"a Universal Representation Of Rules"

[Rade]

Claim of DoctorDick in post above...“Science” is just another religion. Oh' date=' it is a lot more “internally self consistent” than other religions but that doesn't mean it is correct.[/quote']Well no, science has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion. Science by DEFINITION is NOT just another religion. And, what do you mean that science is not correct ? How can you not know that science has absolutely nothing to do with being correct and hold a Ph.D. in physics ?

Edited February 23, 2013 by Rade

[Rade]

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.

Yes, bingo Doctordick. That is exactly what I asked of you...so please present to the forum your explanation of YOUR SOLUTION that YOU consider to be important to the problem at hand...the association between concept and definition. I never asked you to 'solve any problem', nor did I ask to see the general mathematical function that you presented in your troll response, I asked for YOUR SOLUTION to a very specific problem. Now if you have no mental solution to the problem at hand, fine, just say so.

[AnssiH]

Alright Rade now I need you to really focus, as we are talking about pretty basic communication issues.

 

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 ?

 

Of course I know what I meant. What is interesting is that you represented yourself in the last two posts as if you are confident I made a false claim, even though you can't be confident you understand what I meant. I am confident you did not understand what I meant, because you said I made a false claim by a statement that in fact was not a claim.

 

You said this:

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

 

No, I said this;

---

A good way to conceptualize this situation is to imagine the following:

 

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

...

---

 

And then in the next post I explicitly pointed out, that I had merely invited the reader to conceptualize something. Then I even flat out said, I was making an analogy. Analogy, as in a communications device where you talk about an idea, by drawing connections to some different objects or ideas.

 

It's like this:

---

Here's a way to conceptualize what happens in a motorcycle accident without a helmet.

 

1. Imagine an egg (= a human head)

2. Imagine the egg being thrown to a concrete wall

---

 

Do you understand that the above is not trying to claim that a human head is literally an egg? Even though it says (= a human head), that is just a way to draw a connection in the analogy. That is exactly what I was doing; drawing a connection to conceptualize a particular epistemological issue.

 

The only reason I said "a view to reality" instead of just "reality" was to remind the reader that we can't think that we build our world views knowing everything that is happening to all of reality. I mean we may end up thinking that way (solipsism), but we can't start with that premise. But even that was not really relevant to the main point I was making.

 

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.

 

So if from the above you understood I was not making the claim you thought I was making, nor a claim about ontology of any kind, nor a claim at all, you also understand there's no reason for you to voice a disagreement, and your entire responses have been completely irrelevant to what I was talking about. Like I said, it would be much more relevant for you to focus on general communication issues, so you would understand better what people mean.

 

Do you know what it means when people say something has been taken out of context? You have a very strong tendency of doing that. You easily focus even onto individual words, seemingly without understanding how many different ways those words change meaning in different contexts.

 

The fact that you quoted my step #1 without including the comment "here's a way to conceptualize this thing", is something that probably strikes to most people as an obvious case of omitting context that changes the meaning of the text entirely. That is, if I had posted a message that said in its entirety only;

--

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

--

That would be explicitly wrong, and that is exactly what you saw when you decided to respond.

 

Observe, if I had made a post that only said;

--

Imagine an egg (= a human head)

--

 

Well that would not be quite right would it!

 

Now, you also said that humans "can pretty much figure out what ontological reality really is"...

 

So here's your homework. Did I say that? Or did you omit some relevant context? If you read the whole sentence, did I claim humans can figure out what ontological reality is, or did I say something quite opposite?

 

As a general rule, if you find yourself cutting up a single sentence into pieces, you are probably omitting context that the original writer thought relevant. Just saying.

 

And let me just re-iterate that I am not really interested of explaining to you more closely that actual epistemological issue I was talking about, because there are far too many concepts you would have to understand properly first, and getting there is impossible at the present state of communications. Also you have about a snowball's chance in hell of understanding what DD is talking about right now.

 

-Anssi

[Rade]

The only reason I said "a view to reality" instead of just "reality" was to remind the reader that we can't think that we build our world views knowing everything that is happening to all of reality. I mean we may end up thinking that way (solipsism), but we can't start with that premise. But even that was not really relevant to the main point I was making.

