Answering Qfwfq

[Doctordick]

Thanks for your efforts Anssi. I have been trying to get a handle on Rade's problems and, since the hypography has been loading so slow, I have been composing what follows as an OpenOffice document. That together with other things my wife and I have to do has sort of slowed me down. Tell me if this clears anything up.

 

Rade, you post a lot of information on which I will not comment. I will only refer to the things which I feel tend to lead towards misinterpretation so as to keep this thing as clear as possible.

 

Perhaps then it is best you not refer to the index as (t), since (t) does seem to imply you are referring to time?

I use the index “t” because I happen to know where it will eventually lead. It will turn out that, in spite of the fact that it presumes none of the qualities commonly associated with time, it will lead to exactly the mathematical representation commonly referred to as time. From a mathematical perspective, it makes no difference what letter we use to refer to a specific index so why add additional transitions to be made down the line? Everything will be fine so long as you never forget the fact that, regarding the mathematical analysis, it is nothing more than an index.

And, yes it is very important that you use my definitions.

 

I now understand that "information" as you use it for "undefined information" includes all that exists and all that does not exist.

I feel a little uncomfortable with the way you put it because it does not necessarily consist of “all that exists”. It rather consists of all (the mathematical concept of “the universe of information”) which stands behind the explanation being represented; a slightly different concept. The fact that “what it is” is “undefined” leads to a little difficulty in clearing up exactly what is meant; but I see this as somewhat acceptable as even “what it is” is essentially undefined so the difficulty sort of lies beyond concern except for some specific circumstances which will become clear down the road.

 

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.

Another somewhat askew view of what Anssi and I are talking about. I would hold that, “one would want to explain what they think they know” a somewhat different category. Even conceiving of everything which exist (or does not exist) is essentially beyond mankind's ability. Nonetheless, when I go to construct my representational notation, the issue of being able to represent all possibilities is still a serious issue.

 

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.

Then I would say that it is incumbent upon you to specify what it is that needs to be accepted as being true here? All I am saying is that, in the absence of any definitions, we have no definitions to work with and if there is anything to work with it can be categorized as “undefined information”. I can only guess that you are somehow thinking of “a priori” knowledge. If that is the case, I would still ask how that information comes to be defined: i.e., unless you can show me how the definition is obtained, even “a priori” knowledge can be categorized as “undefined”.

 

That is, “undefined information” is the starting point by definition. If you want to call that “axiomatic” then so be it.

 

Of course how you define an explanation, must result in placing some constraint on an explanation.

Yes, that is indeed a critical issue. I would point out that people seldom even consider that issue seriously. I personally think that it is the issue which caused philosophy to be dropped from the field of “exact sciences”. In essence I am confronted with two very important problems here. First of all, I must make sure that there exists no explanation (and I am here referring to the common concept of an explanation) which cannot be represented by my notation: i.e., that the notation itself places no constraints whatsoever on what an explanation may be.

 

And, second, I must make sure that there is nothing which satisfies my definition which can not be seen as “an explanation”. If my definition satisfies these two implicit constraints, then I am indeed talking about the common concept of “an explanation” and I can then concern myself with the constraints implied by the definition itself.

 

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 ?

No, I have no problem with your metaphor at all. Likewise, if you wished to discover what constraints are placed on a traffic light by the definition of a “traffic light” you would first have to set up a definition for your traffic light in an exact analytical representation: i.e., think of a computer program which would convert an arbitrary data stream into (it's a traffic light)/(it's not a traffic light). You would then have to make sure that everything commonly thought of as a traffic light satisfied your definition and finally you would have to establish that everything which satisfied your definition would qualify as a traffic light. Once you satisfied those two questions in the affirmative, you could use that mathematical representation as the definition of “a traffic light” and, via mathematics, discover exactly what constraints were implied.

 

What I am trying to point out to you is the fact that your example is a far more complex problem than the one I am proposing. Solving your problem essentially requires solving the problem of AI first. My problem is much much simpler. What you need to understand is the fact that analytical representation of definitions is not a simple matter and can involve many esoteric difficulties.

 

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

Can you comprehend the need to think about real traffic lights in setting up your computer program as discussed above? It is exactly the same problem and, in my mind, quite a bit more difficult.

 

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

Not because I wanted to but rather because I didn't know how to represent such a thing with my notation. In thinking about it, I have now come up with a way of representing such an explanation with my representation. All I need do is to allow a specific “i” index be undefined by the explanation being represented. Though I can not conceive of an explanation which makes use of “undefined elements” I can certainly represent the circumstance with my notation. So we can remove that presumption.

 

... the defined is coming to be while at the same time the undefined is going away?

I think you are once again misinterpreting what is going on. There are two very important issues be discussed here which must be connected to one another. First there are the elements of the undefined information which stand behind the explanation. (The word “element” refers to the fact that, whatever it is that we are talking about, it cannot be reduced to something simpler; there is more to that statement than there appears to be and it takes a little serious thought to worry out the full necessity of such a thing and its implications. I will leave the issue to another time as it really deserves a thread of its own.) Second, there are the defined (and some perhaps undefined) elements of the explanation being represented by the notation. Until you point out a specific explanation which requires an undefined element I will simplify things by referring to these elements as defined.

 

Each element of the explanation being represented is either actually one of those undefined elements standing behind that explanation (which we might call a “real” undefined element) or it is a fictitious element required by that self same explanation (note that we do not have the power to determine the difference as we do not actually know what it is that stands behind that explanation). So, what is needed is a way of representing that relationship between the undefined elements and the defined elements of that specific explanation. The common mathematics symbol for an unknown “x” is used to represent the numerical label of the relevant undefined element and the index “i” is used to represent the numerical label of the relevant defined element required by the specific explanation being represented.

