"a Universal Representation Of Rules"

[Rade]

Find some solution to my equation which contradicts observation and that would tell us something about reality.

Why ? Who would waste their time to find solutions to equations that contradict observation ? Any such solutions must by definition tell nothing about reality. Edit: More telling is the fact that it is not possible for you to find solutions to your equation that do not contradict observation (not a single one)...if I error, inform us. Edited January 18, 2013 by Rade

[Doctordick]

Why ? Who would waste their time to find solutions to equations that contradict observation ?

Any such solutions must by definition tell nothing about reality. Edit: More telling is the fact that it is not possible for you to find solutions to your equation that do not contradict observation (not a single one)...if I error, inform us.

 

Every solution to my equation that I am aware of can be mapped directly into a known observation of modern physics.

 

There is not a single solution which contradicts any known observation. If you spent any time whatsoever putting any thought into what I say you would be well aware of that fact.

 

Please stop bothering me --- Dick

Edited May 28, 2014 by Doctordick

[Rade]

DD, since you are aware of more than one solution to your fundamental equation that maps into a "known observation"...please provide a few examples of such solutions. Of course please define exactly what you mean by "known observation"..that is, how do you claim to 'know' any observation in physics ?

Edited January 20, 2013 by Rade

[Rade]

I don’t think I ever defined “prediction”, but if you were going to make a prediction would you not propose something consistent with your expectations?

To readers, this response by DD was to my question asking him if the definition of explanation he uses for his fundamental equation is not instead a definition of a scientific prediction. From the response given by DD he claims to never have thought it necessary to define the concept prediction, for him, any such definition would be identical to his definition of explanation. But, there is a fundamental difference in events that would result in using explanation or prediction as a procedure for yielding expectations. Thus, I conclude that the definition for explanation used by DD CANNOT be used to define prediction, my question to him was backwards, it should have been...is it not correct that your fundamental equation cannot be applied to prediction ?

 

Let me explain why I think this is true.

 

The definition given by DD for explanation (scientific or not) is: A procedure for yielding rational expectations for some hypothetical circumstance.

 

In science, there are logically two types of event to be explained [hypothetical circumstance] that apply to this definition (1) those that have occurred (2) those that have not occurred.

 

For events that have not occurred, the concept of scientific explanation does not apply...such events use PREDICTION (not explanation) as the procedure for yielding expectation of the hypothetical circumstance. No scientist would explain what has yet to occur, they would predict what has yet to occur, this is common sense understanding of scientific method. Now, while it is true both explanation and prediction can use the exact same procedure to yield expectations, by definition, scientific explanation applies only to events that have occurred, scientific prediction to events that have not occurred.

 

So what you ask ? Well, DD uses definition of EXPLANATION (not prediction) to derive his fundamental equation. Because his definition of explanation does not apply to hypothetical circumstances that have not occurred (such are in fact defined as prediction), his fundamental equation can never be used to make any scientific predictions. I view this as important because I read time and time again folks asking DD what his fundamental equations predicts, and the answer is always NOTHING, the fundamental equation that follows from the definition of explanation used by DD predicts nothing about reality.

 

Perhaps I error in my presentation and understanding and I appreciate clarification if I do.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Rade

[Doctordick]

Perhaps I error in my presentation and understanding and I appreciate clarification if I do.

 

I will take that as an honest and forthright comment and make an attempt to clarify your invariably invalid interpretation of what I have been talking about. Both you and Qfwfq make exactly the same error when you make any attempt to understand what I am saying: you both totally omit “context” in every attempt you make to think about the issues being brought up.

 

I am talking about constructing a universal mental image of reality which is capable of representing absolutely any possibility and then looking at the constraints embedded in that mental image by definition (the definition of the mental image I construct, not the mental image you have in your head). You and Qfwfq insist on working with the mental image you have in your heads. There would be no problem with that perspective if you didn't make the assumption that the “context” of your chosen examples did not have to be thought about.

 

No scientist would explain what has yet to occur, they would predict what has yet to occur, this is common sense understanding of scientific method.

 

Both you and Qfwfq invariably want to use “common sense understandings” which are simply too vague and loosely defined to be a basis of any absolute logical deduction. I have a strong impression that you are attempting to use the common idea of “an explanation” which refers to explaining a set of defined events occurring in your universe without explaining the great body of “context” which stands as a background to those explanations. The “universe” is “everything” by definition and every example you and Qfwfq come up with omits explaining everything except the minor issues you want to talk about. You presume the context is known!

 

I view this as important because I read time and time again folks asking DD what his fundamental equations predicts, and the answer is always NOTHING, the fundamental equation that follows from the definition of explanation used by DD predicts nothing about reality.

 

That is absolutely correct! My fundamental equation is a logical deduction which makes utterly no constraint whatsoever on what is being explained. As I said above, “I am talking about constructing a universal mental image of reality which is capable of representing absolutely any possibility and then looking at the constraints embedded in that mental image by definition”. It says absolutely nothing about the universe and everything about the inherent constraints on any internally self consistent mental image: i.e., any explanation you choose to invent.

 

DD, since you are aware of more than one solution to your fundamental equation that maps into a "known observation"...please provide a few examples of such solutions. Of course please define exactly what you mean by "known observation"..that is, how do you claim to 'know' any observation in physics ?