Well, in fact you did not say "a view to reality". You tell me I take words out of context, so, just saying....

 

Please read again your post:

 

"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".

 

So why did you use analogy to make an ontological implication (=ontological reality) ? It does not help the presentation of DD when you make ANY implication of reality of any kind, it can only confuse the reader.

[AnssiH]

I take words out of context, so

 

Hey!

;)

 

-Anssi

[Rade]

Very good, Anssi...made my day. But seriously, it should be clear to you that after what, ~ 2 years now, I am one of the only folks that read this forum that has an interest in the presentation by DD. Do I fully understand it..of course not. Do I offer interpretations using common English words that differ from what is intended by you and DD, yes I do, and to be fair, this cannot be 100% my problem with communication. Do I disagree with central points such as how DD defines time, yes I do. I do wish DD greatest success with his new thesis, his Foundations of Reality book. But, a simple question. Given the fact mentioned many times by DD that his Fundamental Equation cannot predict anything about future reality, is this a useful title for his thesis, does he risk yet more misunderstanding and critical comment ? How about, Foundations of Explanation for a title ? Is this not the essence of the presentation, showing how simple constraints on his definition of explanation lead to a Fundamental Equation for explanation itself, how to mathematically unite the mental processes of forming concept and definition ?

[Doctordick]

Do I disagree with central points such as how DD defines time, yes I do.

 

 

In an attempt to clarify to you exactly why you are having problems, carefully think about this question.

 

Exactly why do you disagree with my definition of time? Is it because you believe it does not conform to your definition or is it because you simply refuse to work with my definition.

 

By -- Dick

Edited May 28, 2014 by Doctordick

[Rade]

In an attempt to clarify to you exactly why you are having problems, carefully think about this question.Exactly why do you disagree with my definition of time? Is it because you believe it does not conform to your definition or is it because you simply refuse to work with my definition.

Hello. First, you have no idea how much I appreciate the tone of your post, the lack of insult to me personally. To answer your first question, I do not agree with your definition of time, it does not conform with human experience. I explained this in detail in your recent thread about time. I see that others also do not agree with your definition that time divides. The situation is the exact opposite, time is what is divided. There is no middle ground, either you are correct (time divides) or I am correct (time is what is divided) or we both incorrect.

 

I have tried to work with your definition, it leads to an unneeded tau dimension, a false understanding of simultaneous events, and why humans invented clocks. So, here is my question to you. Why do you refuse to work with my definition of time ? It would be rather simple for you to modify your presentation in such a way that you allow time to be what is divided. Until such time I see no reason for further dialog between us about time. But, if you wish to continue, how about you reply to your other thread specific to your claim that time is what divides past from future, it will help others to read all the replies to date, then your rebuttal.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Rade

[Doctordick]

To answer your first question, I do not agree with your definition of time, it does not conform with human experience.

 

That is, you are asserting that “it is because you believe it does not conform to your definition”! That is exactly what I thought your problem was. The central issue of my presentation is the fact that I am creating a model capable of representing absolutely all possibilities. Your definition simply does not satisfy that requirement. Suppose an explanation exists which does not require your concept of time. Your mental model simply does not handle such a solution. Essentially your position is that such an explanation is impossible! It is nice to know you believe yourself to be all knowing.

 

There is no middle ground, either you are correct (time divides) or I am correct (time is what is divided) or we both incorrect.

 

My definition is absolutely universally applicable; yours is not! If the explanation you are interested in requires your definition of time, my representation (which represents all circumstances via [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math]) merely requires you assign a number to some specific x in the circumstance you feel requires that concept.

 

You want to use your concept of time? Suppose you simply assign the number 215250121964. Where did I get than number? That would be volume 2, page 1525 word 12 of the 1964 edition of Websters New World Dictionary encyclopedic edition of 1964. A circumstance is thus some body of information to be transmitted: i.e., every x in that collection would be specifically refer to a concept defined in your head and every circumstance you might chose to communicate would use the same numbers anytime you wish to include that same concept. Your concept of time is thus represented by 215250121964; not by my paramer “t”: i.e., your explanation is thus specifically included in my model.

