Answering Qfwfq

[Doctordick]

Hi Rade,

 

I put you on my ignore list because I found most of your comments to be completely thoughtless and I usually shuddered at their presumptions. Nevertheless, I do occasionally look at your posts, particularly when Anssi's responses to you peek my interest. It appears to me that you have achieved a breakthrough in understanding what we are talking about and I have now removed you from my ignore list. I have a few comments which I think you should consider carefully.

 

However, having said the above, I continue to disagree with the definition of time used by DD ...

Essentially, you are simply refusing to “use my definition” and by doing so you are forcing yourself to work with your definition which simply does not fulfill the requirements of my proof. Your definition requires the existence of "time"; mine does not: i.e., there is an inherent presumption in your definition.

 

Hi AnissH. Maybe hard to believe, but I am over a major roadblock in how I am thinking about what DD is claiming. I am trying to take the approach of Descartes, remove everything except only that which is needed from my mind. I now focus all my attention to the "undefined information", "perception", and the "patterns" produced by the undefined information via perception. I find I cannot remove these three concepts from my mind ...

The central issue of my work is that you are working with “undefined information”. The most important aspect of the issue is that quality of “lacking definition”. I attach the word “information” only because “the concept of information is closely related to notions of constraint, communication, control, form, instruction, knowledge, meaning, mental stimulus, pattern, perception and representation” (as quoted directly from Wikipedia) and these concepts are closely related to what I am concerned with in defining “an explanation”: i.e., information is something to be explained. We are interested in “explaining” what is “undefined”. That is the central issue of what I have discoverd.

 

The moment you introduce “perception” (and the concept of patterns for that matter) you have already stepped outside the boundary of my arguments. That is an issue which only Anssi seems to comprehend. Qfwfq clearly seems to find the issue totally incomprehensible so don't feel bad about your difficulties.

 

You are clearly being mentally blocked by the fact that, without those additional concepts, you can not even think about “explaining” what is “undefined”. Don't worry about it; I am fully aware of the fact that we cannot think about any of these things without making presumptions above and beyond the boundary I have placed upon myself. The only thing I can do is “totally ignore that issue”. The communication difficulty arises because most people presume that if one “totally ignores that issue” then nothing can be accomplished. I say that is a false presumption.

 

So, let us take as a given that undefined information exists as something (we know nothing about details how), that it can be perceived (we know knowing about details how), and that patterns can be looked for (we know nothing about details how).

Let us, instead, take it as a given that the universe constitutes “undefined information” and that somehow we have managed to find an explanation of that “undefined information”. How we managed to achieve that end result is of no interest here as that achievement required “making presumptions above and beyond the boundary I have placed upon myself”.

 

I have a question. Do you agree (using DD approach) that to say you can produce a prediction from the undefined information via perception that the undefined information MUST be somehow constrained, in an undefined manner ? If not, I would need you to explain, because I cannot see how it would be possible to predict any pattern from undefined information via perception if this were not true.

You see, I agree with you here. I have no idea as to how it would be possible to predict any pattern from undefined information without making presumptions as to what that data represented. That is exactly why I have often compared my work to the Dewey decimal system for cataloging books. My work is essentially analysis of a data compression system which will reproduce the apparent expectations for the known information. As such, it also produces expectations for “unknown information” (that is why I used the word “apparent” in the previous sentence).

 

Regarding the issue of what can be accomplished if one totally ignores the issue of “how it can be done” let me first point out that we actually can only work with actual explanations: that would be with the presumptions inherent in those actual explanations. Since actual explanations presume definitions of the “undefined information”, we need a way of representing that “undefined information” which makes no constraints whatsoever on the presumed definitions of any possible explanation.

 

That is exactly what my post “Laying out the representation to be solved” is all about. Try to understand that post as it is central to finding a starting point.

 

It should be clear to the reader that, if a flaw free explanation of the known circumstances exists, a method of obtaining the expectations must exist and thus so must the analogous function.

 

Looking forward to hearing from you. Any problems with that thread can be handled by replying to that thread.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[AnssiH]

You should however be wary of the assumption that how you interpret it is the way Descartes meant it. Not that it matters all that much, except that you are revealing the link I had pointed out between solipsism and your discussions.

 

Why, what do you mean by "revealing the link"?

 

Alright, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that there is a point coming, and it's somehow related to DD's analysis. Tell me.

No use, if we can't communicate effectively. Sorry.

 

Right... Well you know if you don't want to reveal your objection, maybe it's better to not say anything :shrug:

 

I see no grounds for this and there's no point dicussing it if we can't talk about QCD, you would raise the usual objection to that of course. :doh:

 

If you think there's no grounds to their particular claims about quarks, you could discuss it with them, if it happens to spark your interest. As of the point I wanted to make, it should suffice to understand that certain specific definitions also shape the terminology of the future.

 

It is impossible to discuss this without incurring into the usual objections. :doh:

 

OK then, you and Dick are the only Authority to decide when this is legitimate...:rolleyes:

 

If you want to discuss the features of some specific models or explanations, you should do so in the appropriate threads. I might discuss them also if they happen to interest me, but why insist on bringing those discussions here?

 

-Anssi

[Rade]

Essentially, you are simply refusing to “use my definition” and by doing so you are forcing yourself to work with your definition which simply does not fulfill the requirements of my proof. Your definition requires the existence of "time"; mine does not: i.e., there is an inherent presumption in your definition.

Ok, hello again, Doctor. As I said, I have decided to take the approach to remove all of my presumptions to help me understand what you are claiming. So, we can forget about my definition of time.

 

But, is was my understanding that your definition of time DID require the existence of "time"--so I am confused. It was my understanding that your definition required that time (t) "exist" as "an index order of presents", with each present being the transformation of future-->past ? So, are you saying the index (t) does not exist, the order does not exist, the presents do not exist, or all of them ? I am confused.

 

===

 

I completely understand why you require that I drop also "perception" and "patterns" from my thinking about your approach--using Occum's Razor, why use more than "undefined information" to begin if not needed.