 

Undefined things are not changing into defined things; we are merely representing defined things in terms of undefined things, a rather different issue. The relationship between the two will be represented by the symbol [math]x_i[/math].

 

I have one question, do you have a list on any threads of all the different definitions you use?

No I do not; but there are not very many and I usually reassert them whenever I make logical use of them. I like to use common everyday English meanings for the most part so long as I am able to avoid the many problems with ambiguity. One of the problems with such a thread comes immediately to mind: since editing does not bring a thread back to the front, such a thread (since it would require no replies) would rather quickly disappear into the depths of the forum database and thus become rather worthless. B)

 

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|.

Once again you have chosen a word which possesses inherent presumptions and is thus essentially disqualified. Representations have structures thus the use of the word “representation” would imply that what lies behind ones explanation has structure and that is a constraint.

 

Whatever it is, it is certainly undefined; but when we go to look at any specific explanation, and the explanation defines what it considers stands behind it, the common term for the same elements (when they are defined) is “information”. No one ever speaks of the “representation” his explanation explains. We are dealing with exactly the same thing; the problem is simply that, whatever it is, in the total absence of any explanation of anything, it is undefined. I just don't see your inability to grasp such a thing.

 

...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.

No I would not agree! My representation must include both as to exclude either would be a presumptive constraint upon what was or was not being explained.

 

I think you are trying to read too much into what I say. Let us try and keep things simple; they will get complex very quickly on their own.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

Doctordick and AnissH. Well, between your two replies (of which I thank you for taking the time and putting thoughts so clear) I have nothing more to ask. I think I have a good foundation, your posts will help me focus on your definitions and how you use words. I will now move to read the other thread, on the Laying Out of the Representation... do not expect anything too soon, it will take time.

 

One comment, Doctor, you said this:

 

The word “element” refers to the fact that' date=' whatever it is that we are talking about, it cannot be reduced to something simpler; there is more to that statement than there appears to be and it takes a little serious thought to worry out the full necessity of such a thing and its implications. I will leave the issue to another time as it really deserves a thread of its own.[/quote'] fyi, exactly what you describe has been called a "primary substance" by Aristotle. He has lot to say about it, and offers what I think is a valid definition that would mean the same as your word "element". From Webster, a substance is an element, so you talk about the same thing. However, there are many different types of substance for Aristotle, and what you are referring to as element is clearly his primary substance. You may wish to read his thinking about ....something that cannot be reduced to something simpler... This would make for an interesting thread if you wish to begin one. It would very interesting to see EXACTLY how the concept of "primary substance" of Aristotle matches your presentation where you use the word "element". We may find that some of your presentation has already been developed by Aristotle -- but maybe not and/or you add important modification to Aristotle or show where he was in error ?

[Qfwfq]

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 did not say that. Is Augeinstein not proposing an alternative model for hadronic processes?

 

Of course he is not explaining what we call quarks, because he is replacing the quark model with a totally different one. He must describe the proton as a sphere of well defined radius and perfectly smooth continuous substance, so it can be cut exactly as needed by Tarski and Banach (which means very exactly indeed). You can't accuse me of having thought he means to explain quarks.

 

Does he propose to explain QED and weak interactions in the same way? If not, why use two different soaps? Does he address all the conservation laws? If you want it to be a valid interpretation (as Dick calls it) it must pass all the tests. Obviously, I'm not expecting you to know the answers but I hope you can see I have my own little reasons for cautioning you against just supposing those quotes can be taken seriously.

 

"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"

 

Gee Anssi, that's is exactly why my points were relevant, if you would only get it through that anything that you could possibly call information ca be translated into bit sequences, which is a useful tool for treating data compression, cryptography and the likes. If you still think I'm playing some dire trick by talking in bits, just think of it this way: You and Dick are recognizing that it can all be represented as numbers, numbers, numbers and also with a few numbers thrown in too. Now, what kind of numerical thing can't be represented as bits? (At the worst it might not be finite.) I mean gee Anssi, even Dick has often made the Plato cave example with information coming in purely as an off-on sequence. Now, whether that sequence is Morse code or ADSL on optic fiber has absolutely no bearing. A nix geek will have the knee jerk response of translating it into a stream and if this has a given length it's the same thing as a file.

 

I'll have a better look at that post of Dick's to see if I find any further hints.

Edited October 18, 2010 by Qfwfq
slight revisions

[AnssiH]

I did not say that. Is Augeinstein not proposing an alternative model for hadronic processes?

 

No.

 

He is talking about logical connections between definitions, i.e. being able to define such and such entities to your world model, if you already have appropriate associated definitions.

 

There were comments about how any mathematical relationship can be turned into a mental model consisting of some defined entities, and consequentially, whatever mathematical manipulation you can perform to some expressed relationship (to express the same thing differently), can also be seen as a translation between two mental models of reality.

 

Ultimately, he is arquing that quarks are valid definitions by some surrounding definitions already. I.e. that the behaviour which you call hadronic processes (I assume you are referring to some collision experiments where quarks are observed) was already fully expected by the full definition behind hadrons.

 

I believe his paper is quite a bit more analytical that my above hand waving so I don't really see any point of judging it based on something I'm saying. The reason I mentioned it at all was that I thought you could see some parallels between what DD is doing and what Augenstein is talking about. And since you said "his alternative model is not sufficient", I found that interesting because it might be indication as to how you view DD's work. For instance, do you think that his analysis of special relativity is also just an attempt to represent the same relationships differently?

