Answering Qfwfq

[Qfwfq]

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.

But you want it to be valid.

 

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.

Which should carry us back to the question I had posed. You finally replied "not seriously" and yet your whole argument seems to be implying that, to the contrary, you think so quite seriously.

 

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.

So, what is the undefined data? A ghost? God? The Tao? Prana?

 

When I talk about bit sequences, I don't imply something comprehensible. Anything that can be called a collection of data might as well be a bit sequence. It doesn't matter what it is. A bit sequence is not one kind of set of data, it's one notation into which any set of data can be translated; to a mathematician it is the exact same thing. Do you understand what I am saying?

 

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.

You keep thinking you have to tell me this (like many other things) when you simply don't follow my point.

 

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.

It isn't quite exactly this either.

 

We still keep grunting like apes. :doh:

[Rade]

So, what is the undefined data? A ghost? God? The Tao? Prana?

In the world view of AnssiH, whatever can be perceived has already been defined, that perception is somehow involved with definition. That is, there is no difference between perception of undefined data and perception of data previously defined.

 

However, I do not hold this world view. Perception of undefined data has nothing at all to do with definition, definition comes much latter in the process of interacting with patterns of energy. Perception takes [data] in the form of sensation, combines sensations, and places the set of sensations into memory. The perception process does not require that anything is known or defined about the input data as sensation, even though a transformation of the data has occurred (combined sensations stored in memory). This process would be how a bee perceives undefined data, the bee does not place a definition on the various colors of flowers it moves to, it reacts to what is perceived with no knowledge of it, other than that it has been perceived as some pattern of energy, completely undefined and unknown as to its nature.

 

==

 

Next, is the question, "what is" the undefined data ?

 

To say, "data is undefined" is to affirm something predicated [undefined] of a subject [data]. So, [data] is a subject, of which something could be predicated. Now, many other attributes could be predicated of the subject [data], here we are only interested in one of them, the attribute [undefined].

 

But, what does it mean to be a subject of which something can be predicated ? There are many senses of the word subject, and one that would apply to "data undefined" is that [data] is "an originating cause". That is, [data] as subject is where the presentation of Doctordick begins, the ultimate undefined and unknown cause that will lead to his definition of explanation. But, it is important to keep in mind that explanation as a procedure is a procedural step after perception, it is during the process of explanation that the [data] as ultimate cause is transformed from having the attribute undefined to having the attribute defined (this process is also known as conception, the process of forming concepts, which is of great importance to philosophy, and the reason I find interest in the approach of Doctordick).

 

Now, another sense of the word subject, used in philosophy, is that it is an "actual substance as opposed to its attributes". Thus, [data] as subject is a substance, and has the attribute of being undefined. Being undefined is secondary to being [data].

 

A substance, such as [data] is something independent that can by acted upon by causes or events. A substance can undergo change into something that it was not previously. Therefore [data] as substance can be assigned a definition, or given some notation, or called a "bit", a wavefunction, etc. So we can see how [data], as subject and substance undefined can enter the process of explanation, how it can undergo change into something that it was not previously--namely being "defined". [note that a "bit" can be changed into music, a wavefunction can be changed by measurement, etc.]

 

One other comment. The statement "data is undefined" is like saying "water is wet". There is a difference between the five letter word "water" and the liquid substance it denotes, which is a molecule (H2O). Likewise, there is a difference between the four letter word "data" and the substance it denotes. Data, in the singular, as a datum, represents a singular quantum of energy (such as a photon prior to placing a definition on it). It is quantum of energy combined that becomes the repetitive pattern of energy as sensation that enters perception, is stored in undefined form as a pattern, that can enter the procedure of explanation, where it is transformed into a concept and definition placed on it.

 

So, "what is" undefined data ? Same thing as wet water, something predicated of a subject, in this case singular quantum of energy combined into repetitive patterns to form [data] as an actual substance, with the affirmative attribute--undefined.

[Rade]

A comment to a statement made by AnssiH that the approach of Doctordick is about trying to make predictions of undefined data.

 

There are many other goals of explanation other than making a prediction of the future. For example, one often needs to explain why some possible action in the past was not taken. So, for example, you tell a friend you will meet them at 12:00 noon for lunch. You do not show. Any explanation you provide has nothing to do with prediction of what you expect (expectations) to occur in the future. I find it useful to keep this fact in mind to put the presentation into proper perspective.