 

Modern technology is very poor at maintaining information. The modern methods of representing things has a lifetime of only a few years and information vanishes almost as fast as it is created. The internet is guilty of exactly that problem and most all of what I have ever posted anywhere is no longer available: i.e., the examples you request were once given on my web site which vanished from the internet a long time ago (my internet provider was bought out by Comcast and my site vanished). There used to be an archive of that site somewhere but I can't find it now; it has probably vanished.

 

However, a lot of references to my site still exist. Google “/home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/reality” for some early references. You might find http://groups.yahoo.com/group/time/message/9457 an interesting post.

 

I am currently composing a book for publication which is essentially that original web site. Maybe that will stay around a little longer. Anssi is proof reading that composition for me and the work is slow. I will post a current excerpt of Chapter 1 on this forum that you might like to read. Plus an interesting post I made in 2005 and found in that search I just commented about.

 

Have fun -- Dick

Edited May 28, 2014 by Doctordick

[Bombadil]

I can't be confident about whether or not I understand what you mean, but it strikes me that you may be ignoring the fact that how a circumstance is being represented (and the associated laws) is entirely a function of the explanation being employed to interpret some raw information. That is to say that different solutions to the fundamental equation imply that different terminology is being employed to represent circumstances. The same data looks very different through different language interpretation. Even the dimensionality choices may well be different.

 

 

So in that sense there is no way to analyze "laws of reality", there are only ways to analyze the laws we are using as part of a particular explanation of reality, and when they prevent some arrangement of circumstances, we are really only talking about what is possible by our defined terminology.

 

I think that you are trying to bring up the same point as I was trying to bring up although you are approaching it from the other direction, you are pointing out that if something is not allowed in our explanation of things then this is due to how we have defined things and there is no way to link this to some deeper law of reality.

 

While I am saying that, if we are saying that there is a law of reality then we are saying that there is some possibility that is not allowed to exist in reality, that is, if you had a representation of reality then no matter how you defined your representation there would be some possibility that your definitions would have to exclude from being possible.

 

The problem with the idea is, as soon as we try to define something, this includes our representation. we are assuming that we have the right answer. And so there is no way to find laws of reality.

 

As far as I understand, yes, he is mostly thinking about Turing machines. But when you really get down into defining what constitutes a Turing machine, you end up into the same semantical tar pit where it could mean almost anything, that accomplishes any kind of logic in any sense. But yeah it's impossible to confidently even understand what he means when he says "understanding". I don't know if he is including the "hard problem" in there as well, and whether he is saying "cannot have understanding" or "cannot be proven to have understanding". There are probably a lot of people who find his argument emotionally meaningful, without really understanding what he might mean.

 

I on the other hand, rather then finding the argument meaningful can find very little meaning in it with out a better definition of what is meant since to me there is so much of what you seem to be calling semantics that I can't see any meaning in it. As for the actual test I wonder just how many people could pass it.

 

I think that this is why when I think of a Turing machine I am thinking of a sort of equivalence class of definitions that are able to carry out a particular task. But this wont really say anything in this case.

 

Well, what I was getting at was the usefulness of the guessess yes, and its only judge is in whether or not the guesses yield useful/sensical expectations for the future and meaningful interpretation of the rest of the data. It's like reading a book in foreign language. If you interpret something in ways that makes zero sense to you, you would be inclined to think that you may have misunderstood something about the language, until you strike upon an interpretation that makes sense. Or if you are a physicist, you are creating experiments with particular expectations about the outcome. If your expectations are not met at all, you would be inclined to think you may have misunderstood reality somehow.

 

It seems to me that the idea of sensible expectations assumes that you expect something of your expectations and so are assuming the existence of an explanation that is considered correct in some sense. If we didn't have such a thing then all that we would be able to substitute it with is the “what is” is “what is” representation of the past. Anything else to me implies that we already know what we are looking for.

 

Unfortunately to me there seems to be nothing to compare this idea with as anything that we experience we instantly try to compare to past experiences or to how we understand things, and so it would be like asking you to describe how something sounds to someone that has always been deaf or what something looks like to someone that has always been blind. Would you expect them to make any sense out of what you would be describing to them? would you expect it to be useful to them, maybe but not in the way you might think of knowing what something looks like to be useful.

 

Well that sounds about right. It's what we've been referring to as two equally valid explanations. Assuming the underlying data is the same, but being represented differently by two different explanations.

That's why it confused me when you said "two explanations, explaining two different sets of data", I suppose by "different set of data" you meant two different representations of something.

 

Well yes in a way but rather then calling the underlining data the same I would rather define some kind of equivalence relation for our expectations as then we really aren't assuming that we are referring to the same thing but rather our expectations are assuming a particular property. It just seems a lot cleaner to me if we want to consider mapping our expectations to other possible sets of data or to other representations.

 

Hasn't this all really been done in a sort of definition free way.

 

That essentially presumes an understanding of reality. It should be clear to you that if you take that position as an initial position, you are merely throwing out millions upon millions of alternate possibilities.

 

I'm not suggesting it as an initial position so much as an assumption that there exist explanations in which it is true, if this was not the case then all explanations would assume that every thing is equally likely.