 

If so, then you are missing what is is trying to say. He is showing how relativistic time relationships are part of our epistemological methods of understanding reality, i.e, an inherent feature of the data compression mechanism that translates recurring patterns into defined persistent entities. If you were to trace where all the definitions he is using are coming from, you could see the are never making any assumptions about relativistic time relationships actually being an inherent feature of the information that is being explained.

 

His work is not set out to replace relativity, just like the Four Color Theorem is not set out to replace the maps... :I

 

It is to say something ABOUT relativity, and likewise Augeinstein is set out to say something ABOUT quarks.

 

That's pretty much the clearest I can put it, but don't confuse the above hand waving arguments with the actual analytical attempts to prove these things.

 

 

Gee Anssi, that's is exactly why my points were relevant, if you would only get it through that anything that you could possibly call information ca be translated into bit sequences, which is a useful tool for treating data compression, cryptography and the likes. If you still think I'm playing some dire trick by talking in bits, just think of it this way: You and Dick are recognizing that it can all be represented as numbers, numbers, numbers and also with a few numbers thrown in too. Now, what kind of numerical thing can't be represented as bits? (At the worst it might not be finite.) I mean gee Anssi, even Dick has often made the Plato cave example with information coming in purely as an off-on sequence. Now, whether that sequence is Morse code or ADSL on optic fiber has absolutely no bearing. A nix geek will have the knee jerk response of translating it into a stream and if this has a given length it's the same thing as a file.

 

I still don't understand why you are bringing that up. Look at the arguments he does with the algebra, why is it relevant to bring up the definition of bits? I'm guessing you are thinking of whether some of his moves are found from some information theoretical analyses? And in particular analyses that make their arguments in terms of bits? So are you thinking of translating his arguments into a terminology where each number would be expressed as bits?

 

Let us know if you find some parallels (it could of course be interesting), but in the meantime, you should understand that his use of numbers in the universal notation is setup because it serves the purpose of being absolutely general notation. If you used a notation where those numbers were expressed in terms of bits, you would immediately make implications about continuity assumptions that some explanations can contain. I.e, the notation itself would be limited in that it could not be used to accurately express world views that assume continuity. The expectations would be a function of the notation, and that would have an effect to the results of the analysis. (the chosen bit-width limits the amount of decimals or discrete steps you can express, to put it bluntly)

 

Or, maybe you are thinking of the fact that the amount of information standing behind an explanation is always limited, and due to that it should be possible to always express that information in terms of bits. Probably, but I have no idea how to analyze the situation from that starting point; at any rate it would probably look very different from DD's analysis.

 

-Anssi

[Qfwfq]

No.

I am finding it no more use to discuss Dick's presentation with you than with him. You just miss my points and reply with things that are not relevant and no use. You don't even match up with things that he says, e. g. things in his post that confirm my point about bit sequence representation.

[AnssiH]

Replying to the post from "Laying out the representation to be solved", it's more appropriate to reply here;

 

Gee, you dismissed my argument about bit sequences claiming Dick's notation couldn't always be translated into a finite sequence.

 

Do you mean like when I said;

 

Or, maybe you are thinking of the fact that the amount of information standing behind an explanation is always limited, and due to that it should be possible to always express that information in terms of bits. Probably, but I have no idea how to analyze the situation from that starting point; at any rate it would probably look very different from DD's analysis.

 

?

 

Note also the paragraph right before it. I'm talking about the trivial floating point inaccuracy problems of course (the fact that you can't represent decimals accurately in binary arithmetics, if you are unfamiliar with the terminology). Or to be more precise with what the actual problem is; to make the universal notation a bit wise representation implies finite accuracy to what positions (in the coordinate system) can be represented, which could affect the results.

 

Note also that I make a comment that I can't tell from your text if that's at all what you even had in mind, and I'm asking questions about what it might be.

 

Indeed you are in the habit of dismissing things all too quickly and easily, only because you don't understand them. This doesn't help someone trying to reach you.

 

Great but then also pay attention to what I'm saying, for instance just in the post above. Also I seem to recall you said you didn't want to put in the time to examine this analysis carefully, to which I said you certainly don't have any obligation to, but then it would also be appreciated if you didn't make all kinds of confusing random comments either.

 

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

 

Is it required that I study that subject before you tell me what it has got to do with DD's analysis?

 

I did not STATE to that effect, I ASKed a question regarding it and it's the very question I asked again if you had thought about. You definitely haven't. But of course it is no use.

 

Then tell me why didn't my original answer satisfy you?

 

-Anssi

[Qfwfq]

I'm talking about the trivial floating point inaccuracy problems of course (the fact that you can't represent decimals accurately in binary arithmetics, if you are unfamiliar with the terminology). Or to be more precise with what the actual problem is; to make the universal notation a bit wise representation implies finite accuracy to what positions (in the coordinate system) can be represented, which could affect the results.

 

Note also that I make a comment that I can't tell from your text if that's at all what you even had in mind, and I'm asking questions about what it might be.

I'm so unfamiliar with the terminology :rolleyes: that I'm able to tell you that the problem you are talking about does not depend on what notation you use and it is always possible to devise a bit sequence format that it can be translated into. It was just a totally irrelevant objection.

 

So, where was I not paying attention to what you said?

 

I seem to recall you said you didn't want to put in the time to examine this analysis carefully, to which I said you certainly don't have any obligation to, but then it would also be appreciated if you didn't make all kinds of confusing random comments either.

What I don't have time for is dealing with uncooperative respense when I queried for clarifications. The more it looks like a potential objection, the less cooperative the response is.

 

Is it required that I study that subject before you tell me what it has got to do with DD's analysis?

It would have been helpful if you did not presume to dismiss my points, when you are none the wiser about the topic. Telling me where you are lacking would have been more reasonable.