 

So, I focus everything now on "undefined information" -- your philosophy begins here, all philosophy must begin somewhere.

 

So, "undefined information"--what is it ? You indicate that information includes many items---constraint, communication, control, form, instruction, knowledge, meaning, mental stimulus, pattern, perception and representation (from Wiki). By "undefined" I assume you mean that no statement is made that identifies the essential nature of all the different forms of information above. Of course, definition will come soon in the process, so you do have a concept of definition--that is, definition is important to your approach, just not at the begin. Is this correct ?

 

You view "undefined information" as an axiom, correct ? I can live with this, because by definition an axiom must not be analyzed, it is from which all analysis derives.

 

Very important question. I assume that "undefined information" exists ? I mean, why go to the trouble to explain what is undefined and information and does not exist--correct ? This would agree with your comment that you [take it as a given that the universe constitutes “undefined information”--quote of DD].

 

[side issue: I use the term "undefined existence" as being identical to your term "undefined information". For me all existence is potential information, and it would be a given that the universe constitutes "undefined existence". Do you see any problem with this change in wording ? I have no problem using your term--but do you have a problem using my term ?]

 

Next, you want to "explain" what is "undefined information". This is really where the fun begins, you want to "explain", which is a way of saying "you want to know something about undefined information". It seems logical--we begin with the axiom that there is this vast list of information that is undefined and unknown and there is a human need to know something about it--to explain it.

 

You do the above by producing an actual explanation of the "undefined information". Seems logical to me, if you wish to explain "undefined information" then best to produce an actual explanation of it rather than an imaginary explanation--correct ?

 

And, at the point that you bring actual explanation into play, you MUST provide definition(s) of the "undefined information". That is, defining the undefined information MUST be prior to the final explanation you seek--correct ?

 

But, you want to allow for all logically possible actual explanations to come into play--you place no constraint on how many definitions can be used, or what those definitions might be, as long as they follow logic rules--is this correct ?

 

Now, I have a mental roadblock for the next step. You indicate (I think) that in the process of providing an actual explanation of the "undefined information", the "undefined information" is transformed into "known information" ? Is this correct ? Because you say "That is exactly why I have often compared my work to the Dewey decimal system for cataloging books. My work is essentially analysis of a data compression system which will reproduce the apparent expectations for the known information--quote of DD"

 

My roadblock is--why the word change from "undefined information" to "known information" at this important stage of the process ? It appears you are saying that the process "to know", in your way of thinking, occurs each and every time you place a definition on "undefined information" ? So, "to know" for you is the transformation: [undefined information --->defined information] via an actual explanation, which yields "known information" ?

 

So, your goal is to logically show how "undefined information" can be transformed into "known information" using no constraints other than to provide definitions to the undefined ? Is this even close to being correct ??

 

Finally, the "how it can be done", the how the "undefined information" can be explained and transformed into known information, with no constraints at all other than the fact that some definition(s) of the undefined information must be provided, is found in your post “Laying out the representation to be solved” .

 

==

 

Good Doctor, it makes no sense for me to continue until I see your reply to the above. I would appreciate help where I am not following your logic, and where I am on the correct path. Once I am up to speed here with this foundation material, I will continue all further comments on the “Laying out the representation to be solved” thread. It will be a completely new read for me, like learning how to walk again.

[Rade]

Hi AnssiH. Well, as you can see, DD communicated with me directly, and I sent him a reply. So, I really appreciate your working with me. God knows it has been a long two plus years since I first read DD on the Physics Forum.

 

Now, you said this

I think, a lot of people equate that stance with "reality informs us of its real structure in our perceptions somehow; if it didn't, we could not use our perceptions as a basis for our world view at all, and thus it would not be possible to generate a useful world view at all."

While a lot of people may hold this view--I do not--never have, and this has been a source of disagreement for us. For me, perception places no role at all to inform the real structure of reality, but perception does play a role in all world views. If you do not get evidence of "undefined information" via senses, how exactly does it enter the mind ? Something must bring the "undefined information" into mental grasp so that an actual explanation can be applied to it, and this something is called perception. It is such a basic understanding that I really do not see why we even discuss the obvious ?

 

I agree with you that the the starting point of DD's approach is NOT perception, the starting point is the "undefined information" and a need to provide explanation of the information. Thus, there are no ontological assumptions being made, there is an epistemological assumption being made, that one can have a mental grasp of undefined information such as to allow for explanation, and this mental grasp is tied up with perception--the two go hand in hand.

 

So, consider a person born in a room with no ability of perception at all. Could they in any way come up with an understanding of how reality works ? Would the term "undefined information" make any sense to them ? What would it mean for them to explain something ? You see, being able to predict has nothing at all to do with "knowing something about the structure of reality". It has to do with "knowing that there is a reality", which is a completely different concern. I think from reading your post you give physicists concepts that they do not belief exist ? Also, I think you may be confusing the concept of perception with conception. You appear to give perception the attributes of conception--well, at least that is my read of your post.

 

But, even if we do not agree on the above, it really has nothing of importance to do with understanding what DD is trying to do. He has told me to just forget about "perception" and "pattern" all together, not worry if they are at the start or middle or end of his discussion. He wants me to only think about "undefined information", this where his approach begins, and thus must be where a valid world view begins.

 

So, thanks again for staying with me, and you may want to read my reply to DD.

[Qfwfq]

Why, what do you mean by "revealing the link"?

It ought to be clear to anybody familiar with the essence of the Meditations, including the argument known as cogito ergo sum. By Descartes' appeal to the assumption that there is no deceiving God and his cases for Externality and Materiality, I don't read him as arguing for either solipsism nor for your opinions about multiple interpretations of the same perception, despite the cogito can no doubt suggest both possibilities. Hume, rather, leaves a mighty door open to such speculation and Mach's epistemology was very fiercely against positing the existence of anything our senses don't perceive directly.

 

Right... Well you know if you don't want to reveal your objection, maybe it's better to not say anything :shrug:

No point getting upset, try instead to be reasonable.

 

If you think there's no grounds to their particular claims about quarks, you could discuss it with them, if it happens to spark your interest.