[Qfwfq]

But Rade in all the above you are not truly addressing the point that was raised; you don't defeat that it makes sense to use bit sequence as a conceptual tool, where it is handy for considerations that don't essentially depend on notation but for which the specific one has some advantages.

 

What Anssi refuses to accept is that making those considerations is not restrictive and neither entails a requirement for the data to be defined a priori. Considerations of entropy apply equally well if one ends up choosing any other notation (including the one these lads use and anyways I don't see why it should be exempt from the same objection if bit sequence isn't).

[Rade]

But Rade in all the above you are not truly addressing the point that was raised; you don't defeat that it makes sense to use bit sequence as a conceptual tool, where it is handy for considerations that don't essentially depend on notation but for which the specific one has some advantages.

I'm confused, my purpose was not to defeat that it makes sense to use "bit" sequence, but to agree with such a use. All I was saying is that, whatever the "bit" may be, each "bit" refers to a singular datum of quantum energy that acts as a subject before any name (such as "bit") is applied. Thus the "data" is a subject "in the abstract" of which something can be predicated, such as a "bit" sequence, or information, or explanation.

 

What Anssi refuses to accept is that making those considerations is not restrictive and neither entails a requirement for the data to be defined a priori.

I agree' date=' and I think it is because he makes "undefined" the subject, and "data" the predicate of the statement "undefined data". Thus "undefined is data", instead of "data is undefined". It gets to the question, does one put existence primary (data) or consciousness (process of defining or not)? This is a question as old as philosophy itself I would think. It seems to me that AnssiH has a world view of the latter, whereas I (and most likely you) have a world view of the former. His comments also indicate that he places the procedure of "definition" within perception, a philosophic position that I completely disagree with. For me, definition comes after perception, even after a concept as been formulated (conception). Definition is the very last stage of the process of concept formation.

 

Considerations of entropy apply equally well if one ends up choosing any other notation (including the one these lads use and anyways I don't see why it should be exempt from the same objection if bit sequence isn't).

Yes, without first a singular datum of substance undefined, a concept of entropy would have no meaning.

[Qfwfq]

Geez, I couldn't quite get what your contention was, though I knew you understand the relevance of bit sequences better than Anssi does.

 

I agree, and I think it is because he makes "undefined" the subject, and "data" the predicate of the statement "undefined data". Thus "undefined is data", instead of "data is undefined".

I agree this is absurd, but I'm not quite sure of it being the logical consequence of what you say next, that he places the procedure of "definition" within perception.

 

For me, definition comes after perception, even after a concept as been formulated (conception). Definition is the very last stage of the process of concept formation.

Partly agreed but our sensory mechanism does (of necessity, for that) constitute a choice of format, which is likely what Anssi has in mind and prevents his understanding of my points.

 

Yes, without first a singular datum of substance undefined, a concept of entropy would have no meaning.

The definition of entropy only requires a probability for each one of some set of "occurences" of whatever kind.

 

A bit sequence of length [imath]N[/imath] can be viewed as [imath]N[/imath] instances of a set of two outcomes; call'em black vs. white or whatever. If we know nothing about what determines each one or any relations between them etc. then we should only consider them as 50-50 for each instance, this gives the intrinsic entropy of the sequence as being [imath]2^N[/imath] which is the case of a perfectly random generator. This is just the number of possible combinations, which are presumed of equal probability, and the same thing holds for a sequence of digits 0 through 9 or what. If instead the data comes from some contrivance (a "reality", we could say) which does admit at least one valid format (an "explanation") then the entropy is lower.

 

Strictly, we cannot compute the entropy of a given bit sequence per se even if it has "odd features" such as highly repetitive patterns, much as these suggest a departure from purely random generation. Many of us may have seen the Star Trek scene where they decide to take some action (I can't remember what) that only Kirk can decide and it requires a secret code digit sequence; Kirk entrusts the envelope to Spock who opens it and dictates to an officer who keys in the highly secret sequence: zero, zero, zero, zero, zero.... :hihi: Yes, strictly speaking it is no less likely than any other single exact sequence. This means the matter is a bit subtle but I can only discuss it one (literally) bit at a time. In short however it means that, strictly, it is the format which has an entropy and not the data, and yet nobody in their right minds would choose certain combinations to protect something of great importance (if they can choose, one of my past ATM card PIN numbers was 20222 and although it wasn't more guessable than any other, many people would perceive it as less safe).