 

Then tell me why didn't my original answer satisfy you?

Which original answer? you quite simply dismissed my question without having understood the premise.

 

There's no ruling out that the file could have been produce in some totally different format with some totally different meaning, perhaps compressed but by a totally different algorithm, and it just happened to be interpretable in that alternative manner. There's no ruling out that the sender had used a random bit generator. It's all a matter of plausibility, especially if an interpretation keeps yet again proving to have great survival value. The fact is that you and Dick discuss these ideas with a lot of claims but don't show competence. If you refuse to study more about the role of entropy in information theory, you're "not required" to make all too bold claims about interpreting information (and even dismiss the points of others).

[AnssiH]

I'm so unfamiliar with the terminology :rolleyes: that I'm able to tell you that the problem you are talking about does not depend on what notation you use and it is always possible to devise a bit sequence format that it can be translated into. It was just a totally irrelevant objection.

 

I suppose the first comment is sarcasm. I'm not belittling you, I just try to avoid words that are familiar only to people with specific backgrounds, it doesn't help communication and it always seems pretentious when people do it.

 

So, where was I not paying attention to what you said?

 

Here;

 

Or, maybe you are thinking of the fact that the amount of information standing behind an explanation is always limited, and due to that it should be possible to always express that information in terms of bits. Probably, but I have no idea how to analyze the situation from that starting point; at any rate it would probably look very different from DD's analysis.

 

Like I said in #89 and then tried to clarify in my previous post, I was just commenting on a problem of straightforward transformation from numerical indices to bit-sequence representation of those numbers, and I continued that with "I do not even know if that is what you had in mind".

 

What I don't have time for is dealing with uncooperative respense when I queried for clarifications. The more it looks like a potential objection, the less cooperative the response is.

 

You are not making it any easier by only clarifying your questions with cheeky one-liners. Questions which were very superficial to begin with.

 

It would have been helpful if you did not presume to dismiss my points, when you are none the wiser about the topic. Telling me where you are lacking would have been more reasonable.

 

I understand the idea of quantifying uncertainty associated with unknown facets of some circumstances, and essentially everything before they get to the mathematical definitions in "definition" part. As you know, I'm not familiar with math and it would take me some while to just study the meaning of the symbols they are using. That is why I think the way to proceed would be if you told me what is the connection that you think might be there, between DD's analysis, and the idea of entropy in information theory?

 

Which original answer? you quite simply dismissed my question without having understood the premise.

 

I mean the original reply trying to explain why you are off-topic. But if you were really just wanting to ask an unrelated question for whatever reason, then let's get back to it;

 

You try opening it Word and it says invalid format, try with Excel and it also gives an error, Corel and Autocad, and many others. You might suppose it was a totally randomly generated sequence of bytes, which are just combinations of eight bits with 255 combinations each. Just before you delete it as rubbish, your geek friend stops you and tries various decompression algorithms first. One of these works and you again try different formats. Acrobat successfully opens it as a .pdf doc and whatìs more, the text content is perfectly grammatical Finnish and its semantics even makes sense. In fact it is a tutorial on how to play the electric guitar, you try following it and find it is a great help in improving your proficiency with the instrument; you no longer have to use headphones to avoid folks complaining, you can now hold a concert in your neighborhood and people like it.

 

At this point, how seriously would you take the idea that the unknown sender had really sent some engineering project in the format of some unheard of SCADA application that you hadn't tried opening it with, but the byte sequence just happened to be translatable in a manner that made a totally different sense and turned out having great survival value?

 

Not very seriously.

 

There's no ruling out that the file could have been produce in some totally different format with some totally different meaning, perhaps compressed but by a totally different algorithm, and it just happened to be interpretable in that alternative manner. There's no ruling out that the sender had used a random bit generator. It's all a matter of plausibility, especially if an interpretation keeps yet again proving to have great survival value.

 

Right, and is that related to the analysis somehow? You seem to be saying that, because the definitions of modern physics offer a lot more plausible valid model of reality than some other definitions thrown together arbitrarily, thus the analysis is useless? Or something like that. :shrug:

 

The fact is that you and Dick discuss these ideas with a lot of claims but don't show competence. If you refuse to study more about the role of entropy in information theory, you're "not required" to make all too bold claims about interpreting information (and even dismiss the points of others).

 

Here you seem to be saying that me and DD can't understand his analysis without first understanding entropy in information theory? Or that whatever the results of the analysis appear to be, can't be understood without understanding entropy in information theory? Is that your position?

 

-Anssi

[Qfwfq]

it always seems pretentious when people do it.

I often find your response pretentious, when you dismiss my points and decree them irrelevant, only because you don't understand them. This includes describing my questions as very superficial to begin with. At the same time you explain your judgement of me not paying attention to you witha quote and:

Like I said in #89 and then tried to clarify in my previous post, I was just commenting on a problem of straightforward transformation from numerical indices to bit-sequence representation of those numbers, and I continued that with "I do not even know if that is what you had in mind".

but I don't see how it justifies your accusation. I had payed attention to what you quoted there, I only found it unsubstantive; you were just ignoring (even denying) the mathematical equivalence I had called attention to.

 

I understand the idea of quantifying uncertainty associated with unknown facets of some circumstances, and essentially everything before they get to the mathematical definitions in "definition" part. As you know, I'm not familiar with math and it would take me some while to just study the meaning of the symbols they are using. That is why I think the way to proceed would be if you told me what is the connection that you think might be there, between DD's analysis, and the idea of entropy in information theory?

I don't have the time to tutor you in information theory without even being a professor of these topics myself. You suppose my points to be irrelevant, you suppose I don't understand your points, you neglect the possibility that instead I see a few millimetres beyond them.