 

All that is then required is for you to provide a sufficient number of circumstances for me to discover the correlations required to learn the relationships between the entire collection of such numbers [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math]. The rule by which you come up with that number is immaterial. What is required is, sufficient information to build a solution to what those numbers mean. It is exactly the problem of solving a secret code and includes the problem of learning a language to represent those concepts; it is a very complex cryptography problem (it might take billions of years to solve so don't worry about solving it). I am looking for the constraints implied by my definitions! You don't have to believe them to understand my deductions.

 

I have tried to work with your definition, it leads to an unneeded tau dimension, a false understanding of simultaneous events, and why humans invented clocks.

 

So you do not see it as a representation of the specific solution you have come to believe is true. What makes you think that your solution is correct? Or that there are no other solutions?

 

So, here is my question to you. Why do you refuse to work with my definition of time ?

 

Very simply! As I said, your definition is not absolutely universally applicable; mine is!

 

It would be rather simple for you to modify your presentation in such a way that you allow time to be what is divided.

 

I only use the word “time” because (as I have said many times) it serves the purpose of ordering circumstances; a common issue quite often solved by the concept “time” as used by you. Or are you saying that your concept of time cannot be used to order events? Or that you would rather I use a different term as using the word "time" confuses you?

 

Until such time I see no reason for further dialog between us about time.

 

I cannot comprehend your interest in any dialog between us about anything. You apparently want to believe what you believe and not question anything.

 

But, if you wish to continue, how about you reply to your other thread specific to your claim that time is what divides past from future, it will help others to read all the replies to date, then your rebuttal.

 

I never made any such claim.

 

I defined time to be an ordering parameter used to eliminate the order issues in an arbitrary circumstance [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] as order in those numbers might be meaningful. A circumstance (a collection of specific numbers) could represent a word, a sentence, a movie a history book, a collection of images of things ..., anything. In which case, order of concepts is an important issue. A mental model representing those numbers as points on a line fails to represent order. I showed very specifically how that t parameter could remove the problem of order when converting from a collection of numbers to a set of points on a line.

 

In addition to that I also defined the past to be known circumstances and the future to be unknown circumstances. Once again, I did this because of the similarity with the common idea of past and future. Or are you of the opinion that the common concept does not include the idea of past and future being different?

 

And finally, I also defined the present as those circumstances which transform from “unknown” to “known” within the procedure of considering all possible “pasts” (known things) consistent with the solution being explained. Once again I did that only because that idea is quite analogous to the common concept (I am not saying they are identical ideas). Unless you suggesting that in the common concept of time, the present can not possibly be seen as a collection of events standing between the past and the future?

 

Again, why are you continuing this dialog? -- Dick

Edited May 28, 2014 by Doctordick

[Rade]

I never made any such claim {that time divides}.

Of course you made such a claim, you made it in your recent thread on time in Philosophy of Science area of forum...again, here is a quote of what you said:

 

Quote of DoctorDick:The most fundamental characteristic of time is that it divides our universe (the reality within which all experiments conceivable are performed) into two distinctly different realms: the past and the future!

I completely disagree, and this is the reason that your definition of time cannot be universal. Your definition of time is based on a false premise that time has a MOST fundamental characteristic that it DIVIDES ! It does no such thing, time is WHAT IS DIVIDED, you have the situation 180 degrees opposite of what is logically correct ! Whatever you think your "t" parameter to be, it is NOT time...imo, you are best to give it another label and name, perhaps call it "o" = ordering parameter. Simply, your definition that time orders is necessary to a proper understanding of time, but not sufficient to define it.

 

...I showed very specifically how that "t" parameter could remove the problem of order when converting from a collection of numbers to a set of points on a line.

Yes' date=' and this is why your "t" parameter cannot be defined to be time, because it is incorrectly based on a concept that time divides. Time is a continuous interval that can be divided, not what divides a set of points as an ordering parameter. Time is not defined as being an ordering process, a process that divides, time is defined as that which is intermediate between moments, time is that which is divided. Time cannot be associated as a number with a single "x" in your mathematical function, time is associated as a number with at minimum two moments as a limit. I sense you have no idea what I am talking about since you gave a false example how you think my concept of time is associated with your concept of 'x'.

 

In addition to that I also defined the past to be known circumstances and the future to be unknown circumstances. Once again, I did this because of the similarity with the common idea of past and future. Or are you of the opinion that the common concept does not include the idea of past and future being different?