[AnssiH]

But you want it to be valid.

 

It has been stated incredibly many times, that by valid explanation we mean it produces correct predictions, NOT that it is "ontologically correct" somehow.

 

Which should carry us back to the question I had posed. You finally replied "not seriously" and yet your whole argument seems to be implying that, to the contrary, you think so quite seriously.

 

Please try to think about this for a moment.

 

You are concerned with question like;

"Do you take it seriously that a computer file that opens with one program, just so happens to accidentally open with another program and yield completely sensical but completely different information?"

 

And I'm concerned with question like;

"Do you take it seriously that it is possible to generate fundamentally different looking valid explanations (i.e. explanations using different fundamental definitions) to some undefined data"

 

Do you really think those questions must have the same answer? Really? Do you understand that real world examples of the latter basically include things like different quantum interpretations?

 

And do you understand that in your question you are talking about some small amount of information that has got a well defined intented meaning to it. Whereas I'm concerned with trying to make predictions OF some data itself, with inductive reasoning (i.e. inductive conclusions based on some aspects of the data itself)

 

It is really hard to understand how do you suppose those are the same case.

 

So, what is the undefined data? A ghost? God? The Tao? Prana?

 

That is like asking "so what is noumena". You have said things that makes me think you should understand in what sense that is an oxymoronic question. It is undefined, but the moment you make a claim about what it IS, you are not talking about it, in itself, anymore. You are instead talking about your definition of it. Likewise, if you have "a sensation" of "it", that sensation is a defined form. I.e. already translated from something whose real ontological nature is unknown. The analysis is making very many arguments that are only valid when you do not hold onto any assumptions about some perceptions or sensations being representative of some ontological facets.

 

Now look at the arguments DD makes regarding the undefined information behind any valid explanation. Is any of those arguments making any assertion as to what it is? No! And that's the point; we only analyze aspects that we can tell must underlie ANY valid explanation, regardless of what the underlying data "is".

 

When I talk about bit sequences, I don't imply something comprehensible. Anything that can be called a collection of data might as well be a bit sequence. It doesn't matter what it is. A bit sequence is not one kind of set of data, it's one notation into which any set of data can be translated; to a mathematician it is the exact same thing. Do you understand what I am saying?

 

Yes and I said already many posts ago that that's fine in the sense that, it is probably in some way possible to represent the undefined information in terms of bits because we are always talking about finite amount of information. At the same time I keep saying that I do not at all understand why do you bring that up, and I do not know how and what to analyze about undefined data, in terms of bits. Like I said, that is probably an analysis analyzing something different than what DD is trying to get at. To me it seems that the information theory analyses that you are referring to, are not arriving at similar topics as DD is arriving at, or would you say they are in some sense?

 

I suppose you don't feel comfortable in trying to answer that because you are not quite sure what DD is getting at, and I really can't help with that by trying to relate these questions to his analysis. I think, you need to instead follow his analysis and see for yourself.

 

-Anssi

[AnssiH]

I agree, and I think it is because he makes "undefined" the subject, and "data" the predicate of the statement "undefined data". Thus "undefined is data", instead of "data is undefined". It gets to the question, does one put existence primary (data) or consciousness (process of defining or not)? This is a question as old as philosophy itself I would think. It seems to me that AnssiH has a world view of the latter, whereas I (and most likely you) have a world view of the former. His comments also indicate that he places the procedure of "definition" within perception, a philosophic position that I completely disagree with. For me, definition comes after perception, even after a concept as been formulated (conception). Definition is the very last stage of the process of concept formation.

 

What I'm trying to get at is that you are sliding away from the topic by insisting to use different terminology than we are using to communicate this.

 

When you say;

"The perception process does not require that anything is known or defined about the input data as sensation, even though a transformation of the data has occurred (combined sensations stored in memory)."

 

...the important bit if it is indeed that having a perception does entail that a transformation of some sort has already occurred.

 

When we say "defined information", in our terminology that can refer to simply the end result of whatever that "already occurred" transformation is (clearly in your terminology it does not).

 

I.e. just "seeing" nonsensical flashes of light would be "a defined form" ("flashes of light" is defined form), of something whose real ontological appearance you do not know, see, hear, or feel (it is not "flashes of light" in itself, only your mental idea of it is "flashes of light").