 

The whole thing is not very simple at all and, by raising obstacles, you don't make it easy for me to reach you. Dick has never made his presentation very clear and well defined, even with your assistance some shady things remain and this does not serve to make it conclusive. I do see some troubles it runs into but it always seems useless to point them out.

 

Not very seriously.

Yet, you have said things as if it should be taken very seriously indeed. Actually, even in a far more extreme scenario: interpreting our experience, having expectations about ordinary things and hence "understanding" them and ranging from this to analysing data from scientific apparatus according to the experimental setup and the different settings that one might choose. Sheesh, I wasn't even allowed to talk about phenomenology without having "made ontological assumptions"; you should realize that what I said can be cast in neo-Kantian, Machian or neurophysiological terms.

 

Right, and is that related to the analysis somehow? You seem to be saying that, because the definitions of modern physics offer a lot more plausible valid model of reality than some other definitions thrown together arbitrarily, thus the analysis is useless? Or something like that.

This is a very hasty interpretation of my argument which neglects the entire path we had traversed, with all your refusals to consider points of mine. I address certain objections you had been making and you reply as if I presumed it to be a conclusive argument against your whole doctrine. This doesn't contribute to making the debate more constructive.

 

Here you seem to be saying that me and DD can't understand his analysis without first understanding entropy in information theory? Or that whatever the results of the analysis appear to be, can't be understood without understanding entropy in information theory? Is that your position?

Er, I raised a point about it. I even pointed out that Dick mentioned data decompression algorithms, but I don't know exactly how they would come into his main presentation, it might be helpful to know. Way back a few years ago I once queried him about how he would relate his arguments to the entropy of the information to be interpreted but it was no use.

 

One could put the matter of how easy it is for an explanation to be valid for the given information in terms of entropy. This is just like the example of the unknown file having some specific format. If a format is very stringent it is very likely that an arbitrary file will not be valid for that format. We can say it is a low entropy format. We can likewise say that an explanation is low entropy if it is unlikely to be valid for randomly generated information. To be precise, I mean low entropy to be understood as in ratio to the entropy the same amount of random information. I think it would be an improvement if it were possible to discuss things in terms of these tools. I don't know how far you can carry this line of reasoning but, with enough effort, you might see that talking about "facts supported by observation" did not mean I was making ontological assumptions, I was only talking about very very very low entropy.

[AnssiH]

I often find your response pretentious, when you dismiss my points and decree them irrelevant, only because you don't understand them.

 

Then you are reading me wrong. I never dismiss something someone says simply because I don't understand it, and then try to hide behind some deliberately arbitrary comment. I always say "I don't understand the above" or "I'm not sure if my interpretation is correct" if I feel that way. Whenever I respond to something, it's because I think I understand what you are getting it. There are parts in your response which give me that feeling, so let me be more explicit with what I'm thinking;

 

but I don't see how it justifies your accusation. I had payed attention to what you quoted there, I only found it unsubstantive; you were just ignoring (even denying) the mathematical equivalence I had called attention to.

 

I believe the "mathematical equivalence" you are referring to there is the fact that any finite amount of information can be represented with bits. I said "yes that is so" in the last paragraph of #89, but continued with "I don't understand how the analysis would work from that stand point". That accompanied with me, couple paragraphs above, trying to ask questions about what do you have in mind, and saying "let us know if you find some parallels" (guessing it's not something you have exactly thought through yet) I think pretty much summarizes what I was thinking.

 

Currently, I do not understand why you replied "you just miss my points and reply with things that are not relevant".

 

I don't have the time to tutor you in information theory without even being a professor of these topics myself. You suppose my points to be irrelevant, you suppose I don't understand your points, you neglect the possibility that instead I see a few millimetres beyond them.

 

The whole thing is not very simple at all and, by raising obstacles, you don't make it easy for me to reach you.

 

Okay, well let me just say that I don't feel like I'm raising obstacles. :shrug:

 

Yet, you have said things as if it should be taken very seriously indeed. Actually, even in a far more extreme scenario: interpreting our experience, having expectations about ordinary things and hence "understanding" them and ranging from this to analysing data from scientific apparatus according to the experimental setup and the different settings that one might choose.

 

This is the part in your response which most gives me the feeling that you are not thinking what I'm thinking, and that makes me want to explain what I'm thinking. Which, I believe, to you sounds like dismissing your points.

 

And I continue to be puzzled as to why do you give an example about the implausibility of an acrobat file being openable with some other program. Only implication I can think about is that it's a suggestion that the prediction-wise validity of modern physics is the proof of its ontological correctedness (that it's the only valid way to understand reality), or something to that effect.

 

This is a very hasty interpretation of my argument which neglects the entire path we had traversed, with all your refusals to consider points of mine. I address certain objections you had been making and you reply as if I presumed it to be a conclusive argument against your whole doctrine. This doesn't contribute to making the debate more constructive.

 

This sounds like there isn't a clear objection in your mind, which was my original assumption when you started asking any questions, but my answers didn't seem to exactly have the desired effect. Obviously I was trying to sort out the best I good whatever issue you seemed to have in your mind.

 

Er, I raised a point about it. I even pointed out that Dick mentioned data decompression algorithms, but I don't know exactly how they would come into his main presentation, it might be helpful to know.

 

Data compression actually, and if I'm allowed to respond, it's essentially just a comment regarding how there is very large amount of information behind any perception of a single object (or the original perceptions that yielded that object definition). The information that is being interpreted is, without an interpretation, very volumous. Any way to crunch the same "information" into less volumous form (i.e. just a form of bunch of objects moving around and containing identity to themselves etc), should also mean simpler mechanisms for associated predictions.