I agree with Einstein that it is an illusion to think that past-future-present moments are different, what may (or not) differ are past and future intervals of time, depends on the circumstance. Also, you have never defined what you mean by "known", so your definitions of past and future have no basis since the future can be known via prediction (with uncertainty), an impossible circumstance in your world view of the future. You cannot just sweep the concept of how humans know under the rug and state confidently as a definition that "future is what is unknown", first you must provide YOUR definition of know, then readers can decide if you are correct when you define future to be what is unknown. Based on my definition of know (mental grasp of facts of reality) humans CAN KNOW THE FUTURE with uncertainty.

 

And finally' date=' I also [b']defined[/b] the present as those circumstances which transform from “unknown” to “known” within the procedure of considering all possible “pasts” (known things) consistent with the solution being explained. Once again I did that only because that idea is quite analogous to the common concept (I am not saying they are identical ideas). Unless you suggesting that in the common concept of time, the present can not possibly be seen as a collection of events standing between the past and the future?

Yes, correct, that is exactly what I am saying. I am saying the PRESENT is not a collection of events that stands between past from future...I am saying that past time interval and future time interval occur simultaneous with the present moment. I am saying the present moment is outside time by definition, the only event within the present moment is the transformation of past time interval into future time interval, and that this transformation occurs within a duration outside human observation or measurement, outside my definition of time. Your presentation cannot be universal because it does not allow such a possibility of how past and future time are simultaneous with present moment.

 

Again' date=' why are you continuing this dialog?[/quote']Because I find that your presentation is based on a false premise concerning the most fundamental characteristic of time as you stated above in your quote, no other reason. View me being a helpful Henry, providing comments to improve your presentation.

[Bombadil]

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.

 

Then there really is no such thing as a general explanation?

 

While I can see the logic in this statement doesn't this mean that our understanding of anything is not truly general, and the only measure of if an explanation is useful will be if it is circularly defined?

 

My point is how can a person ever form a world view if as soon as anything is defined a law is assumed which will result in loss of the generality of the expectations. Is this what a world view is, just the rules that we assume are true.

 

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.

 

Well in a way isn't this the basis of any explanation. That is, if something happened before then we assume that if it happens again it will happen in the same way, but isn't this in a way saying that the context is not effecting what we are looking at? Or are we saying that if the context is the same then the same thing is expected to happen?

 

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.

 

But if we say that everything is equally likely, then we must include the context, that is we are saying that any possible change in the context is possible and has the same likelihood. Since if we take even the context to remain unchanged we are no longer saying that everything is equally likely as the context is most of what we expect.

 

“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).

 

Well this is a possibility but if we think of ether a word being a Noumena or a word being the representation of a Noumena we are assuming an explanation of language, so we should probably be vary careful as to what we say a word is.

 

If a word is truly a Noumena then isn't the only hope of ever making a machine that can truly understand a language next to zero as any one that hopes to ever make such a machine will have to come up with the meanings of all the words used, that is they will have to make up an explanation that is equivalent in some way to the language being used.

 

But if we just consider the use of names in science though and words like semiconductor and superconductor or any proper name for that matter it seems quite possible that these are not “Noumena” but rather just representing “Nounena”

 

Although I suppose that the same argument could be made that words like “and, then, or” are indeed Noumena. So I suppose that I would have to say that some words are Noumena and some words are not if we want to remain truly general that is.

 

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.

 

I've only glanced at that a little bit, actually it is vary hard for something to hold my attention when it is talking about philosophy unless it says something very interesting and is done in a vary precise manner. Not something that seems to go with philosophy very often I would hope that at some point this was different.

 

All in all though I don't get the impression that that is what was being referred to, maybe I'm wrong but I definitely think that a particular language was being referred to and thats not really the impression that I got form what I read.

 

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.

 

And if you do have a world view you have already assumed what the context is, that is you have assumed what can be reasonably ignored, sounds like a cache 22 if we expect it to be possible to actually form a world view that is consistent with any possible information, on the other hand it seems that all that is really needed is for an explanation to explain what is considered the past (that is if the past ever repeats itself it will happen in the same way) and for an explanation to be self consistent. Generality is not really a concern of actual explanations, only our representation must be truly general. But of course we aren't interested in any particular explanations either.