 

So that all that I am saying is that there are non trivial explanations where the probability of everything is not the same.

 

As for the millions of alternate possibilities I am having a hard time seeing them. Isn't the only possibility other then that, some things are more likely then others, that every thing is equally likely?

 

Please explain what you mean by a “mirror test”.

 

The ability to identify its own reactions to something when faced with them. I,E, it can recognize itself in a mirror, Of course I think this is a specialized idea of what the mirror test can really represent.

 

That is the essential conclusion I have laid out. In a nutshell, if any explanation is internally self consistent, the elements upon which that explanation must be built must satisfy my fundamental equation. What you apparently miss is the fact that your interpretation of an explanation (your understanding of the language being used to communicate that explanation) is, hopefully, an internally self consistent system.

 

Thus the elements you think are attached to the verbal representations being used are those which are consistent with your understanding. Thus it is that any internally self consistent explanation will appear to be quite unique and agreement quite easy to explain (even when the actual elements being discussed, the so called “noumena”, may be actually wildly different). Actually, that is a rather trivial issue: since you have no way of knowing what the noumena actually refer to, only the required historic relationships your explanations use to define the elements being referred to is of any significance.

 

But language isn't what is being referred to, language is what refers to the noumena. That is, language is the coordinates in your space. What is being referred to the noumena, are something that only exists in your mind. Or do I just have this totally different then how you see things.

 

More then this I hate to say it but I really doubt that language is relay a consistent system when it comes right down to it, maybe any one persons understanding of language is consistent or at least they see it as consistent as long as you don't look too hard but as a whole I really would be surprised if language in general is self consistent even amongst a vary small group of people

 

Actually this leads to something that I would be rather interested in and that is that I have heard there is a language in which a contradiction can't be wrote in, since I haven't really found any information that supports this, nor have I any good idea how such a thing could even be possible I have my doubt's that it actually can exist let alone has ever existed, it is an interesting idea.

 

That the elements by which it is described (the language names given to the elements) correspond to a solution to my fundamental equation!!! And that includes the definition of “t” regarding those elements.

 

The idea that elements that are described follow the fundamental equation does not seem to me to be of any use in asking if something is useful or not which seems to me to be what anssiH was trying to get at, but rather following the fundamental equation is a consequence of being consistent. I see no reason to even link these two ideas, consistency is a property that a world view has, while the idea of being useful only makes sense if a world view exists.

 

That is a silly question. Human being communicate via some 2,000 different languages. It follows that most things have some 2,000 different ways to represent most everything! Most translators presume they are representing the same thing; however, that can often be an invalid presumption.

 

This is assuming that every language is able to represent the same thing and that those that are using different languages are able to represent the same thing, I can't see how this can be said about two people communicating in the same language let alone different languages.

 

It also seems to be assuming that words or the way they sound or are written is the part of language that represents an idea, this also appears to be an assumption.

 

Nowhere in my presentation am I "forming an explanation"; I am expressing a required fundamental constraint on all possible valid explanation (my fundamental equation). What is astounding (from my perspective) is that the need to satisfy that equation seems to reproduce all of the common relationships supposedly required by modern physics. The only conclusion is that no information whatsoever is required to reproduce modern physics: i.e., our mental picture of reality could not possibly be otherwise and still be self consistent.

 

I would say that you have done the derivation in an expectation free way, that is you have derived your equation in such a way that any expectations are not needed or in fact of interest to the derivation of the fundamental equation, as a result what forms an explanation and how one can be derived is of no interest to you, however this would seem to me to not allow statements like

 

By "valid expectations" I simply mean "demonstrably valid", i.e. that they are found to be correct "after the fact". Of course different valid explanations can generate different but equally valid expectations, until you get to the point that you can measure which one was actually correct.

 

Because we are both assuming that we have expectations (we have in some way formed an explanation) and that there is in some way a correct explanation. Both of these ideas to me imply that we are talking about how we arrived at our expectations, that is how we form an explanation.

 

Clearly this is something that the fundamental equation says nothing about.

 

As for the rest of your statement no mater how strong the evidence may appear to support such a statement I think that history should have taught us by now that about the time that we say such things we find out that we overlooked something and in general everything we thought we know changes.

 

If you can perceive (or come up with) an interpretation of my communications consistent with your world view, you will perceive that world view to be preserved. Belief in that preservation is an assumption as there exists no way to guarantee they are actually the same (As Anssi says, it amounts to a finite amount of data). Down the road, it is always possible that some important difference will arise. My point is that satisfying my fundamental equation is an absolute necessity.

 

But is it possible for someones communications to not have a consistent interpretation in my world view with the definitions that I use. If what you keep saying about “our mental picture of reality could not possibly be otherwise and still be self consistent” then this has the answer 'no it is not possible for someone to communicate in a way that is not consistent in my world view'.

 

Find some solution to my equation which contradicts observation and that would tell us something about reality. Something consistent with my fundamental equation which is not consistent with reality!

 

Before asking this question I would like to know if it is possible for a consistent system to exist that is not consistent with your equation in some way.

 

How I see it, any system that is consistent must have a representation that is consistent with your equation.

 

My point is that you haven't really defined what you mean 'be a solution to your equation'. Are you including the initial conditions? How continuous do you want things to be? How about just a set of delta functions? What about boundary conditions?

