from the eyes)

In other words, the mental conception you have about reality, is an explanation of some information. You are interpreting some information in a way that gives you meaningful predictions.

So the question is, if you have some information whose meaning you don't know, what does it mean to "observe" what it means?

In our terminology, there is no such thing as "observing" what the information means. There are just mechanisms that enable you to interpret it in meaningful ways. What is referred to as "observation" in physics, is in our terminology an interpretation of undefined information; it tells you how things work in terms of the entities you have defined, but not how the actual ontological structure of reality is.

Qfwfq keeps saying he understands what we are talking about, but we keep missing his points, so that is why I am trying to understand what does he mean by "supported by observation". All I know is that he can't be thinking of the same issue as what me and DD are thinking because he would understand it is trivially oxymoronic idea. So, since he must be thinking of something else, it would be useful if I could figure out what that is.

Edit: Let me make a stab at an example of "support" as would relate to "something observed". I will use the standard traffic light as my example of a thing under observation--you know--the one with the three color lights.

Suppose I come to the thing and see only the red light shinning, that is, photons of light energy in the red wavelength reach my sense of visual observation. Now, how can we say there is "something supported by observation". Can we say that the photons of red wavelength are "supported" -- I would claim no, because each observer would have a different worldview of what this means.

Yes and we could be talking about very wildly different sorts of interpretations. Having any idea of any persistent entities at all is always something that is part of your interpretation (because a large volume of information always corresponds to one particular persistently existing defined thing), and it's impossible to exhaustively say what sorts of sets of definitions are possible for explaining the same information.

Does this mean that nothing is supported ? I would claim no again. I would say that the constraint on possible variety of photon wavelengths reaching my senses that is intrinsic to the design of the thing (the traffic light) is "SOMETHING SUPPORTED BY OBSERVATION". What is universal to any human mind with visual sense ability (i.e., they are not blind) is that all will conclude that wavelength of light from the two other possible light positions (those that shine green and yellow) do not exist, and this non-existence of a possibility of existence, this constraint on possible variety, represents "SOMETHING SUPPORTED BY OBSERVATION".

It is very hard to analyze the issue of what it means that something is absent from some information; notice that the idea that the green and the red lights are absent includes the idea that the traffic light and the spatial locations etc exist. Before you have an interpretation for the undefined information, you can't form an idea of what it is that is absent.

Now, I could perhaps give another analogy that should be somewhat helpful at explaining something about the latest questions of Qfwfq.

Think about having a task of explaining some SETI data from an alien culture, that just keeps pouring in. You have no idea what the data means (how it is encoded and what it is supposed to represent). You don't know whether it is intentionally sent, or perhaps entirely accidental leakage produced by their traffic systems. You don't even know if it means anything, or if it's just all some sort of noise. But, your survival depends on being able to somehow predict what sort of information is going to come through next.

Now, in order to solve this without having to make guesses about the meaning of the information, you can build a little computer program, that can recognize and catalog all types of patterns from that information, and completely mechanically produce a probability sheet of what sorts of patterns tend to follow what sorts of patterns, without actually knowing what any of that information means.

Now I think you would agree, that the problem is solved; we can meaningfully predict the information, and as the amount of information increases, so does the accuracy of our predictions (we can discard patterns that don't yield good results, and keep the patterns that do). Which is what DD referred to when he said "only experiment can determine a valid algorithm"

I'm sure you can also see, that that same exact computer program can be used to yield meaningful predictions for any information regardless of what the "real meaning" of that information is. In building of that program, you never made any assumptions about what the information is. The way it internally categorizes and handles the information is always the same.

Now, I'm sure you would not say that those internal concepts that the program uses for categorization, are not actually properties of the information it categorizes, since all information would be interpreted the same way.

What DD's work implies is that the concepts of modern physics are exactly like the internal categorization functions of that program; they are concepts that a human mind can use to interpret information in ways that it can be predicted. The mental picture that you get, is essentially the defined "containers" for some undefined information. Certainly, if you understand something, you understand it in terms of some human-concepts, i.e. you always understand an interpretation of something "unknown".

Qfwfq said he can't find a compatible way to interpret DD's comment "only experiment can determine a valid algorithm" and my comments at http://scienceforums.com/topic/22171-conservation-of-inherent-ignorance/page__st__60

DD is talking about the ways a valid prediction function being fundamentally moulded by inductive reasoning, based on some recurring activities in some undefined information.

I am talking about how there is no way to observe what the undefined information "actually means". I.e. having A valid prediction function does not entail ontological correctness. (which is the assumption almost everyone persistently make in their reasoning, even when they keep saying they don't)

Let me know if there something you find confusing here.

-Anssi

##### Share on other sites

Anssi, the more you write, the more I see you miss my points because we can't have sufficient common language; you think I'm misunderstanding you but I don't lack the notions you are talking about. You have been a lot more clear than Dick but there is not much greater hope of communicating. Both of you stare at my finger instead of figuring which star I'm pointing at. I'm wasting my time.