 

So in actual fact I wouldn't even say our philosophies differ, only our terminology. I'm afraid you need to just try to remember how we mean these things when reading the analysis.(If you wonder at all why do we use this kind of terminology, it is actually quite needed because of ambiguities that arise when you try to separate the "consciously" and "unconsciously" generated definitions, plus then you have to include a lot of very confusing terminology concerting consciousness and sensory systems, and you make a lot of undefendable implications etc.)

 

About Qfwfq's issue with entropy and bits, same thing, he is talking about a different analysis, i.e. a different topic. If there are parallels, I would be interested to hear them. But he can't be sure if there are, because he doesn't have a clear picture of DD's analysis. So, I really don't know what I am supposed to say to that.

 

-Anssi

[Rade]

Partly agreed but our sensory mechanism does (of necessity, for that) constitute a choice of format, which is likely what Anssi has in mind and prevents his understanding of my points.

Interesting comment. How do you mean, for example, that the rods and cones of the eye (our sensory mechanism for photons) "constitute a choice of format" ? Seems to me the format of the rods and cones was determined by natural selection, which is a non-random reproduction of genotypes, but not what I would call a choice being made by nature.

[Rade]

What I'm trying to get at is that you are sliding away from the topic by insisting to use different terminology than we are using to communicate this.

OK, but this topic is very difficult to grasp, because your approach uses common terminology in uncommon ways, and at least for me, leads to unneeded confusion and misunderstanding of what is being claimed. I know that if I want to learn Spanish, I need to learn new terminology. But, exactly why is it required that an English language explanation of the mathematical notation used by DD must apply uncommon sense of English terminology ? All I ask is that you look for ways to modify the presentation to bring it more in line with common sense terminology, as used by scientists. I am trying to have an open mind and go with the definitions presented, but this does not mean that I must suspend logical use of common sense science terminology.

 

When we say "defined information"' date=' in our terminology that can refer to simply the end result of whatever that "already occurred" transformation is (clearly in your terminology it does not).[/quote']And here then is a good example of what I am talking about. It is not "my" terminology, but the terminology of many scientists that differs from "your" terminology. All I can suggest is that, rather than insist that 99% of scientists change their terminology to understand you, you must find a way to make it crystal clear in the presentation that nothing at all is DEFINED during the transformation that occurs in the rods and cones of the human eye as input sensations of photons result in some chemical transformation. This initial transformation of |undefined information (data)| via sensation-->perception is not within the mind yet, the eye does not define anything. Storage of a set of sensations within memory does not mean the sensations are of anything already "defined", it makes no sense to think this if the sensations are not part of the past, a new sensation never before perceived. What I am trying to say is that it is your (and DD of course) responsibility to make the presentation as clear as possible. To say (or even imply) that the eye defines sensations (or that all sensations are "pre-defined") does nothing but add confusion. The reason this is important is because we are specifically discussing how photon energy sensations of the |undefined information (data)| become "input" (as from a black black) such that they can be explained by a mind.

 

I.e. just "seeing" nonsensical flashes of light would be "a defined form" ("flashes of light" is defined form)' date=' of something whose real ontological appearance you do not know, see, hear, or feel (it is not "flashes of light" in itself, only your mental idea of it is "flashes of light").[/quote']Here I cannot agree. In the same way that "it" {is not flashes of light in itself} NEITHER is it true that "it" {is your mental idea in itself}. That is, your "it" is not "only" either-or of the two options you present. Your philosophy here is one of dualism, you take the one position over the other. My philosophy is of the dialectic of what "it" is. So, in my philosophy your "it" is the entanglement of (1) the flash in itself PLUS (2) your mental idea of the flash in itself. In other words, the seeing event occurs prior to conscious awareness of the event. The eye is not conscious, it does not define, and the only thing it creates are chemical transformations that occur in rods and cones after they come in contact with a photon of energy.

 

Consider your comment "flash of light is defined form". Compare to the statement "water is wet". Both have a subject of which something is predicated. Each subject is a type of substance--water we know as substance H2O, flash of light we know as photon. H2O can have many attributes, one is that it is wet. Photo can have many attributes, one is that it is "defined", that it can undergo a transformation {undefined -->defined}. Thus, flash of light is prior to definition of it, I mean, each photon of energy does not come to the eye with definition attached to it ! If you want the situation to be reversed, you would have to claim "defined form is a flash of light"--you would need to make "defined form" the subject, but, as as you can see, this is just plain silly.