[Doctordick]

The problem with the idea is, as soon as we try to define something, this includes our representation. we are assuming that we have the right answer. And so there is no way to find laws of reality.

 

Absolutely correct. That is exactly what I have proved! Originally, back in 1965, my only interest was in discovering the constraints implied by internal consistency itself! That is when I originally derived my “fundamental equation”. It is, by design, entirely general (it makes no assumptions whatsoever as to what the right answer is). The sole issue was to come up with a way of representing ”absolutely any solution”. Examine the central issues of my representation and see if you can conceive of a solution which cannot by represented. Read my post, “Excerpts From My 'Foundations Of Physical Reality'".

 

What “x” labels is of no importance whatsoever. It could, in fact, simply label the firing of a specific brain cell, in which case [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] would denote a specific set of brain cells firing. What is important here is that what “x” actually labels cannot be specified or even considered until after the mental model is created. Any attempt to specify what “x” actually labels would essentially presume a solution is known. If you presume any characteristics whatsoever are known prior to creating a mental image, that image cannot possibly be thought of as universal.

 

It should be understood that thinking it denotes “a specific set of brain cells firing” is already a violation of the representation as making such an identification destroys the generality of the representation: i.e., such an interpretation presumes the existence of “brain cells” is a correct facet of all possible solutions. Absolutely any attempt to specify what “x” actually labels would essentially presume a solution is known. You need to be able to think in the abstract.

 

Implied constraints were the only issue of interest here. It absolutely never dawned on me at the time that all of modern physics could be deduced from that “fundamental equation”. That is only something I managed to prove almost forty years later. That proof implies “Science” is just another religion. Oh, it is a lot more “internally self consistent” than other religions but that doesn't mean it is correct.

 

It seems to me that the idea of sensible expectations assumes that you expect something of your expectations and so are assuming the existence of an explanation that is considered correct in some sense. If we didn't have such a thing then all that we would be able to substitute it with is the “what is” is “what is” representation of the past. Anything else to me implies that we already know what we are looking for.

 

The only explanation guaranteed to be correct is the “what is” is “what is” explanation. Under that explanation, if the circumstances being currently examined are extremely consistent with some circumstance already seen, our expectations are “the same thing which happened then will happen again”. At least that expectation makes no changes in our general expectations: i.e., in general our expectations will probably be confirmed.

 

A formal explanation is actually no more than a formula for keeping track of “those circumstances already seen” and most explanations are actually rather vague (they tend to leave out a lot of “context”).

 

Hasn't this all really been done in a sort of definition free way.

 

Perhaps you are beginning to grasp what I have been doing.

 

I'm not suggesting it as an initial position so much as an assumption that there exist explanations in which it is true, if this was not the case then all explanations would assume that every thing is equally likely.

 

What you are omitting here is the importance of “context”: the issue of “those circumstances already seen”. If I tell you I have just picked up a pencil you will have certain expectations (consistent with those circumstances you have already seen): the pencil will have a lead and probably an eraser. Your thoughts will probably include the expectation that I will be writing something. All of these beliefs are actually rather vague but, nonetheless, your expectations are quite apt to be correct. That in no way invalidates the “what is” is “what is” explanation.

 

As for the millions of alternate possibilities I am having a hard time seeing them. Isn't the only possibility other then that, some things are more likely then others, that every thing is equally likely?

 

When you get vague about the circumstances you have in mind, some things become more likely than others. The actual context defining what you are thinking is something you seldom put much thought into; in fact, your memory (without making use of some vague explanation) isn't sufficient to remember the collection of actual possibilities.

 

But language isn't what is being referred to, language is what refers to the noumena. That is, language is the coordinates in your space. What is being referred to the noumena, are something that only exists in your mind. Or do I just have this totally different then how you see things.

 

“Noumena” is a word in our shared language. Thus what is being referenced is some concept essential to that language when attempting to explain what you are thinking (which is, effectively, an explanation).

 

... at least they see it as consistent...

 

I think most people see their thoughts a consistent. In that regard I find Sir Arthur Eddington's comment , “As a conscious being I am involved in a story. The perceiving part of my mind tells me a story of a world around me. The story tells of familiar objects. It tells of colours, sounds, scents belonging to these objects; of boundless space in which they have their existence, and of an ever-rolling stream of time bringing change and incident. It tells of other life than mine busy about its own purposes. As a scientist I have become mistrustful of this story.”, quite refreshing.

 

Actually this leads to something that I would be rather interested in and that is that I have heard there is a language in which a contradiction can't be wrote in, since I haven't really found any information that supports this, nor have I any good idea how such a thing could even be possible I have my doubt's that it actually can exist let alone has ever existed, it is an interesting idea.

 

You are thinking of Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. I looked into it and came to the conclusion it is worthless ravings of a man unable to comprehend the real problem. Perhaps I am wrong; you can check it out.

 

The idea that elements that are described follow the fundamental equation does not seem to me to be of any use in asking if something is useful or not which seems to me to be what anssiH was trying to get at, but rather following the fundamental equation is a consequence of being consistent. I see no reason to even link these two ideas, consistency is a property that a world view has, while the idea of being useful only makes sense if a world view exists.