I have no reason to do so, nor to discuss the features of some specific models or explanations in other "appropriate" threads. I had my reasons for mentioning things here; if I can't then there is no reason for me to discuss anything here. There's no reason anyway why you can and I can't.

 

As of the point I wanted to make, it should suffice to understand that certain specific definitions also shape the terminology of the future.

No doubt about this but Augenstein's speculation has no bearing on it; it is plain ludicrous, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny and Gribbin's reference to it casts no good light on his discussion of those topics.

[Rade]

Doctordick...a quick question about making presumptions: Above you said this:

 

I have no idea as to how it would be possible to predict any pattern from undefined information without making presumptions as to what that data represented.

 

So' date=' as I understand, you have placed boundary conditions on the begin of your approach, visually they are:

 

[center'] | undefined information |...........(with the | being the boundary conditions). [/center]

 

So, what you are saying about presumptions is that, while you MUST make presumptions about the "undefined information" within your boundary conditions, you allow no outside presumptions to enter your thinking--such as concept of perception of the information--would this be correct ?

 

And, one presumption that you MUST make is that the undefined information is somehow constrained, in an undefined manner--I assume this to be true since you said it was above.

 

Again, I must completely understand what you are saying to proceed in a logical manner. And having an understanding where you apply presumptions and where you do not is very important issue (in fact, a major cause of misunderstanding of your approach I would think). Thank you for help here.

 

==

 

Edit: Another thought has come to mind that I need help with. Again, our discussion now is limited to the boundary condition:

 

| undefined information|

 

Now, you selected a Wiki statement to identify what you mean by information--however, a closer look indicates many presumptions that must be made well outside your boundary condition. So, as examples, Wiki includes "form" and "knowledge" as information--but clearly these cannot be examples of what undefined information mean--correct ? As soon as you say "form" you presume some definition of something that has form, as soon as you say "knowledge" you assume some thing of which there can be knowledge.

 

So, if I may make a suggestion. In the same way you indicated to me to use Occam's Razor to focus only on | undefined information|, I suggest your approach focus only on information as being |constraint on variety| ! Do you understand why I am saying this ?

 

If you agree, then your goal of explanation relates to | undefined constraint on variety |, and this goal eliminates all unneeded assumptions about what information may be. Your comments appreciated.

Edited October 14, 2010 by Rade

[Doctordick]

Thank you Rade for providing me with that second post. When I read your first post following my response to you I was severely disturbed. I originally put you on my ignore list because your responses never seemed to have any thought behind them. I always got the impression that they were purely emotional responses expressing how you felt without any indication of logical analysis of what I had said. Your first post seemed to be along exactly the same lines as your earlier posts; however, on reading your second post, I realized that you had simply misinterpreted what I had said. Presuming that is indeed the case, I will answer your first post with regard to the issues which, to me, implied an apparent lack of thought.

 

But, is was my understanding that your definition of time DID require the existence of "time"--so I am confused. It was my understanding that your definition required that time (t) "exist" as "an index order of presents", with each present being the transformation of future-->past ?

The existence of “an index” applied to defined data in no way constitutes the common perception of “time” with the associated presumptions inherent in that concept. I will get back to that issue later.

 

So, "undefined information"--what is it ? You indicate that information includes many items---constraint, communication, control, form, instruction, knowledge, meaning, mental stimulus, pattern, perception and representation (from Wiki).

It is quite clear from your second post that you failed to comprehend why I put in that stuff from Wiki. The problem I was concerned with is very simple and not at all what you took it to be. From my perspective, mathematics is the only language worthy of exact analytical analysis; however, we need to start this discussion in the English language (since I am not fluent in any other common language) and the English language has certain syntax which must be adhered to if we want to be clear.

 

The fundamental problem I was addressing is the fact that “undefined” is an adjective and not a noun. In the English language, use of an adjective requires an object (here I do not mean a physical object, I mean the noun who's meaning is being modified by that adjective). As I have mentioned elsewhere, English is an extremely vague and ambiguous means of communication. What I was trying to point out by that Wiki reference is the fact that the word “information” standing all by itself is actually quite a vague and ambiguous noun. That is, it takes a very small stretch in the understanding of the common usage to remove any definition from the subject being referred to by that noun. In my opinion, the phrase “undefined information” is a grammatically correct representation of what I have in mind.

 

The need for a word (or phrase) to refer to what I am talking about was clearly recognized by Kant and is exactly what stands behind his invention of the word “nomena”. I would use that word except for the fact that understanding what it means requires understanding Kant's arguments. I would much prefer to use the common concepts understood by most everyone and am of the opinion that “undefined information” essentially conveys exactly what I am talking about. In fact, I think Kant does, on occation, use the phrase "undefined information'' to define his term "nomena". If that is indeed the case, why not just use the phrase.

 

You view "undefined information" as an axiom, correct ? I can live with this, because by definition an axiom must not be analyzed, it is from which all analysis derives.

I do not comprehend how you can regard the phrase “undefined information” to be “an axiom”. An “axiom” is defined to be “a proposition”. Exactly what do you think is being proposed by that phrase? That is, what is it that you can propose, without definition, which is not included in the category I refer to as “undefined information”.

 

Very important question. I assume that "undefined information" exists ? I mean, why go to the trouble to explain what is undefined and information and does not exist--correct ?

No, I can not allow the presumption that “undefined information” exists. Certainly the collection of all possible explanations include explanations which make use of information which does not exist. Your position would remove solipsism from that collection and it is well known that you can not prove solipsism is in error so its removal would constitute an unjustified presumption.

 

This would agree with your comment that you [take it as a given that the universe constitutes “undefined information”--quote of DD].

I would say that my comment has nothing to do with existence or non existence of “undefined information”. I use the word “universe” merely to refer to the “entire” collection of “undefined information” standing behind an explanation and not to a mere subset of that collection.

 

Side issue: I use the term "undefined existence" as being identical to your term "undefined information".