 

But there is another problem. You begin your logical argument with a type of commandment "flash of light IS defined form". However, rules of symbolic logic do not allow any valid argument to begin with a commandment, they must begin with a statement, and by definition all statements must allow for the possibility of being either true or false. You can find no way in your thinking to believe it possible for the contrary "flash of light is undefined form". Thus, the form of your argument is logically not valid. I hope you can see how your command leads to a false conclusion.

 

(If you wonder at all why do we use this kind of terminology' date=' it is actually quite needed because of ambiguities that arise when you try to separate the "consciously" and "unconsciously" generated definitions, plus then you have to include a lot of very confusing terminology concerting consciousness and sensory systems, and you make a lot of undefendable implications etc.)[/quote']Again, I completely disagree with this logic, as I already explained. You are saying that you and DD have decided to use very confusing terminology at the begin of the presentation because you do not want to include very confusing terminology in the future. But, the problem is that once the train of confusion leaves the station, all you can do is compound confusion in the future. For you to conclude in the first logical step of the presentation (how |undefined information (data)| is to be understood) that it must be understood that the eye defines reality, or that what enters the rods and cones is "pre-defined" sensation, and that I must agree to this use of terminology to understand the presentation to come, suggests to me that what will come in the future will make less sense to me, not more. All I ask is that you take seriously what I am saying if your goal is to end with a presentation that could be submitted to a journal for peer review.

[Rade]

It has been stated incredibly many times, that by valid explanation we mean it produces correct predictions, NOT that it is "ontologically correct" somehow.

It really depends what you mean by "correct". For me, correct means you are certain of the conclusion, that it is certain the conclusion follows from the premise.

 

If as you say it is possible for a valid explanation to be ontologically incorrect (or not relevant to the issue of ontology), perhaps it is possible that valid explanation produces incorrect predictions (or not relevant to the issue of predictions). You cannot just make a commandment that valid explanation always produce correct predictions, you have to show logically from the form of the reasoning used that any predictions are correct. You mention all the various interpretations of quantum theory--but--what makes you think any of them are correct ? Suppose I claim they are all incorrect. Or, I claim that only one is correct, all the rest false. These comments lead into the following observation

 

Whereas I'm concerned with trying to make predictions OF some data itself' date=' with inductive reasoning (i.e. inductive conclusions based on some aspects of the data itself)[/quote']OK, now this is a very important statement, and greatly clarifies this presentation.

 

Consider the following:

 

a: there is smoke

b: therefore, there is fire

 

This is an example of using inductive logic to reach a conclusion. But, note that this method of reasoning reaches conclusion using probability in which the truth of the premise (there is smoke) can only make "likely" the truth of the conclusion (there is fire). In other words, any argument or presentation based on inductive reasoning means that it is plausible that the conclusion reached is false.

 

Thus:

 

a: there is data itself

b: therefore, there are correct predictions

 

So, because you limit your world view to inductive reasoning, then your conclusion that the valid explanation presented in this presentation reaches correct predictions, must logically be fallible, it may be incorrect, this is what it means to reason inductively. Of course this is one of the constraints of a valid explanation as DD has defined it, that the definition is derived from inductive reasoning and not deductive reasoning. If this presentation was developed using deductive reasoning, then laws of logic require that any conclusion reached by the presentation would of necessity certainly be true. But, as you say, the presentation does not derive from deductive reasoning.

 

It is an unfortunate consequence of the choice to constrain the presentation to inductive reasoning because, logically, if any argument is deductively correct, it is also judged to be inductively correct as well. But, converse is not true. So, at best, the inductive presentation of DD if correct, can be judged to be reasonable, but can never be judged to be correct, for only that which is certain is correct.

 

I would suggest that in the begin of the presentation it is made clear that all that follows is from inductive reasoning, I did not pick up on this fact until you now mention it, but it explains why I have been at odds with so many aspects of the presentation. I was under the illusion that the presentation of DD was derived using deductive reasoning.

 

That is like asking "so what is noumena". You have said things that makes me think you should understand in what sense that is an oxymoronic question. It is undefined' date=' but the moment you make a claim about what it IS, you are not talking about it, in itself, anymore. You are instead talking about your definition of it.[/quote']What do you mean "anymore" ? Anymore assumes you once were talking about something in itself, but this is not logically possible, it is not possible for reason to talk about "in itself", the only way to do this is to be inside the thing itself. When you make a claim about "it", you are not making any claim about "in itself" (impossible), you make a claim that "it is" something to make a claim about. We can only talk about "definition", there is no "instead" about it. Instead of what ? What can I talk about anything (rock, sun chair..) outside a definition--a word that I place on a concept for communication ? When I talk about my definition of the substance "water", the difference between the five letter word in English and the liquid substance the word defines, should be obvious enough. In another language, another word definition for the exact same liquid is used.