 

I get the feeling that you understand what I am talking about. What I find interesting is that all of modern physics seems to be a collection of approximations to that equation. What that says is that it is pretty close to being internally consistent. The final thought is, if you don't have a world view, you can't make a judgment as to what context can be reasonably ignored.

 

This is assuming that every language is able to represent the same thing and that those that are using different languages are able to represent the same thing, I can't see how this can be said about two people communicating in the same language let alone different languages.

 

The translators are making that assumption, not me. Which reminds me of a funny story. Do you know why astronauts “walk in space”? It is because the Russians did it first. In the Russian language there are two forms of the verb “to go”: as I remember (it was some fifty years ago that I had to learn some Russian) ходить means “to go without the use of a vehicle” and ездить means “to go with the assistance of some means”. The issue was, when the Russians published the fact that their astronaut traveled outside the space vehicle, they used the verb ходить which, when applied to people is generally translated as “walk”. It could just as well have been translated as swim, fly or some other verb.

 

Clearly this is something that the fundamental equation says nothing about.

 

You are right, it says nothing at all about how an explanation is achieved. That is why it is so surprising to find modern physics to be, to a great extent, nothing more than an approximation to my equation.

 

But is it possible for someones communications to not have a consistent interpretation in my world view with the definitions that I use. If what you keep saying about “our mental picture of reality could not possibly be otherwise and still be self consistent” then this has the answer 'no it is not possible for someone to communicate in a way that is not consistent in my world view'.

 

Certainly! That is why I created the representation I created. I think it is a pretty universal world view and, except for a few subtle modifications, it is awfully close to what has come to be the common “scientific” world view: a collection of elemental entities moving in an abstract space. If you can conceive of any circumstance which can not be mapped into that world view I would love to see it. I don't think I am perfect and it is certainly possible that I have made an error somewhere.

 

There are several issues in your comment. Your world view, the other persons world view and the universal world view I have put forth. They are all possibly different which means miscommunication can occur.

 

How I see it, any system that is consistent must have a representation that is consistent with your equation.

 

My point is that you haven't really defined what you mean 'be a solution to your equation'. Are you including the initial conditions? How continuous do you want things to be? How about just a set of delta functions? What about boundary conditions?

 

The solution is absolutely any function [math]\Psi(\vec{x}_1,\vec{x}_2,\cdots,\vec{x}_n, \cdots, t)[/math] which satisfies my fundamental equation and also satisfies the boundary conditions that [math]\int\Psi^\dagger\Psi dV[/math] yields a non zero result interpretable as a probability for all circumstances referred to by [math](\vec{x}_1,\vec{x}_2,\cdots,\vec{x}_n, \cdots, t)[/math] which are taken as known: i.e., the function [math]\Psi[/math] says nothing except “how you are going to interpolate between the known points in that Euclidean [math](x,y,z,\tau,t)[/math] space. The “boundary conditions” are the fact that the known points are acceptable. The integral in there is to take care of the possible uncertainty in the known points.

 

The Euclidean reference frame is the rest frame of the universe defined by [math]\sum_i \vec{k}_i =0[/math].

 

The number of arguments is infinite because it includes all the hypothetical elements your world view requires (the abstract view I constructed requires an infinite number).

 

The real central issue here is that my fundamental equation is not solvable. It is only solvable for approximate cases (where explicit circumstances can be omitted). The important issue there is that you have to specify exactly what “context” (which terms in the fundamental equation) are being ignored. I knew about that equation for over ten years before I managed to come up with my first approximate solution. Over the last forty years I have come closer and closer to the conclusion that science is a religion and has nothing to do with reality.

 

That does not mean that the idea of “science” is useless. Neither does it mean the idea of religion is useless. It does point out that “scientific” investigation is very helpful and that there are whole regions of study which sould be included. That comment (if the circumstances resemble something we have seen before, the expectations should be what happened the last time) is a very powerful statement and should not be ignored. Failing to study history is to insure failure of future endeavors.

 

Have fun -- Dick

Edited May 28, 2014 by Doctordick

[AnssiH]

I think that you are trying to bring up the same point as I was trying to bring up although you are approaching it from the other direction, you are pointing out that if something is not allowed in our explanation of things then this is due to how we have defined things and there is no way to link this to some deeper law of reality.

 

While I am saying that, if we are saying that there is a law of reality then we are saying that there is some possibility that is not allowed to exist in reality, that is, if you had a representation of reality then no matter how you defined your representation there would be some possibility that your definitions would have to exclude from being possible.

 

The problem with the idea is, as soon as we try to define something, this includes our representation. we are assuming that we have the right answer. And so there is no way to find laws of reality.

 

Yeah that sounds about right. One thing I thought of that might be useful for lurkers. A good way to conceptualize this situation is to imagine the following:

 

1. Imagine a view to any kind of reality. (= ontological reality)

 

2. Imagine the information contained in that view being encoded by some arbitrarily chosen encoding process, into some kind of information stream (= raw information received by a mind)

 

3. Imagine a system that doesn't know how the information has been encoded, trying to decode the information in any manner that yields back a useful representation of that information (= a mind trying to build useful world view).

 

 

That is pretty much aligned with the common idea of ontology and epistemology. Usually it is assumed that our success of generating valid expectations implies we have in fact managed to figure out pretty much what the ontological reality is, even though the data at step 2 is entirely undefined from our perspective.