Yes, I have a very great problem using your term as your noun, “existence”, implies “existence”, a concept in contradiction to “non-existence” which thus presumes something to be excluded from our analysis and it is my concern to avoid all presumptions.

 

Next, you want to "explain" what is "undefined information". This is really where the fun begins, you want to "explain", which is a way of saying "you want to know something about undefined information". It seems logical--we begin with the axiom that there is this vast list of information that is undefined and unknown and there is a human need to know something about it--to explain it.

Here you are bringing up the issue I wish to “totally ignore”. This is the issue all philosophers seem to consider paramount and, by considering it so, are blocked from attacking the problem I have attacked: the issue of interest to me is, exactly what constraints are placed on an explanation by “the definition of an explanation” and nothing else.

 

The fact that people have created explanations gives us something to talk about; if we had no evidence of actual explanations my whole analysis would be moot. If I want to discuss the constraints placed on an explanation by “the definition of an explanation” I need a way of representing an explanation. You seem to totally misinterpret the reason I bring “actual explanations” to the discussion. They are brought forth for one reason and one reason only: in order to analyze my representation to assure that the representation is capable of representing any and all explanation and that the representation itself makes no presumptions.

 

And, at the point that you bring actual explanation into play, you MUST provide definition(s) of the "undefined information". That is, defining the undefined information MUST be prior to the final explanation you seek--correct ?

I am not seeking any explanations of any kind. I am seeking constraints on explanations due to “the definition of an explanation” and nothing else.

 

But, you want to allow for all logically possible actual explanations to come into play--

Yes; if I don't allow some explanation, that is essentially a presumption that the specific explanation being excluded can not be represented by my notation. That is a direct violation of the purpose of my analysis: I am seeking constraints on explanations due to “the definition of an explanation” and nothing else. No other constraints can be accepted.

 

My roadblock is--why the word change from "undefined information" to "known information" at this important stage of the process ?

I need a method of representing any and all explanations (a method which makes utterly no presumptions on what those explanations are). Now, if you can conceive of an actual explanation which explains anything without defining what it is that it explains, then we can discuss the problems such an explanation would bring up regarding my notation. Meanwhile, I do make the presumption that all actual explanations do indeed define the things they are explaining thus these definitions need to be represented in my notation; in a way which makes no presumptions as to what these definitions are!

 

Finally, the "how it can be done", the how the "undefined information" can be explained and transformed into known information, with no constraints at all other than the fact that some definition(s) of the undefined information must be provided, is found in your post “Laying out the representation to be solved”.

At no point do I propose any mechanism for transforming “undefined information” into “defined information”. The issue that I provide in that post is a mechanism for representing “defined information” in terms of “undefined information” without putting any constraint on that representation whatsoever. It is not a simple logic problem and it requires considerable careful thought.

 

So, are you saying the index (t) does not exist, the order does not exist, the presents do not exist, or all of them ? I am confused.

I am using the index “t” to allow for the “undefined information” upon which the explanation is based to be different: i.e., the explanation, if it is to be flaw-free with regard to different collections of that universe of “undefined information” must allow for changes in that collection.

 

So, what you are saying about presumptions is that, while you MUST make presumptions about the "undefined information"...

No it is not correct. My constraint is that “I” MUST make no presumptions...

 

And, one presumption that you MUST make is that the undefined information is somehow constrained, in an undefined manner--I assume this to be true since you said it was above.

No, I make no constraints whatsoever on the undefined information to be explained.

 

Again, I must completely understand what you are saying to proceed in a logical manner.

On this I agree one hundred percent. I hope this post has straightened your misinterpretations a little.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

I realized that you had simply misinterpreted what I had said. Presuming that is indeed the case, I will answer your first post with regard to the issues which, to me, implied an apparent lack of thought.

Hello good Doctor. Yes, after your last post, lots of misinterpretation by me. I have an interest, so I will give it a try to move forward, I do hope you work with me.

 

The existence of “an index” applied to defined data in no way constitutes the common perception of “time” with the associated presumptions inherent in that concept. I am using the index “t” to allow for the “undefined information” upon which the explanation is based to be different: i.e.' date=' the explanation, if it is to be flaw-free with regard to different collections of that universe of “undefined information” must allow for changes in that collection.[/quote'] OK, got it, the index (t) is not time. Perhaps then it is best you not refer to the index as (t), since (t) does seem to imply you are referring to time ? Just a small point of confusion still for me. Why not use (i), since it refers to an index ? But, OK, we will go with (t) is NOT time, (t) is an index that allows for changes in the collection of "undefined information". It is very important I use your definitions.

 

It is quite clear from your second post that you failed to comprehend why I put in that stuff [about information] from Wiki.

Yes' date=' this is very true. I now understand that "information" as you use it for "undefined information" includes all that exists and all that does not exist. There are no limits, no constraints in the collection. Seems to cover all the bases, which is very logical, for it makes sense that one would want to explain both what exists and what does not exist, since nothing else remains to be explained.

 

In my opinion, the phrase “undefined information” is a grammatically correct representation of what I have in mind.

OK, I understand.

 

The need for a word (or phrase) to refer to what I am talking about was clearly recognized by Kant and is exactly what stands behind his invention of the word “nomena”. I would use that word except for the fact that understanding what it means requires understanding Kant's arguments.

It would be a big mistake for you to relate "undefined information" to Kant's noumena. You indicate that your "undefined information" is without limit' date=' without constraint, it includes both what exists and what does not exist. However, noumena for Kant is a very limited concept--it is limited to that which is purely non-senual reality. It is directly opposed to phenomenal reality, which for Kant is what is perceivable reality. The two types of reality go hand-in-hand for Kant. Clearly your "undefined information" cannot in any way be limited to the noumena reality of Kant, you must include the phenomenal also, because "undefined information" cannot have any limits. For Kant the collection of the universe of undefined information would be [noumena + phenomena']. So, I think it good that you stay with your "undefined information" and just forget about Kant for this issue. In the end, most of Kant has been contested long ago, and there is absolutely no agreement that Kant himself understood what he meant by the word noumena, because he used it in contradictory manner.