 

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.

 

Yes there are, but the real point that I am getting at is not one of miscommunication but rather of consistent communication. That is, is it possible for two people to try to communicate in such a way that one of them will not appear to be consistent to the other and that there is no way to interpret it in a consistent way without changing his world view?

 

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.

 

I still don't really understand what you mean by “my fundamental equation is not solvable” do you really mean that it has no possible solution or only that any solution is beyond our ability to find, or are you saying it in some other way?

 

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).

 

AnssiH not to be overly critical but while I think that I know what you are trying to say, that way of putting it seems to be somewhat deceptive if you are not very critical of the definitions being used.

 

Actual I have read that in at least three completely different ways, I won't try to describe them as to try to would only confuse the issue further.

 

But let me try rephrasing it and see if you agree that we are both talking about the same thing.

 

1.Imagine a model capable of representing arbitrary information.

 

2.Now suppose that you had some arbitrary information that you wanted to understand in some way.

 

3.Now consider how you might make a mapping from the arbitrary information to the model capable of representing arbitrary information.

 

Consider that such a mapping can only truly be seen as consistent. That is there is no way to truly say that the mapping is correct as the mapping need only be consistent and anything more is just undesired assumptions.

 

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.

 

I tend to think that if a general learning machine is made that it will most likely be by accident and not the actual goal and probably wont be recognized for what it is for some time.

 

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.

 

But it seems to me that this is somewhat hiding the difficulty in arriving at an explanation in the first place and what the failure of the explanation is, for one thing even the past is a consequence of our world view and so any failure of our explanation can only be due to an inconsistency in our definitions.

[Bombadil]

I have tried to work with your definition, it leads to an unneeded tau dimension, a false understanding of simultaneous events, and why humans invented clocks. So, here is my question to you. Why do you refuse to work with my definition of time ? It would be rather simple for you to modify your presentation in such a way that you allow time to be what is divided. Until such time I see no reason for further dialog between us about time. But, if you wish to continue, how about you reply to your other thread specific to your claim that time is what divides past from future, it will help others to read all the replies to date, then your rebuttal.

 

Rade if you truly believe that it would be simple to use your definition instead of DoctorDick's why haven't you done it already?

 

As for your complaints don't you see that the very things that you are complaining about could very well be the analogs of the problems with physics. Or do you think that physics is a complete and correct representation of reality. If you do I doubt that even the physicists would agree with you since if they did they wouldn't be coming up with new theories all the time.

 

Yes, and this is why your "t" parameter cannot be defined to be time, because it is incorrectly based on a concept that time divides. Time is a continuous interval that can be divided, not what divides a set of points as an ordering parameter. Time is not defined as being an ordering process, a process that divides, time is defined as that which is intermediate between moments, time is that which is divided. Time cannot be associated as a number with a single "x" in your mathematical function, time is associated as a number with at minimum two moments as a limit. I sense you have no idea what I am talking about since you gave a false example how you think my concept of time is associated with your concept of 'x'.

 

Rade I think that you are not even talking about time I think that what you are talking about is the tau axis not time.

 

Do you really not understand that this derivation has nothing to do with human experience. And do you not see that the real strength of this derivation and the most remarkable thing about it is, that it doesn't depend on the need for something that we are obtaining expectations about to obtain information about how any possible expectations about it, no matter how alien, will behave.

[Rade]

Rade if you truly believe that it would be simple to use your definition instead of DoctorDick's why haven't you done it already? As for your complaints don't you see that the very things that you are complaining about could very well be the analogs of the problems with physics. Or do you think that physics is a complete and correct representation of reality.

I think there is no such concept as a complete and correct representation of reality if science is used as the means to determine that representation.

 

Rade I think that you are not even talking about time I think that what you are talking about is the tau axis not time.