 

But during step 2, all knowledge about possible identifiable objects (from step 1) has been lost. You might as well imagine that information stream as if it's static noise on the TV screen; completely unintelligible until it is getting decoded in a useful way.

 

Now what DD's presentation is implying is that, if you take that undefined raw information stream at step 2, then regardless of what that information stream is, it is always possible to try and generate expectations via inductive methods. And if you do, it is always possible to start collecting and categorizing that information with certain methods. And one particularly general method will yield a categorization where you come to view all that "noise" in terms of particles floating in space, and following pretty exactly the same laws as what we commonly call the laws of physics.

 

Managing to see how that is so, it becomes quite clear that there's no real motivation to assume that the actual view of reality in step 1 would just so happen to align with the view constructed in step 3.

 

Even if there exists some laws and actual objects with real identities in real space in step 1, the fact that those identities get completely lost in step 2 will always grant us the possibility to assume "everything is possible".

 

And vice versa; even if the actual reality in step 1 is utterly different from modern physics, all identities of any objects will still get completely lost in step 2, and again we are entirely free to categorize the predictable features of the data in a form that looks exactly like modern physics.

 

Basically, I don't have any good motivation to believe that modern physics is "close to" what ontological reality is. It's not really even an interesting question to me because it is completely unanswerable at the outset. Much like I don't find it interesting to think about whether there exists things that cannot be perceived in any sense. Totally irrelevant, isn't it. Mind you, prior to knowing about DD's presentation, I had already different reasons to view this issue pretty much the same way, but his representation makes it possible to approach the issue rather more analytically, and most of all possible to communicate the issue more explicitly.

 

And btw, the so-called "observer effect" in quantum mechanics (especially in delayed choice experiments) is in my view a blatantly obvious example of defined elements that just cannot be viewed as being representative of any sort of ontological reality of step "1". Which in the light of DD's presentation is not problematic, or even mysterious, being that they are merely part of a good categorization system for yielding valid expectations for any undefined data. They behave exactly how a powerful categorization system would have them behave, and there's no longer any reason to view them as objects existing in step 1 at all. I won't go into details, but if you have any more detailed questions about this, I and/or DD can talk more about this.

 

I on the other hand, rather then finding the argument meaningful can find very little meaning in it with out a better definition of what is meant since to me there is so much of what you seem to be calling semantics that I can't see any meaning in it. As for the actual test I wonder just how many people could pass it.

 

Yeah, real people fail on it regularly, it's pretty childish test if you ask me. If a machine passes, so what? If a human fails, so what? Meaningless and mindless activity that far too many people view as intelligent. When someone builds a general learning machine, it will be pretty obvious it is intelligent and creative just like intelligent animals are, but by the time that much has become obvious, we will not be yet having an english language conversation with it.

 

It seems to me that the idea of sensible expectations assumes that you expect something of your expectations and so are assuming the existence of an explanation that is considered correct in some sense. If we didn't have such a thing then all that we would be able to substitute it with is the “what is” is “what is” representation of the past. Anything else to me implies that we already know what we are looking for.

 

Yeah, well it's pretty simple. We are in the position of assuming what has worked as an explanation for our past, will also work for the future. When it fails, we must create a new explanation that works for the entire past, and also that bit that failed. That's what scientific revolutions are.

 

Another way to say the same thing is simply, our world views are a product of our past, and they are built for the purpose of generating expectations for the future.

 

Unfortunately to me there seems to be nothing to compare this idea with as anything that we experience we instantly try to compare to past experiences or to how we understand things, and so it would be like asking you to describe how something sounds to someone that has always been deaf or what something looks like to someone that has always been blind. Would you expect them to make any sense out of what you would be describing to them? would you expect it to be useful to them, maybe but not in the way you might think of knowing what something looks like to be useful.

 

Basically you are describing paradigm shifts. Performing a paradigm shift in modern physics is a massive amount of work and mental effort. Performing a paradigm shift for the most fundamental features of our everyday world views (our perceptions) is probably practically impossible for the most part (but in principle entirely possible), but there are plenty of examples of people learning to interpret sensory data in arbitrary format (from artificial senses) in terms of our common 3 dimensional view. You've probably read about these cases, of people learning to see or learning to hear as adults. They offer interesting insight to these learning processes, as these people do also report they perceive things simply as noise, until they learn to pick up some features from the data, and at that point they become conscious of only those features, and stop perceiving the noise.

 

-Anssi

[Rade]

Yeah that sounds about right. One thing I thought of that might be useful for lurkers. A good way to conceptualize this situation is to imagine the following:

 

1. Imagine a view to any kind of reality. (= ontological reality)

 

2. Imagine the information contained in that view being encoded by some arbitrarily chosen encoding process, into some kind of information stream (= raw information received by a mind)

 

3. Imagine a system that doesn't know how the information has been encoded, trying to decode the information in any manner that yields back a useful representation of that information (= a mind trying to build useful world view).

Hello again, #1 lurker here. Anssih, this type of presentation is EXACTLY the way DD needs to begin his presentation in his Foundations of Reality thesis. However, there is a problem in the argument as presented. The problem is your first statement #1...before we can imagine a view of reality first there must BE a reality. Thus, your suggestion that the 'view' (=ontological reality) is logically false...the mental 'view' of your #1 (= epistemological reality).