 

I do not comprehend how you can regard the phrase “undefined information” to be “an axiom”. An “axiom” is defined to be “a proposition”.

Well' date=' here a small misunderstanding on your part. There are many ways to take axiom. All I was saying is that |undefined information| is where you begin your presentation, and that this must be something that is universally accepted as being true in order for us to move forward. I was not thinking of axiom as a proposition, or as the mathematician might think of the word.

 

No, I can not allow the presumption that “undefined information” exists.

Yes, very clear now. Undefined information is the sum total collection of all that exists and all that does not exist..

 

I use the word “universe” merely to refer to the “entire” collection of “undefined information” standing behind an explanation and not to a mere subset of that collection.

Well I hope you can appreciate that your use of the word "universe"' date=' coming from a physicist, would at first be thought to mean "the physical universe". But now I see this is not at all how you used the word, you used it as a mathematician i.e., the universe as the set all that exists and all that does not exist.

 

Here you are bringing up the issue I wish to “totally ignore”. The issue of interest to me is, exactly what constraints are placed on an explanation by “the definition of an explanation” and nothing else.

OK, very clear, this is the issue we will use to go forward, and we will use your comments below as a guide. Of course how you define an explanation, must result in placing some constraint on an explanation. I think here (only as a mind help) of a traffic light. So, what constraints are placed on a traffic light by the definition of "traffic light". I hope you do not mind if I keep this example in mind to help me understand the issue of interest as relates to explanation ? --if yes, please let me know why.

 

The fact that people have created explanations gives us something to talk about; if we had no evidence of actual explanations my whole analysis would be moot. If I want to discuss the constraints placed on an explanation by “the definition of an explanation” I need a way of representing an explanation. They are brought forth for one reason and one reason only: in order to analyze my representation to assure that the representation is capable of representing any and all explanation and that the representation itself makes no presumptions.

OK' date=' very, very important for me to keep this in mind--will need to come back to this often until it sinks in deeply.

 

Yes; if I don't allow some explanation, that is essentially a presumption that the specific explanation being excluded can not be represented by my notation. That is a direct violation of the purpose of my analysis: I am seeking constraints on explanations due to “the definition of an explanation” and nothing else. No other constraints can be accepted.

OK, I understand. You are seeking constraints.

 

I need a method of representing any and all explanations (a method which makes utterly no presumptions on what those explanations are). I do make the presumption that all actual explanations do indeed define the things they are explaining thus these definitions need to be represented in my notation; in a way which makes no presumptions as to what these definitions are!

OK' date=' very clear. You do make this one presumption.

 

At no point do I propose any mechanism for transforming “undefined information” into “defined information”. The issue that I provide in that post is a mechanism for representing “defined information” in terms of “undefined information” without putting any constraint on that representation whatsoever.

Poor choice of wording by me. But, is it not true that in order to represent defined information in terms of |undefined information| (which is at the begin), the defined is coming to be while at the same time the undefined is going away ? If yes, this is what I was trying to say.

 

No it is not correct. My constraint is that “I” MUST make no presumptions...

OK' date=' but see above you directly said...." I do make the presumption that all [b']actual[/b] explanations do indeed define the things they are explaining". Now, I do not want to argue, but you cannot logically have it both ways. So, if you are saying you make no presumption, then we will have to go forward with the fact that all actual explanations do NOT define the things they are explaining. But I am sure this is not what you want. So, it is critical that you decide what is a truth statement---either you make a presumption or you do not. I hope you can see the great potential for confusion here.

 

No' date=' I make no constraints whatsoever on the undefined information to be explained.[/quote']Yes, now clear. As you said above, you seek constraints, you do not make any.

 

I hope this post has straightened your misinterpretations a little.

Yes, very useful. So, I will wait for any corrections you may have on my comments, then move on to the other thread.

 

I have one question, do you have a list on any threads of all the different definitions you use ? This would be most helpful. If not, would you have the time to start a new thread--perhaps called 'My Definitions" ? I see this as very important, because you have many times told me I refuse to use your definitions--well--to tell the truth, I have no clear understanding what they are. You have posted them in many threads in two forums for over two years, and many of them in different form. Well, I hope you not take this the wrong way--just a suggestion.

[AnssiH]

It ought to be clear to anybody familiar with the essence of the Meditations, including the argument known as cogito ergo sum. By Descartes' appeal to the assumption that there is no deceiving God and his cases for Externality and Materiality, I don't read him as arguing for either solipsism nor for your opinions about multiple interpretations of the same perception, despite the cogito can no doubt suggest both possibilities.

 

Yes, I am reading that Descartes' quote as referring to a similar issue as the map/territory relationship, and yes, my comment about how I'm interpreting it was an attempt to point out that I'm not reading it as a question about solipsism, but as doubting whether our perception can be taken as "the correct" interpretation in some ontological sense. If that's what you meant when you said "you are revealing the link I had pointed out between solipsism and your discussions" then yes.

 

EDIT: But, you should not say "your opinions about multiple interpretations of the same perception". Maybe that was just carelessness from your part, but I just spent a lot of time explaining how this is NOT about interpreting perceptions, but about interpreting undefined information, the results of that interpretation being your perceptions.

 

Hume, rather, leaves a mighty door open to such speculation and Mach's epistemology was very fiercely against positing the existence of anything our senses don't perceive directly.

 

This, I think, is a third flavor to the same issue, and in my personal opinion slightly difficult way to handle the matter because it comes with additional semantical ambiguity. Because in many valid explanations there are bound to be plenty of defined entities/forces that explain some behaviour of some other defined things, while those forces themselves are not "directly perceived"... ...depending on what one takes as "direct perception". And of course I can never be sure what someone has meant by "existence", and so on and so forth.

 

No point getting upset, try instead to be reasonable.

 

Honestly I just take it as an indication that you lost confidence to whatever objection you had in mind, I'm guessing whatever it was, you perhaps realized it was not really related to DD's analysis per se. That's the impression I have anyway. :shrug:

 

I have no reason to do so, nor to discuss the features of some specific models or explanations in other "appropriate" threads. I had my reasons for mentioning things here; if I can't then there is no reason for me to discuss anything here. There's no reason anyway why you can and I can't.