 

All this talk about ontological assumptions (or lack of) boils down to our object definitions being originated from something whose meaning is unknown, and in particular from some sort of recurring activity to something unknown. There can't be any explicit knowledge about any ontological entities, and any translation of all that information into a form of some persistent objects, is essentially data compression mechanism of large amounts of information. Yet another way to put it, a statement that some object moves from A to B is much simpler than to lay down all that information without invoking the idea that we are in fact talking about a single object all the time.

 

I.e. "an explanation can be seen as a data compression algorithm"

 

Way back a few years ago I once queried him about how he would relate his arguments to the entropy of the information to be interpreted but it was no use.

 

It is probably because he doesn't relate it to it in any way. From my part I can just say that I certainly don't see any way to relate these things, because without definitions you don't know how to draw any entropy estimations.

 

One could put the matter of how easy it is for an explanation to be valid for the given information in terms of entropy. This is just like the example of the unknown file having some specific format. If a format is very stringent it is very likely that an arbitrary file will not be valid for that format. We can say it is a low entropy format. We can likewise say that an explanation is low entropy if it is unlikely to be valid for randomly generated information. To be precise, I mean low entropy to be understood as in ratio to the entropy the same amount of random information. I think it would be an improvement if it were possible to discuss things in terms of these tools. I don't know how far you can carry this line of reasoning but, with enough effort, you might see that talking about "facts supported by observation" did not mean I was making ontological assumptions, I was only talking about very very very low entropy.

 

I can only say what I'm thinking when I'm reading that; I'm thinking there's the same problem here as before, that if you suppose there is a correct format to the information-to-be-explained, you are essentially thinking of how close we could come to it by guess work. Whereas the analysis works all the time in terms of not making any undefendable guesses, i.e. on drawing the predictions from recurring patterns. (Or drawing your object definitions from recurring patterns).

 

So for large amount of information, be it a file or anything else, an explanation that doesn't resort to guessing is essentially an analysis on whatever ways one can recognize recurring activity to it, and express those in terms of some simple persistent entities. That's the basic premise, the actual analysis of where all that leads is somewhat impossible to follow without careful application of mathematics (so don't jump to conclusions).

 

-Anssi

[Qfwfq]

Whenever I respond to something, it's because I think I understand what you are getting it.

Exactly, when you believe you understand.

 

but continued with "I don't understand how the analysis would work from that stand point".

That is irrelevant. The mathematical equivalance has the consequence that conclusions which don't depend on whether you describe it as a bit sequence or what, are valid in either case. That's all I meant; You had been objecting that I draw conclusions that don't apply, for lack of generality, even denying my statements about information theory instead of just saying that you aren't familiar with them. That is why I replied "you just miss my points and reply with things that are not relevant" and it's also why I say you are raising obstacles.

 

This is the part in your response which most gives me the feeling that you are not thinking what I'm thinking, and that makes me want to explain what I'm thinking. Which, I believe, to you sounds like dismissing your points.

The reason it "sounds like" that to me is because you aren't thinking what I'm thinking, and you're explaining instead of understanding.

 

And I continue to be puzzled as to why do you give an example about the implausibility of an acrobat file being openable with some other program. Only implication I can think about is that it's a suggestion that the prediction-wise validity of modern physics is the proof of its ontological correctedness (that it's the only valid way to understand reality), or something to that effect.

You are definitely not getting the point, you have lost track (and made me too) of how we got onto the example of the file and this is due to how you keep addressing my points. The reason I posed that example was an attempt of preparation to address points of yours that would require a few elements of information theory because your frequent talk about recurring patterns has a connection to it.

 

This sounds like there isn't a clear objection in your mind

No, it sounded like your point was total paralogism. If you were trying to sort out the best you could what I was saying, your effort carried a tad too far beyond. I had only started to make a point about the file example, without even tracing back to the source and the exact reason I had posed it; I had not yet meant any great conclusions to be drawn.

 

Egash, looks like I said decompression but it was compression. :doh:

Data compression actually, and if I'm allowed to respond, it's essentially just a comment regarding how there is very large amount of information behind any perception of a single object (or the original perceptions that yielded that object definition). The information that is being interpreted is, without an interpretation, very volumous. Any way to crunch the same "information" into less volumous form (i.e. just a form of bunch of objects moving around and containing identity to themselves etc), should also mean simpler mechanisms for associated predictions.

Formally, what you describe is not data compression at all. It does however have to do with entropy (and even the reason entropy comes into physics) but the role of the above, in the bit sequence analogy, is more akin to specifying a certain format of file; to a mathematician, these two things are just as equivalent to each other as a truck tyre is topologically equivalent to an espresso cup.

 

Yet another way to put it, a statement that some object moves from A to B is much simpler than to lay down all that information without invoking the idea that we are in fact talking about a single object all the time.

How about another example: suppose you have a sealed flask on your desk and you know it contains a certain amount of e. g. chlorine and it's been sitting there for a while, quite settled. To all ordinary, practical purposes, you can specify its state by three simple quantities: volume (fixed by the flask and you could count in shape too, but this isn't essential here) pressure and temperature. Alternatively, one of the last two could be replaced by mass or number of moles. This is called the macrostate because, according to the Boltzmann model (which BTW for quite a while physicists didn't dare consider anything more than a mathematical model that works pretty well), its state can be described by position and motion of a huge number of tiny little entities... but of course this only goes for a brief instant because a picosecond later the so called microstate is totally different. However, the macrostate may remain the same for quite a while, so all these microstates have something in common. You wouldn't quite call it a "recurring pattern" but we can keep your terms anyway and let's suppose it were feasible to record a large enough sample of them to gauge what subset of all microstates belong to the macrostate, an appropriate analysis of this kind could attribute a value of entropy to the macrostate in question.