 

So, we can revise your argument by simple addition of one step:

 

1. Reality exists (= ontological reality)

 

2. We imagine a view (mental image) of any kind of reality (= epistemological reality; = perception)

 

3. We imagine the information contained in that view being encoded by some arbitrary chosen encoding process, into some kind of information stream (= concept formation)

 

4. We imagine we can decode the information from step #3 to yield back a useful representation that can be communicated to self and others ( = process of forming definition).

 

Usually it is assumed that our success of generating valid expectations implies we have in fact managed to figure out pretty much what the ontological reality is, even though the data at step 2 is entirely undefined from our perspective.

Well, no. No scientist assumes they have figured out what ontological reality really is ! I hope you understand that you reach this false conclusion because of how you define (= ontological reality) in your step #1, which as I have revised above, is completely off the table for anyone to claim what reality really is. All we humans can say with confidence is the REALITY in general exists...we say nothing about any specific kind of reality

 

But during step 2' date=' all knowledge about possible identifiable objects (from step 1) has been lost.[/quote']Again, a false statement because it is not possible to have any knowledge of possible identifiable objects from your step #1, there is in fact nothing to lose.

 

Well, I'll not insult your intelligence and continue down though the rest of your presentation because non of it is correct because step #1 is false. However, I do suggest you begin with my revision (my steps 1 thru 4) and add your own words to it, then resubmit for us to read. Thank you in advance for your efforts.

 

ps/ It has always been my belief that the fundamental equation of DD deals directly with my revised step #3 (= concept formation)...please let me know if you agree and why or why not. If you do agree, I'm sure you realize the philosophic importance of the equation, it would then be a mathematical model of concept formation itself...very unique in history of philosophy ! This is what DD has to present (a mathematical model of concept formation), his equation says nothing about reality and absolutely cannot predict a single future event. DD and you are best to STOP even using the word REALITY, it only adds confusion to the otherwise purely epistemological argument being made.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Rade

[AnssiH]

Rade, I don't think my text is unambiguous at all, but you do seem pretty oblivious to the million different ways what I said could be interpreted. I don't think there's any reason to try and discuss DD's analysis with you at present time, but instead you should be made aware that, especially on web forums, you really should not be that confident about your interpretations.

 

It is clear you are using very different terminology in your mind when thinking about this topic - so much so that I can't be confident about whether or not we are even on the same topic. I more and more suspect we are not.

 

For instance, I don't understand why do you use the word "epistemological" the way you do, and I don't understand what you mean by "concept" and "definition", but I realize these do not align with my use of those words. And these are pretty fundamental concepts in my communications. Overall, I do not know how to map what I said, to what you are saying. Which basically also means, I cannot understand what you are saying, and I cannot know whether or not we are talking about the same subject. And it does not pay dividends for me to try to figure this puzzle out. That is not to insult you, that is just a simple fact.

 

One thing I do understand though is you missed or misinterpreted my comment "a good way to conceptualize this situation". It was meant as a reference to the fact that, I was about to give an analogy to the type of logical problem, that is under scrutiny. You clearly felt I was forwarding ontological argument, since you felt I made a fatal error by omitting a step, which in your mind is relevant to my argument. Or rather, to the argument that you think I was making, which is very obviously erroneous interpretation as to what I actually meant to say.

 

So to me this situation is pretty simple. If some reader understood what you were talking about, and got something out of it, then great. You should maybe consider starting a thread where you discuss whatever it is you are thinking about. At the same time, you should probably seriously consider the very realistic possibility, that in this thread we are not at all talking about what you are talking about. A confusion in terminology merely makes it seem to you like we are talking about what you are thinking of.

 

-Anssi

[Rade]

Hello AnssiH. Given your reply, it does seem best that we wait to see what other forum readers have to say about my critique of your three step process to help others conceptualize the situation you were talking about. Seemed like a very clear and rather simple argument you made, in three steps, sorry you were so very confused by my reply. So, let's wait and see if others have anything to say about my critique of your post...I for one would be very interested in such comments.

 

Edit: Perhaps this comment you made in post #60 will help you better understand the motivation for my critique:

 

: "This has been repeated so many times it's just not even funny... None of this amounts to any ontological implications or knowledge of reality in any sense".

 

OK. But, if none of this (e.g., the presentation of DD} has any ontological implications of reality...then the logical conclusion is that step #1 in your post where your claim (=ontological reality) is false. This is where you need to be more careful in presenting the presentation of DD, to avoid statements over time that are contradictory e.g., claim the presentation has no ontological implications, then in another post present such an implication. Its not a matter of interpretation, its all in how the presentation is presented.

Edited February 17, 2013 by Rade

[Rade]

I don't worry about definitions which are unimportant to my presentation.

Fair enough, however, you also don't worry much about definitions that are important to your presentation...do you recall that when I volunteered to start a new thread titled 'definitions used by DD' you strongly objected, and indicated it would serve no good purpose and only confuse people.

 

Let me ask for clarification of your position, what exactly do you see as the association between concept and definition. Your answer to this question will go a long way to help clarify your presentation, and I cannot recall you ever stated this association directly.