 

I had no intention to take the discussion to the details of Augeinstein's paper, it's just an interesting example that was discussed together with Pickering's work.

 

No doubt about this but Augenstein's speculation has no bearing on it; it is plain ludicrous, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny and Gribbin's reference to it casts no good light on his discussion of those topics.

 

Did you read it? Where is it? I think it would be interesting to take a look at it myself too, even though I can't really judge its validity myself.

 

Rade, I'll see if I can also contribute to explaining the missing bits to you this weekend, but I'll first try to get up to speed to where you stand. A short answer to most of your questions is there are mis-interpretations; there are some unfortunate semantics here that can easily be read wrong if a person doesn't know where DD is coming from. But, more about that later...

 

-Anssi

[Qfwfq]

Well, there's not much point bickering too much about words. Maybe I shouldn't have said perception because it is already an interpretation but goodness, let's try to get each other's point. As for what Mach meant, it is simple; he meant what we see, hear, touch &c. I would caution against discussing it before having examined his psychology based conception of physics.

 

Honestly I just take it as an indication that you lost confidence to whatever objection you had in mind, I'm guessing whatever it was, you perhaps realized it was not really related to DD's analysis per se.

That's the impression you had but it isn't how it was. I simply lost confidence in the possibility of you relating it to Dick's presentation and your opinions.

 

it's just an interesting example that was discussed together with Pickering's work.

I don't find it interesting at all. The production of many hadrons from incoming ones doesn't need a geometrical explanation, which doesn't suffice at all. He might as well say God steps in with a magic wand and makes new ones appear.

 

Did you read it? Where is it? I think it would be interesting to take a look at it myself too, even though I can't really judge its validity myself.

I read exactly what is in your quote of Gribbin and it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

[Rade]

Rade, I'll see if I can also contribute to explaining the missing bits to you this weekend, but I'll first try to get up to speed to where you stand. A short answer to most of your questions is there are mis-interpretations; there are some unfortunate semantics here that can easily be read wrong if a person doesn't know where DD is coming from. But, more about that later..

Hello. This will be great, a tag team of teachers, unique ratio of 2 teachers to 1 student.

 

All I ask is that you comment on my most recent revision of my attempt to understand DD's presentation. I am revising my understanding with each dialog with DD. It is really hard to believe that after two years of reading DD I did not have a clear understanding of his |undefined information|, which is where his presentation begins. So, of course he viewed all my comments as nonsense. Well, I think I now know what he means when he says |undefined information|, so everything else should fall quickly into place. I will run into a wall when I leave words and enter the abstract thinking of pure mathematics--but I must, so I will give it a shot.

[Rade]

Hello good Doctor. I see I did not get a reply yet to a very important question. You said this:

 

I have no idea as to how it would be possible to predict any pattern from undefined information without making presumptions as to what that data represented. That is exactly why I have often compared my work to the Dewey decimal system for cataloging books. My work is essentially analysis of a data compression system which will reproduce the apparent expectations for the known information.

You have not explained what you mean by "known information" ? You have clearly identified |undefined information| as the begin of your presentation, and the fact that you "provide a mechanism for representing "defined information" in terms of |undefined information|".

 

But, why do you introduce this new phrase "known information" here ? What does this mean ? How do you get to the point in your presentation of "reproducing the apparent expectation for the known information" from |undefined information| ? I have a roadblock in understanding.

 

In summary, you have introduced three types of information

 

1. Undefined information --OK, I understand

2. Defined information --OK, I understand

3. Known information --?? what is this

 

So, does this mean you also consider in your presentation:

 

4. Unknown information ??

 

==

 

OK, I decided to just put this into a new post, rather than edit the previous, because it is a critical roadblock for my understanding now.

[AnssiH]

Well, there's not much point bickering too much about words. Maybe I shouldn't have said perception because it is already an interpretation but goodness, let's try to get each other's point.

 

Well goodness, let's try to be clear and unambiguous as best we can. Like I said, "maybe it's just carelessness" that you put it like that, I just wanted to be sure because it's an important bit.

 

That's the impression you had but it isn't how it was. I simply lost confidence in the possibility of you relating it to Dick's presentation and your opinions.

 

Yes but if at any time tickles your fancy to reveal your objection, and explain how bits are related to DD's analysis, I'll listen.

 

I don't find it interesting at all. The production of many hadrons from incoming ones doesn't need a geometrical explanation, which doesn't suffice at all. He might as well say God steps in with a magic wand and makes new ones appear.

 

I can't figure out any way to interpret that comment in a sense that would make me believe you understand what they are talking about, and that's a bit disturbing... Do you understand, that their comments about the issue have absolutely nothing to do with any alternative way to explain what we call quarks?

 

I read exactly what is in your quote of Gribbin and it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

So you have not even read the paper, which you already concluded is ludicrous?

 

Do you believe that a 2 paragraph english language summary of something like the original paper about special relativity would be enough to make conclusions about its validity too? You have made comments about semantical difficulties yourself, you should understand how much gets lost in translation between what there actually is in that paper, and the comments I'm making about it...

 

Look, should I just conclude that, as is the case with Augenstein's paper, you are simply not interested of seriously thinking about DD's analysis, but instead you see it valuable to make superficial comments of things that look vaguely familiar to you? If so, then - with all due respect and belief towards your good intentions - it just serves as a massive obfuscation.

 

Hello. This will be great, a tag team of teachers, unique ratio of 2 teachers to 1 student.

 

Heh, well I was thinking more of the usefulness of having two different explanations of the same thing, it usually amounts to less ambiguity. But I wouldn't want to spend time explaining things you already understand, that's what I meant with first getting up to speed with where you stand :)

 

Anyway, later...

 

-Anssi

[AnssiH]

...But I can make a comment of this one real quick (actually when I read DD's post and saw him using the wording "known information", I knew it could cause confusion because of the terminology I've used before)

 

Hello good Doctor. I see I did not get a reply yet to a very important question. You said this:

 

You have not explained what you mean by "known information" ? You have clearly identified |undefined information| as the begin of your presentation, and the fact that you "provide a mechanism for representing "defined information" in terms of |undefined information|".