 

Therefore:

I.e. "an explanation can be seen as a data compression algorithm"

No, it is like the specification a file format. If the above example about the gas is taken in proportianality to the amount of gas, one may consider a very similar thing for the entropy of all files that are a valid .pdf format in proportion to their length. For a sequence of [imath]N[/imath] bits, the maximum possible entropy is [imath]2^N[/imath] which is to say all combinations possible and all equiprobable and this is analogous to a given number of entities or "molecules" being in any possible microstate (instead of those with a given tempeature and pressure). Not all these combinations valid good for a given file format, so it "has" a lower entropy in ratio to size.

 

OTOH a data compression is an invertible algorithm otherwise it would be of no friggin' use. Its inverse is the decompression which restores the original bit sequence. Unlike specifying the macrostate, no information is lost at all. The same information (same entropy, in a sense) goes into a smaller number of bits and so the entropy of the information is nearer to the maximum for a given size of the compressed file. Take all this with a grain of salt because, for brevity, I'm being very sloppy.

 

It is probably because he doesn't relate it to it in any way. From my part I can just say that I certainly don't see any way to relate these things, because without definitions you don't know how to draw any entropy estimations.

Absolutely no relation at all? Sure?

 

One thing I must say: data compression plays no actual role in Dick's analysis, as I thought and contrary to what you both think, but due to the role of entropy in both things there is more that could be said about data compression as a relevant tool in a critical examination of it. That's kinda why I was so relieved when I saw he had mentioned it, I could almost hope I'm allowed to talk about it too. You could perhaps start by going back to what you quoted here:

I can only say what I'm thinking when I'm reading that;

That, which you quoted there, was an all too concise statement of conclusions that it is possible to draw from the considerations in information theory. Ufortunately it seems it would take a while to reach you about it.

 

I'm thinking there's the same problem here as before, that if you suppose there is a correct format to the information-to-be-explained, you are essentially thinking of how close we could come to it by guess work. Whereas the analysis works all the time in terms of not making any undefendable guesses, i.e. on drawing the predictions from recurring patterns. (Or drawing your object definitions from recurring patterns).

 

So for large amount of information, be it a file or anything else, an explanation that doesn't resort to guessing is essentially an analysis on whatever ways one can recognize recurring activity to it, and express those in terms of some simple persistent entities. That's the basic premise, the actual analysis of where all that leads is somewhat impossible to follow without careful application of mathematics

Recurring patterns, undefendable guesses, assumption of there being a correct interpretation or how plausibly there might be alternatives... it has a lot to do with entropy. One thing is sure; logically, there is never a guarantee of the interpretation being "the correct one". We know, and have long known, that induction is not a logically conclusive argument and also remember the monkey at the keyboard argument. Strictly, it isn't impossible that it could perchance type out an excellent sonnet or something. Likewise it isn't impossible that thermal agitation will one day make an object leap up from your desk top. It's just such a tiny probability that we're in the habit of saying it ain't ever gonna happen.

 

(so don't jump to conclusions).

Gosh Anssi, I believe I avoid that more than you do. Since we seem to be getting into exponential growth again, please make an effort. Edited November 16, 2010 by Qfwfq
improvements

[AnssiH]

That is irrelevant. The mathematical equivalance has the consequence that conclusions which don't depend on whether you describe it as a bit sequence or what, are valid in either case. That's all I meant

 

So were you just saying was that this analysis could be translated into bit-wise representation of itself and the conclusions would be the same as they are now? :shrug:

 

Formally, what you describe is not data compression at all.

 

I don't care at all what constitutes data compression formally in whose mind, I just hope you understood my explanation about what DD means by saying that. (Personally I think it is pretty fitting word for the purpose, but I'm not going to argue about words)

 

How about another example: suppose you have a sealed flask on your desk and you know it contains a certain amount of e. g. chlorine and it's been sitting there for a while, quite settled. To all ordinary, practical purposes, you can specify its state by three simple quantities: volume (fixed by the flask and you could count in shape too, but this isn't essential here) pressure and temperature. Alternatively, one of the last two could be replaced by mass or number of moles. This is called the macrostate because, according to the Boltzmann model (which BTW for quite a while physicists didn't dare consider anything more than a mathematical model that works pretty well), its state can be described by position and motion of a huge number of tiny little entities... but of course this only goes for a brief instant because a picosecond later the so called microstate is totally different. However, the macrostate may remain the same for quite a while, so all these microstates have something in common. You wouldn't quite call it a "recurring pattern" but we can keep your terms anyway and let's suppose it were feasible to record a large enough sample of them to gauge what subset of all microstates belong to the macrostate, an appropriate analysis of this kind could attribute a value of entropy to the macrostate in question.

 

I'm afraid that you are still merely analyzing aspects of different definitions. If only just for fun, try to entertain the idea of doing similar analysis between undefined form of the data (behind what we call "a flask of chlorine"), and the macrostate representation of the same thing.

 

How would you begin to analyze the information content of the undefined form without making any definitions? Think about this a bit.

 

Think also about the fact that, if you make definitions, you are talking about entropy relationship between your definitions. That's probably interesting and useful in some areas of science, but entirely off-topic here.

 

OTOH a data compression is an invertible algorithm otherwise it would be of no friggin' use.

 

Come on Qfwfq, keep the context in mind. Becoming able to handle huge amounts of information in simpler (i.e. "compressed") form for prediction reasons is pretty useful, even if you can't turn your definitions or your memories back to the undefined form of the actual information you have received during your lifetime... We are not talking about computer files or any other form of being able to restore the actual original information.