[Doctordick]

Let me ask for clarification of your position, what exactly do you see as the association between concept and definition. Your answer to this question will go a long way to help clarify your presentation, and I cannot recall you ever stated this association directly.

 

The association between concept and definition is given by the language needed to explain your understanding: i.e., something expressed in [math]P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math].

 

What you apparently cannot comprehend is that my fundamental equation is absolutely general and makes no assumptions. Your problem is that you want to know what assumptions I am making.

 

Have fun -- Dick

Edited May 28, 2014 by Doctordick

[Rade]

The association between concept and definition is given by the language needed to explain your understanding: i.e., something expressed in [math]P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math]. :D What you apparently cannot comprehend is that my fundamental equation is absolutely general and makes no assumptions. Your problem is that you want to know what assumptions I am making. B)

No, this is not correct. There is nothing, not something, expressed [edit] in your [math]P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] that gives the association between concept and definition ! How can you not know this ? I asked nothing about your assumptions...your troll reply exposes your intellectual constraint. Edited February 18, 2013 by Rade

[Doctordick]

No, this is not correct. There is nothing, not something, expressed [edit] in your [math]P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] that gives the association between concept and definition ! How can you not know this ? I asked nothing about your assumptions...your troll reply exposes your intellectual constraint.

 

Again, all you are doing is pointing out that you have absolutely no comprehension as to what [math]P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] represents.

 

All [math]P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] represents is the probability that the collection of numbers, [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] describes a valid circumstance. What those numbers represent depends on your explanation of whatever it is you want to explain.

 

The point being that your explanation must include the language required to express your solution to the problem, whatever that solution might be: i.e., what a number x stands for and how a "circumstance" your solution considers important is represented via those numbers.

 

In essence it is your solution which gives the association you are talking about. My expression can be used with any association between concept and definition you choose to use. Do you have any comprehension of what TCP/IP protocol used in internet communications is? The definitions for what the "numbers" stand for is an open issue solved by the people who designed the computers. The actual numbers used has utterly nothing to do with the solutions those people design. I think the generality of what I am saying is just too far over your head.

 

I am not talking about solving a problem; I am talking about representing the solution no matter what that solution might be!

 

Have fun -- Dick

Edited May 28, 2014 by Doctordick

[AnssiH]

DD, Rade's idea of "concept" and "definition" don't mean at all what they mean in your mind, you can see this clearly from his responses to me. So he would also see your response as completely meaningless because he has no idea what you are trying to say, but he is completely confident in his own interpretation of what you are saying.

 

Rade, I told you you shouldn't be that confident in your interpretation, you can't just assume everybody understand and use all the words the way you do. Let's do a little exercise in semantics;

 

the logical conclusion is that step #1 in your post where your claim (=ontological reality) is false.

 

What exactly do you think my text "(=ontological reality)" meant in my post, and what do you exactly think my whole point #1 meant? In your words, what was I saying there? Feel free to read the post again because the context is important.

 

-Anssi

[Rade]

DD, Rade's idea of "concept" and "definition" don't mean at all what they mean in your mind, you can see this clearly from his responses to me. So he would also see your response as completely meaningless because he has no idea what you are trying to say, but he is completely confident in his own interpretation of what you are saying.

Thank you AnssiH for your reply here to DD...very frustrating is it not that two individuals, DD and me, are so completely confident in their interpretations of the presentation made. As you said, clearly DD has no idea what I asked of him concerning association between concept and definition, it is nice to see that you understand the communication problem.

 

Rade, I told you you shouldn't be that confident in your interpretation, you can't just assume everybody understand and use all the words the way you do.

Well sure, but I do not expect everyone to understand me, but of course hope that majority do.

 

What exactly do you think my text "(=ontological reality)" meant in my post, and what do you exactly think my whole point #1 meant?

Well, first define what you mean when you use the concepts ontological and reality and then I can reply if I agree with your interpretation what they mean when they are combined as (= ontological reality). To be fair, you must have some idea what you meant to say when you wrote (= ontological reality)..correct ?

 

You said this:

1. Imagine a view to any kind of reality. (= ontological reality)

 

So, I conclude you think there to be more than one type of reality because you mention different kinds of reality that can be imagined. The sentence structure refers to what is imagined, and what is imagined (= ontological reality). I disagree. Ontological reality is NOT what is imagined, this is a different type of reality. Now, you also said that humans "can pretty much figure out what ontological reality really is"...which in my mind is impossible, all we can do is say that we imagine what ontological reality really is.

 

So, are you saying your step #1 also could be written:

 

1. Imagine a view of ontological reality

 

or

 

1. Ontological reality is a view that we imagine

 

How about you write your step #1 without using ( = ) but include the words ontological, reality, imagine, view...I think this would be very useful to me.

 

My question to you...is there any reason you would not agree with my revision of your 3 step process, in particular my step #1 ? Is it that you assumed my step #1 as being so obvious that you did not include it, or do we have a more serious problem understanding each other ?

 

As I said above, it would be very useful to me if other forum members would add their comments to our exchange, I mean, if the reply of DD about his worldview of the association between concept and definition is clear to others, and how you use the words (=ontological reality) in your step#1, I would like to hear if others agree.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Rade