Do you get it that I was talking about phenomenology and not about ontology? I asked already and you haven't replied, you only made it clear that you don't get it. Do you hear me this time? Does this message reach you?

He is saying he is not talking about the ontological correctness of specific physics concepts, but just about their epistemological validity.
Same with me but he evades it. From my perspective he is hiding behind a pane of glass.

Now disagreeing about the universality of his definitions is a relevant subject, and you should explain what do you see in there as not being universally valid (i.e. what sorts of hidden assumptions you find)
Anssi, I made these attempts with Dick more than once, simultaneously trying to get over the confusion in his ramblings, which you have at least sometimes helped to clear up. Unfortunately tou don't have as much competence to address these points on his behalf but it seems you failed to even notice the point I mentioned in this thread.

Or, maybe the problem is that you keep thinking of an idea of taking a valid world view, and then switching a single definition in it, and trying to figure out a valid mapping to such a thing? Do you understand that that is the same thing as making a world view incoherent?
I'm perfectly aware of your meaning and I do not expect the possibility of "switching a single definition in it" to give another valid worldview. My amusing examples about Claudia Schiffer should be taken with a grain of salt, in the sense of at least that much difference.

Is it an undefendable ontological assumption to say that a certain scintillator issued a pulse, in a certain temporal relation with other events, according to a worldview which is sufficiently coherent that I must resign myself to the hard, hard fact that I've never met Claudia and she would more likely punch me on the nose if she catches me using her in such a personal manner as an example in these debates, or even that a ball is round? How oxymoronic is it to call such things a fact?

##### Share on other sites

Anssi, the more you write, the more I see you miss my points because we can't have sufficient common language; you think I'm misunderstanding you but I don't lack the notions you are talking about. You have been a lot more clear than Dick but there is not much greater hope of communicating. Both of you stare at my finger instead of figuring which star I'm pointing at. I'm wasting my time.

Well let's try to take smaller steps; I'll try to explain to you how I am interpreting your comments, as clearly as I can.

Do you get it that I was talking about phenomenology and not about ontology? I asked already and you haven't replied, you only made it clear that you don't get it. Do you hear me this time? Does this message reach you?

I believe I understood you. Here's what I believe you are saying;

"What about phenomological observations, i.e. observing something without knowing why it is so, or without having an explanation to it?"

Such as, the examples given in:

Is that correct interpretation of your question?

Anssi, I made these attempts with Dick more than once, simultaneously trying to get over the confusion in his ramblings, which you have at least sometimes helped to clear up. Unfortunately tou don't have as much competence to address these points on his behalf but it seems you failed to even notice the point I mentioned in this thread.

Well even if I don't have the competence to address your argument, could you please just point it out to me because I didn't spot it after skimming through all the confusion of this thread :D (Admittedly, I have not read it very carefully)

I'm perfectly aware of your meaning and I do not expect the possibility of "switching a single definition in it" to give another valid worldview. My amusing examples about Claudia Schiffer should be taken with a grain of salt, in the sense of at least that much difference.

Right now, it is very difficult for me to understand what are you thinking exactly when you ask that question. You are saying that you understand my meaning, so I take it you understand that I am talking about the possibility of interpreting undefined information in multitudes of ways, somewhat akin to being able to believe in different QM interpretations, which all explain the same exact information in very different terminology.

But then you ask a question that to me is exactly like asking whether someone who believes in many-worlds interpretation could see Claudia naked, while the transactional folks would see her fully clothed. That is why my first reaction is to just try to steer the conversation back to the topic.

So can you explain more, maybe I'll come to understand your meaning better.

Is it an undefendable ontological assumption to say that a certain scintillator issued a pulse, in a certain temporal relation with other events, according to a worldview which is sufficiently coherent...

That is also very difficult to interpret, I have few possible interpretations in mind. Do you ask;

1. "Is it undefendable to assume that, what occurred ontologically was thast a scintillator issued a pulse in a certain temporal relation with other events?" (that scintillators and such things ontologically exist)

or

2. "If someone interprets reality according to some world-view, and in the terminology of that world-view, he would say a scintillator issued a pulse in certain temporal relation with other events, should we consider he has made undefendable ontological assumptions in order to think in that terminology?"

or

3. "Are there undefendable ontological assumptions involved, when someone supposes a certain temporal order to some events"

or none of the above?

...that I must resign myself to the hard, hard fact that I've never met Claudia and she would more likely punch me on the nose if she catches me using her in such a personal manner as an example in these debates,

This would be easier for me without the cheeky additions. (I'm serious, I don't know if there's some sort of point embedded in there or not)

or even that a ball is round?

And triangles have three sides...

Or did you rather mean to ask, "is it possible that one world-view interprets some undefined information as if there's a ball there, and another world-view interprets that same information differently?" What do you think? And why?

-Anssi

## 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.