 

Asking "what is noumena" and providing an answer is what Kant spent large part of his life on--it is not oxymoronic question. For Kant, one sense of noumena is "thing in itself". If it was oxymoronic to ask a question about noumena "thing in itself" why would Kant have said this...

 

[from Prolegomena, Kant]...reason by all its a priori principles never teaches us anything more than objects of possible experience, and even of these nothing more than can be cognised in experience. But this limitation does not prevent reason leading us to the objective boundary of experience, viz., to the reference to something which is not in itself an object of experience, but is the ground of all experience. Reason does not however teach us anything concerning the thing in itself...

 

Here Kant offers a definition of noumena (in red), and we are lead to this definition by reason, but the boundary of the object defined cannot be penetrated by reason, reason cannot teach what is the thing in itself, only that it is the ground of all experience, that a concept of thing in itself exists. When you say information (data) is undefined, then that "is" one attribute you use to define the boundary, you define information(data) as being "undefined"--the word "undefined" is a predicate of the subject, information (data).

 

Now look at the arguments DD makes regarding the undefined information behind any valid explanation. Is any of those arguments making any assertion as to what it is? No!

What do you mean no ? The answer is clearly yes. First he told me information was a list of words he took from wikipedia' date=' then he suggested it was Kant's noumena (which I told him it could not be), then he agreed with me that logically it must be within the boundaries of |what exists PLUS what does not exist|. He has made it clear that "it" is: information (as subject) that "is" undefined (as predictate). This is what "it is". {edit} I forgot that most recently, DD said that undefined information was, whatever is open to expectation...so, he defines it as "whatever", and of course logically "whatever" must be |what exists PLUS what does not exist|. Now, all the assertions that he has made as to "what it is" are consistent, except for Kant's noumena, which does not represent the total possibilities of what undefined information can be.

 

Yes and I said already many posts ago that that's fine in the sense that, it is probably in some way possible to represent the undefined information in terms of bits because we are always talking about finite amount of information.

Not only "some way possible"--it is possible, it is a valid alternative way to represent undefined information, and it is the way it would be represented using a deductive reasoning approach.

 

At the same time I keep saying that I do not at all understand why do you bring that up' date=' and I do not know how and what to analyze about undefined data, in terms of bits.[/quote'] Because someone may want to use deductive reasoning to understand the presentation.

Edited November 25, 2010 by Rade

[modest]

But Rade in all the above you are not truly addressing the point that was raised; you don't defeat that it makes sense to use bit sequence as a conceptual tool, where it is handy for considerations that don't essentially depend on notation but for which the specific one has some advantages.

 

What Anssi refuses to accept is that making those considerations is not restrictive and neither entails a requirement for the data to be defined a priori. Considerations of entropy apply equally well if one ends up choosing any other notation (including the one these lads use and anyways I don't see why it should be exempt from the same objection if bit sequence isn't).

 

I can't find where this bit sequence topic originated, so I apologize if I misunderstand or am repeating.

 

I have seen both Anssi and Doctordick say that unknown data can be represented with numbers without making any assumptions about the nature of the data. If Anssi or DD have objected to a 'bit sequence' being an inappropriate example or description of some unknown or undefined data then I'm sure the situation would be resolved by pointing out that any number system can be converted to binary without loss of generality.

 

Strictly, we cannot compute the entropy of a given bit sequence per se even if it has "odd features" such as highly repetitive patterns, much as these suggest a departure from purely random generation. Many of us may have seen the Star Trek scene where they decide to take some action (I can't remember what) that only Kirk can decide and it requires a secret code digit sequence; Kirk entrusts the envelope to Spock who opens it and dictates to an officer who keys in the highly secret sequence: zero, zero, zero, zero, zero.... :hihi: Yes, strictly speaking it is no less likely than any other single exact sequence. This means the matter is a bit subtle but I can only discuss it one (literally) bit at a time. In short however it means that, strictly, it is the format which has an entropy and not the data, and yet nobody in their right minds would choose certain combinations to protect something of great importance (if they can choose, one of my past ATM card PIN numbers was 20222 and although it wasn't more guessable than any other, many people would perceive it as less safe).