 

What he is referring to is simply that any explanation is a function of some information called "past". I.e. the undefined information is in this sense "known" (it has been "given"), even though its meaning is not known.

 

Remember when I made a mess by referring to the undefined information as "unknown information", which I meant as a short-hand to say "information whose meaning is unknown", not as if the information had not been given at all. I think you asked about that too, as in, in what sense it is "unknown" and if it really was "unknown", how could it serve as a basis for any world view. Well, of course it couldn't!

 

So in the same sense, when DD says "known information", he just says that some information has been given in some sense. I.e the information itself is "known", even when we can't think about it without making presumptions about its meaning (those presumptions being exactly our thoughts about the information)

 

"My work is essentially analysis of a data compression system which will reproduce the apparent expectations for the known information." = "My work is essentially an analysis of data compression system which will reproduce the apparent expectations for any given undefined information"

 

-Anssi

[Rade]

..."What he is referring to is simply that any explanation is a function of some information called "past". I.e. the undefined information is in this sense "known" (it has been "given"), even though its meaning is not known." "My work is essentially analysis of a data compression system which will reproduce the apparent expectations for the known information." = "My work is essentially an analysis of data compression system which will reproduce the apparent expectations for any given undefined information".

Very good, thanks. I agree with you, I see no good reason to bring into the discussion (at this stage) the word "known", because, as you explain, it can be taken different ways, and it adds a constraint, because now we must worry about "unknown" as well as "known".

 

But, I now see that you add the word "given" to remove the known issue, which of course means we must allow for "ungiven undefined information" to be possible and open to explanation, which I assume would then be a function of some information called "future", since the "given" is a function of the past ? That is, in the future of all possible explanation is |ungiven undefined information|, and the goal is to use a data compression system that will reproduce the apparent expectations for the |given undefined information|. If yes, it makes sense to me.

 

I have questions about the "what" the |undefined information| is given to, or known by, but these can wait, because they deal with "how" which is likely outside what DD is trying to present.

 

Well, let us wait to see what DD has to say, if he agrees with you. Would he rather stay with "known information" and offer a definition of "known" and "unknown", or go with your suggestion and use "given undefined information" and offer a definition of "given" and "ungiven".

[Rade]

Hello good Doctor. Please do not get angry, but I continue to focus on the begin of your presentation. You said this:

 

We are interested in “explaining” what is “undefined”. That is the central issue of what I have discovered.

 

Next' date=' to move forward, as you said, you need to add a noun after "undefined". You have decided to use "information". You said you considered other terms (noumena of Kant) but decided on information.

 

Now, information as you use it includes all that exists and all that does not exist, because your proof cannot allow for any constraints in what can be explained, thus you must be able to explain non-existent information as well as existent information (recall, this is why you did not like my use of "undefined existence"). Thinking about this, I find that "non-existent information" a difficult idea to grasp. Also, on another thread, you indicated that your presentation really is not about physics or mathematics, it is about philosophy.

 

So, I make a suggestion. I suggest that you consider using the noun "representation" rather than "information". So, you are interested in explaining what is |undefined representation|.

 

This noun meets all the requirements of information, but it has a number of added attributes. First, it is much more easy to grasp "undefined representation" than "undefined information" (well, at least for me). Second, like information, it allows for both what exists and what does not exist (that is, you are interested in explaining both what is represented and what is not represented, and with nothing else being possible, no constraints exist). Third, and I believe of most importance, it fits very well within an important area of philosophy, known as Representational Epistemology. I now believe that what you have discovered is a unique form of Representationalism, as such, your presentation would be of great interest to those philosophers that study this topic. Consider this...Representationalism is a view of reality that is a type of middle ground between what is called naive realism and idealism--and I think you will agree that your presentation is neither of these. Again, I think you have discovered a modification of Representationalism that should be very easy to have published in a journal of Philosophy. The added fact is that you relate your approach to physics.

 

Well, please let me know what you think. Remember, you said somewhere that to understand your presentation one must read what you are saying line-by-line carefully. Well, I am taking it to the next level, trying my best to read you word-by-word carefully.

==

Edit: Well, I knew I read it somewhere--so here are your words DD that seem to agree with my suggestion that you deal with "undefined representation" (as a noun) via a "mechanism" of "representing" (a verb) without any constraint.

 

At no point do I propose any mechanism for transforming “undefined information” into “defined information”. The issue that I provide in that post is a mechanism for representing “defined information” in terms of “undefined information” without putting any constraint on that representation whatsoever.

[AnssiH]

Okay, so I decided to give few comments which hopefully will help clarifying your thoughts, instead of confusing you more :)

 

One thing that strikes me is that many of your questions have to do with somewhat trivial details, which would be easily understood when the analysis was better understood. I know the feeling; I understand you are trying to proceed extra carefully, trying to make sure you understand exactly what is being communicated so you could interpret the next step more properly.

 

For instance, the fact that DD is using the word "information" together with "undefined" is simply because of the need to use some word to refer to the fact that something underlies our mental idea of reality. Any word you'd choose would carry unwanted implications with it. The comment about "noumena" requiring the understanding of Kant is incredibly apt; your description of what Kant meant in your opinion is very different from how I take it, and certainly whenever I've used the word "noumena", you must have interpreted me wrong (I have meant to refer to an undefined/underlying form of the same information that our perceptions are a defined form of)

 

Likewise, just recently when I said "undefined data", you tried to understand why exactly I used the word "data". Well, the same issue, I have to use some word, albeit you noticed in this thread I tried also just saying "the UNDEFINED". :)

 

As has been voiced, "undefined information" is a somewhat challenging concept to communicate, using defined words... It's just something you come to realize when you understand that any attempt to understand anything will always come in some defined terminology, and that terminology is never the underlying information itself. (the map is not the territory, and so on)

 

For me, perception places no role at all to inform the real structure of reality, but perception does play a role in all world views. If you do not get evidence of "undefined information" via senses, how exactly does it enter the mind ? Something must bring the "undefined information" into mental grasp so that an actual explanation can be applied to it, and this something is called perception. It is such a basic understanding that I really do not see why we even discuss the obvious ?