 

Absolutely no relation at all? Sure?

 

Like I said; "From my part I can just say that I certainly don't see any way to relate these things, because without definitions you don't know how to draw any entropy estimations". I said exactly what I meant.

 

Recurring patterns, undefendable guesses, assumption of there being a correct interpretation or how plausibly there might be alternatives... it has a lot to do with entropy. One thing is sure; logically, there is never a guarantee of the interpretation being "the correct one". We know, and have long known, that induction is not a logically conclusive argument and also remember the monkey at the keyboard argument. Strictly, it isn't impossible that it could perchance type out an excellent sonnet or something. Likewise it isn't impossible that thermal agitation will one day make an object leap up from your desk top. It's just such a tiny probability that we're in the habit of saying it ain't ever gonna happen.

 

Look, some of the things you say, and your apparent ability to think logically, makes me think you could understand what the analysis actually says about these things (after walking it through), but I'm really puzzled what makes you persistently come up with these discussions of some completely off-topic things. Boltzmann model vs macroscopic pressure? I know you gave it just as an example, but do you think ANY example you could ever think of, would in any way be related to entropy between undefined information, and something defined?

 

While we can't say much of anything about the undefined information, there are things that can be said about the explanations of undefined information, certainly, and we are trying to have discussions about those things. It's not like we are just saying "there's a miniscule possibility that anything could happen" and then that's the foundation of the analysis.

 

-Anssi

[Qfwfq]

So were you just saying was that this analysis could be translated into bit-wise representation of itself and the conclusions would be the same as they are now?

No Anssi, you completely lost track. I had tried to make points that you utterly neglect, being unfamiliar with the topic. Much of what you follow with is merely your refusal to understand what I've been saying, that information entropy has a bearing on your topic. Get the logic straight.

 

I don't care at all what constitutes data compression formally in whose mind, I just hope you understood my explanation about what DD means by saying that. (Personally I think it is pretty fitting word for the purpose, but I'm not going to argue about words)

Call it a tomato then. If you and Dick keep using words so arbitrarily, we might as well be grunting like a bunch of apes.

 

It's not like we are just saying "there's a miniscule possibility that anything could happen" and then that's the foundation of the analysis.

This was not my point either. What it was seems to have got lost in the plethora of misunderstandings and it seems you just keep refusing to follow my logic (and telling me to think more). No hope. :shrug:

[AnssiH]

You often express your lose of hope towards communication, but if you don't mind, I would have really wanted to hear what thoughts the question "How would you begin to analyze the information content of the undefined form without making any definitions?" sparked in your mind...?

 

-Anssi

[Qfwfq]

I would have really wanted to hear what thoughts the question "How would you begin to analyze the information content of the undefined form without making any definitions?" sparked in your mind...?

It makes me imagine a cryptanalyst whose task is to crack the intercepted messages, without knowing even what kind of algorithm is employed by the authorized senders and receivers. It can be a tough job, depending on how clever the cryptographers are.

[Rade]

"How would you begin to analyze the information content of the undefined form without making any definitions?"

The answer is that you first make no assumptions about the "undefined form". However, you must make the assumptions that "you" have the ability to (i) interact with the "undefined form" and (ii) observe the resultant dynamics of the "undefined form" after the interaction. In other words, without making any assumptions or definitions about the "undefined form", you begin to analyze by coupling to it, in such a way that you and undefined form make a system with feedback [ you <--> undefined form ].

 

This is the ONLY way anyone can "begin" to analyze the "information content" of some "undefined form". This approach is used by scientists and engineers each and every day, it is called black box theory. I suspect not a single one of them know anything about the notational approach of Doctordick, so they may have an interest in his approach.

 

Also, as explained by Qfwfq, there is no "information" content within the undefined form, there is only "undefined data" content that you would begin to analyze after you couple to it.

[AnssiH]

It makes me imagine a cryptanalyst whose task is to crack the intercepted messages, without knowing even what kind of algorithm is employed by the authorized senders and receivers.

 

Then let's see if I can drag that idea towards the actual fundamental issues here.

 

First problem with that idea is that it is erroneous to imply that the goal of an explanation (of undefined data) is in trying to literally crack "the intented meaning" of the data. To be accurate, this is about becoming able to make predictions OF the data, and becoming able to predict the data doesn't mean that your prediction method captures or contains THE meaning of the data.

 

(On a related note, it would be a good idea to just take the data as representing the entire universe, because it would also be harmful to think that the meaning of the data could refer to something outside of the data)

 

The second problem is evidently harder to explain, given that I've tried very many times, but I'll try to explain it in yet another way.

 

When that said cryptoanalyst has got some data in front of him which he can analyze with some methods, that is never undefined data. Whether it is symbols or sounds or bits or any sorts of shapes or anything mentally comprehensible at all, just the fact that you can mentally "perceive" that data in some form means that a transformation from entirely and utterly undefined to some defined form has already occurred.

 

It is that "some unknown transformation" whose impact on our explanations we are trying to take into account, and certainly as long as you just skip that part in your thinking, you will only give off-topic examples, because your thinking always starts from some defined form of something, and your arguments apply to those definitions (i.e. they apply only in the case that that silently implied unknown transformation is the only valid possibility).

 

If you understand what I'm getting at, you should understand what I mean when I say it is not possible to draw entropy considerations from undefined information. It becomes possible only once the said information is translated to some comprehensible form, at which point we are not analyzing the possibilites in "translating undefined form to defined form" anymore.

 

Which gets us straight back to the original question "How would you begin to analyze the information content of the undefined form without making any definitions?"

 

Let me know what thoughts this sparks in you, in particular the point about taking that "some unknown transformation" into account in our analysis.

 

-Anssi