 

I think this is important. I've seen Anssi frequently talking about repetitive patterns making data predictable. I don't know much about information theory, but I don't think that assertion is quite right. It would not be hard to explain pi with a few axioms of geometry or algebra well enough to predict any digit. But, the data, the sequence pi, appears random in so far as sequences of digits repeating.

 

~modest

[Qfwfq]

It has been stated incredibly many times, that by valid explanation we mean it produces correct predictions, NOT that it is "ontologically correct" somehow.

It has been stated incredibly many times, that I'm not making ontological assumptions, I talk about phenomenology. :doh:

 

Do you really think those questions must have the same answer?

You fail to see how the two things are related.

 

And do you understand that in your question you are talking about some small amount of information that has got a well defined intented meaning to it.

But it is a starting point in discussing the whole matter.

 

Whereas I'm concerned with trying to make predictions OF some data itself, with inductive reasoning (i.e. inductive conclusions based on some aspects of the data itself)

And I thought you were aware that induction is not a logically conclusive argument. It is more like how the new data would have to be, for a given explanation to remain valid. Do you realize it's the same as asking whether each next file will also, yet again, be a valid .pdf document?

 

That is like asking "so what is noumena".

Exactly, and this is like saying it is something that can't be called information, nor even just data. Make up your mind as to what you are talking about.

 

I suppose you don't feel comfortable in trying to answer that because you are not quite sure what DD is getting at, and I really can't help with that by trying to relate these questions to his analysis. I think, you need to instead follow his analysis and see for yourself.

I understand more about it than you think. You keep failing to follow my arguments and get my points. I could even say that your failure is due to you making... undefendable assumptions :hihi: about what I say.

 

Interesting comment. How do you mean, for example, that the rods and cones of the eye (our sensory mechanism for photons) "constitute a choice of format" ? Seems to me the format of the rods and cones was determined by natural selection, which is a non-random reproduction of genotypes, but not what I would call a choice being made by nature.

It doesn't matter how the choice came about, it is still one thing rather than others.

 

The colour perception of bees distinguishes some flowers (that it would be useless to cross pollenate) which look the same to us. It's amazing how natural selection forged the genome of the bees according to how much it contributed to prolification of the flowers. Regardless, it is a different perception of the same light from the same petals. Cats see better than us in the dark but don't know what colour is. We can beat all of them by using instruments of our own design. Our sensory system is already a kind of specific format, after which we can make further choices, according to experience, such as recognizing a given sensory circumstance as "a stone coming toward me" or whatever.

[Rade]

It doesn't matter how the choice came about, it is still one thing rather than others.

OK, I see what you mean. I would have used the phrase "constraint of format" rather than "choice of format", thus from the constraint of format, choice appears. Question. How do you deal with quantum reality format, where it experimentally has been shown not to be one thing (x) or the other (y), but the entanglement of both simultaneously [xy], say position ?

[Qfwfq]

Question. How do you deal with quantum reality format, where it experimentally has been shown not to be one thing (x) or the other (y), but the entanglement of both simultaneously [xy], say position ?

Mathematically, that's just a choice of basis in the Hilbert space.

[AnssiH]

Sorry I'm slow, I've had lots of things going on.

 

And here then is a good example of what I am talking about. It is not "my" terminology, but the terminology of many scientists that differs from "your" terminology. All I can suggest is that, rather than insist that 99% of scientists change their terminology to understand you, you must find a way to make it crystal clear in the presentation that nothing at all is DEFINED during the transformation that occurs in the rods and cones of the human eye as input sensations of photons result in some chemical transformation.

 

This has been discussed earlier already, so let me just comment that there are many ways to communicate this, and what makes immediate sense to one person, is confusing to another. DD has actually changed the way he tries to explain it very many times, and so have I.

 

Also there are good reasons why we refer to all information transformation simply as "definitions". Namely, it wouldn't make sense to categorize that process, when what we want to achieve is perfect generality and not making any undefendable restrictions (which is what you always imply if you try to categorize or explain something about the information transformation chain itself). At the same time, I understand it can be misleading precisely because it implies a conscious process.