 

I agree with you that the the starting point of DD's approach is NOT perception, the starting point is the "undefined information" and a need to provide explanation of the information.

 

Your last comment there should serve as an answer to the question right before it :)

 

I'll just put it in my own words; "Because DD's analysis is not to be constrained by the specific characteristics of our perceptions". I.e. we can't limit ourselves by the specific terminology of our perceptions, since our perceptions are not the reality itself.

 

So it's important that you remember, when we say "explanation (of undefined information)", it is NOT only referring to something we explain to ourselves consciously (based on our perceptions). It is to refer to the entire translation chain from something unknown to what we mentally perceive and comprehend.

 

I could perhaps say; "the explanation" also contains the transformation performed by the sensory organs and the brain without conscious effort. Except I wouldn't like to say that because "sensory organs" and "the brain" are defined entities, not to be constraining the analysis. I'm sure you can see what sorts of communication problems could arise if you tried to read something like that word by word; it implies we are entering a discussion about neurophysiology.

 

On that note, "All valid explanations" is to refer to all valid possibilities open to us, when we disregard the specific terminology of our perceptions. Which is not to say we are ignoring the information underlying our perceptions! It's just to say, we want to be sure we allow any alternative representations of the same underlying information, whatever it may be (we don't know what it is, remember).

 

 

I need a method of representing any and all explanations (a method which makes utterly no presumptions on what those explanations are). I do make the presumption that all actual explanations do indeed define the things they are explaining thus these definitions need to be represented in my notation; in a way which makes no presumptions as to what these definitions are!

OK, very clear. You do make this one presumption.

 

This is another case of reading too much into unwanted implications of english words, making you think something far more complicated than what he is saying. Think about what he is saying there with that sentence. He could just as well say, that "we are only concerned of explanations that define things".

 

Or, if that is taken as a presumption, think about what sort of explanation (world view) it would be, that didn't make any definitions? I.e, a world view that wouldn't interpret anything as anything. Should we be concerned of the possibility of such things in our analysis, when it could not even express its expectations in any way?

 

And why he is stating something that trivial. Well, if you read the whole paragraph with thought, you can see he is simply trying to communicate, that he is interested of coming up with a notation that is capable of representing any sorts of defined entities, that could ever appear in any explanation.

 

That should answer few of your follow-up questions as well in that same post.

 

Very good, thanks. I agree with you, I see no good reason to bring into the discussion (at this stage) the word "known", because, as you explain, it can be taken different ways, and it adds a constraint, because now we must worry about "unknown" as well as "known".

 

But, I now see that you add the word "given" to remove the known issue, which of course means we must allow for "ungiven undefined information" to be possible and open to explanation, which I assume would then be a function of some information called "future", since the "given" is a function of the past ? That is, in the future of all possible explanation is |ungiven undefined information|, and the goal is to use a data compression system that will reproduce the apparent expectations for the |given undefined information|. If yes, it makes sense to me.

 

I have questions about the "what" the |undefined information| is given to, or known by, but these can wait, because they deal with "how" which is likely outside what DD is trying to present.

 

Well, let us wait to see what DD has to say, if he agrees with you. Would he rather stay with "known information" and offer a definition of "known" and "unknown", or go with your suggestion and use "given undefined information" and offer a definition of "given" and "ungiven".

 

This is also simply a case of reading too much into unwanted implications of the words I'm using, so let me just try this again.

 

When DD says "my work is essentially analysis of a data compression system which will reproduce the apparent expectations for the known information.", he is saying explanations (of undefined information) can be seen as methods of translating large amounts of information into a much less voluminous form. His use of the word "known information" just refers to the fact, that this compression can be performed to ANY information (any information can be translated into that same terminology).

 

"Unknown" information would, in that context, just mean information that the explanation is not based on. I.e. an explanation cannot be a based on information that is not known. Or since the word "known" carries unwanted connotations, perhaps I could say something like "an explanation cannot be based on information that is not"? I believe, in your personal terminology you might say something like, "an explanation is based on undefined information that exists. It cannot be based on undefined information that does not exist".

 

I am wary of the word "exist" because it is such an ambiguous word. In the above sentence, the correct way to take it would be "exists in our mind" or "exists epistemologically". Incorrect way to take it would be "exists in external reality".

 

I don't have to look far to uncover problems of exactly that ambiguity;

 

No, I can not allow the presumption that “undefined information” exists.

Yes, very clear now. Undefined information is the sum total collection of all that exists and all that does not exist..

 

DD is using the word "exist" as referring to something that "really exists out there", as oppose to something that "only appears in your mind", if you get what I mean...

 

Thus his comment "I can not allow the presumption that “undefined information” exists" is just to refer to the fact that solipsism is possible; that we don't know if the "undefined information" is really coming from some external reality.

 

I think you on the other hand use the word as in, the undefined information that "exists" is something that has "entered the mind", and undefined information that doesn't exist is something that has not. For DD, this is exactly what he meant by "known information" (something that has entered the mind).

 

When reading that, keep in mind at all times that "mind" and "entering" are not to be taken as concepts required by DD's analysis, they are just fuzzy words I am forced to use right now. Also remember that the idea of "undefined information entering the mind" is not to refer to us perceiving something, it is still to refer to whatever information our perceptions might possibly be based on.

 

Overall I think the general thing to realize here is that this issue is just riddled with confusing semantical issues that cannot be resolved with english language at all. That is why I would suggest you to try to understand DD's universal notation, and think yourself about how and in what sense it could be universally useful notation, for representing any possible explanations;

 

http://scienceforums.com/topic/21476-laying-out-the-representation-to-be-solved/

 

Be careful of unwanted implications carried by the english words (keep your mind open to the fact that they will exist in there), but at the same time, feel free to ask questions if things sound confusing.

 

-Anssi