 

Anyway, since you do understand what we mean when we talk about it - even if you think it is unclear - I guess it's a good idea if you just try to read through the OP of "Conservation of inherent ignorance" and ask questions there. The OP has just recently been clarified (the early parts). I see you have already posted questions there, I'll check it out and respond soon.

 

I will also be walking through the OP carefully, and since it is a somewhat different way to handle that particular part of the presentation than what I am familiar with, I will also have questions which I'll post there. So those might be helpful for you too.

 

Here I cannot agree. In the same way that "it" {is not flashes of light in itself} NEITHER is it true that "it" {is your mental idea in itself}. That is, your "it" is not "only" either-or of the two options you present. Your philosophy here is one of dualism, you take the one position over the other.

 

Actually what I was saying there was simply that your perception of it cannot be taken to be its true form in any defendable manner.

 

It really depends what you mean by "correct". For me, correct means you are certain of the conclusion, that it is certain the conclusion follows from the premise.

 

If as you say it is possible for a valid explanation to be ontologically incorrect (or not relevant to the issue of ontology), perhaps it is possible that valid explanation produces incorrect predictions (or not relevant to the issue of predictions).

 

I mean pretty much exactly what the physics community would mean by correct predictions. Likewise, if a physics model produces incorrect predictions and is thus rejected, that is also what we would consider to be an invalid explanation.

 

 

You mention all the various interpretations of quantum theory--but--what makes you think any of them are correct ?

 

They are by definition "valid" explanations, if they reproduce all the known past. The moment you make the first experiment which doesn't behave as you would expect according to a particular interpretation, that moment your past includes something that that explanation does not reproduce correctly, and at that moment the explanation becomes "invalid" by definition.

 

Consider the following:

 

a: there is smoke

b: therefore, there is fire

 

This is an example of using inductive logic to reach a conclusion. But, note that this method of reasoning reaches conclusion using probability in which the truth of the premise (there is smoke) can only make "likely" the truth of the conclusion (there is fire). In other words, any argument or presentation based on inductive reasoning means that it is plausible that the conclusion reached is false.

 

Thus:

 

a: there is data itself

b: therefore, there are correct predictions

 

So, because you limit your world view to inductive reasoning, then your conclusion that the valid explanation presented in this presentation reaches correct predictions, must logically be fallible, it may be incorrect, this is what it means to reason inductively.

 

The inductive reasoning has to do with the fact that as long as you don't make any undefendable assumptions about some information whose meaning is unknown, all your predictions are fundamentally based on inductive reasoning. You may generate definitions based on the data, and then make assumptions of various kind which allow you to use different types of reasoning (like assume deterministic reality, as a simple example). Still, stripped of all the undefendable assumptions, all your definitions must be ultimately based on having recognized some recurring activities, and assuming that past recurring activity is an indication of future recurring activity in all similar circumstances.

 

The only way to argue against it would be to generate a-priori definitions, i.e. make undefendable assumptions about the meaning of what is to be explained.

 

The rest of your questions in that post were a bit non-sensical. "Anymore" is just a word in the sentence I wrote, can do without if you will. And no, DD is not making any claims as to what the information ontologically is or what it means, when he puts forward the general constraints.

 

-Anssi

[AnssiH]

Just bite-sized responses to your comments;

 

It has been stated incredibly many times, that I'm not making ontological assumptions, I talk about phenomenology. :doh:

 

Then I do not understand this exchange:

 

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.

But you want it to be valid.

 

And do you understand that in your question you are talking about some small amount of information that has got a well defined intented meaning to it.

But it is a starting point in discussing the whole matter.

 

No, I'm sorry, but it's different topic and can be very misleading. Trying to figure some intented meaning is not the same problem as trying to predict the future of the data.

 

And I thought you were aware that induction is not a logically conclusive argument.

 

Explanations of unknown information are never conclusive. I don't bother commenting more on that because I think you understand exactly why. I do not understand why you felt it would be relevant to make that comment.

 

Anyway, the thing that I'm mostly puzzled by is why is it that there's always this incredible urge to start discussing something like bits or entropy measurements in information theory or some other piece from where-ever, instead of actually thinking about the logical steps of the analysis itself. For one - if you really understand the basis of the analysis - why don't you look at the steps made in the OP of the "Deriving Schrödinger's Equation", and give some comments about why do you think they lead to the exact statement of Schrödinger's Equation, and what that implies?

 

You don't even need to walk through to validate the algebra, you can just make comments "assuming" the algebra is valid, that's fine with me.

 

-Anssi