Or' date=' is it DoctorDick that is not talking about time comprehensively, and that what he calls his tau axis is in fact the correct understanding of time as relates to space as shown by General Relativity, e.g., the Einstein concept of the spacetime interval. I think it very important for us to recall that Einstein used two concepts of time based on frame of reference and movement, which are (1) proper time and (2) coordinate time, and it is my undersatnding that both concepts are needed to lead to his new revolutionary concept of the spacetime interval. So Bombadil I think you may have it correct, it does appear that the concept of time I suggest is the concept of the Einstein spacetime interval. This may help explain why I said that the presentation of DoctorDick leads to an unneeded tau axis, that is, his tau axis is in fact the proper understanding of time as relates to space as given by GR Theory.

 

So, we need to be very, very clear exactly what concept of time DoctorDick puts forth, that is, is the "t" in the presentation the Einstein concept of (1) proper time OR that of (2) coordinate time, or (3) some new understanding of time not presented by Einstein.

 

Do you really not understand that this derivation has nothing to do with human experience.

This makes no sense to me because DoctorDick has said many times that his presentation deals with the problem to be solved of how to form a mental image of reality. Well, one cannot form a mental image outside human experience, so I am very sorry I have no idea what you are saying here.

 

And do you not see that the real strength of this derivation and the most remarkable thing about it is' date=' that it doesn't depend on the need for something that we are obtaining expectations about to obtain information about how any possible expectations about it, no matter how alien, will behave.[/quote']Your comment is a little difficult to follow...especially your "something" that we obtain expectation about. So, you are saying first is a 'something' that generates undefined information that enters human experience...that the 'something' is like an alien black box generating undefined information that humans seek to understand. There is nothing remarkable about this, there is in information science and cybernetics a long history of theory how to deal with undefined information generated by alien black boxes. I suppose it could be said that DoctorDick adds a new fundamental equation that may be of value to those that study cybernetics, perhaps those are the types of people he needs to review his presentation ?

 

My take home lesson from the derivation by DoctorDick is that I find that his fundamental equation may be an accurate mathematical representation of how the human mind transforms concepts derived mentally from undefined information into definitions that can be used for communication. Perhaps I error, no problem, I am here to learn.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Rade

[Doctordick]

Then there really is no such thing as a general explanation?

 

Well, I would classify my models as "general explanations" (I have put forth several – see “A Closed Form Solution to the Universe” and “A Simple Geometric Proof with Profound Consequences”).

 

While I can see the logic in this statement doesn't this mean that our understanding of anything is not truly general, and the only measure of if an explanation is useful will be if it is circularly defined?

 

The “general explanations” I have uncovered are mere consequences of my definitions (i.e., circularly defined); however, this cannot be taken as proof that all “explanations” are circularly defined. There may exist an explanation which actually is not circularly defined; if such a thing exists, it would imply that some relationship which does solve my equation can be proved to never occur in reality. Such an event would imply that my equation is insufficient to separate what can be found from what can't be found. To date, I have been able to find no such case. Every case apparently solving my equation is represented by some situation accepted by the physics community as a statement about reality: i.e., I can find no experiment which separates our universe from “all possible universes”. Everything which solves my equation appears to be observable phenomena.

 

Well in a way isn't this the basis of any explanation. That is, if something happened before then we assume that if it happens again it will happen in the same way, but isn't this in a way saying that the context is not effecting what we are looking at? Or are we saying that if the context is the same then the same thing is expected to happen?

 

“If something happened before” is a statement of the context. Let me put it this way: from the perspective of the “what is” is “what is” explanation, anything is possible. But even there, if you bring in “context” the probabilities of your expectations are no longer totally unknown. For example, if I am concerned with “shoes” (that is a context not including the entire universe -- it is a constrained piece of the universe) then the probability my mental image will include “shoe laces” is not at all indeterminate (it depends on what further context I include). Certainly one event cannot seriously change the numbers obtained from the known universe. It follows that whatever probability I use, it will be fairly consistent with the probability after I look or I am simply failing to use that “context”.

 

Since if we take even the context to remain unchanged we are no longer saying that everything is equally likely as the context is most of what we expect.

 

The “present” is a very-very small piece of what is known (the past) so you should not expect any major changes in your expectations due to a current experience.

 

Well this is a possibility but if we think of ether a word being a Noumena or a word being the representation of a Noumena we are assuming an explanation of language, so we should probably be vary careful as to what we say a word is.

 

That seems very reasonable to me.

 

... isn't the only hope of ever making a machine that can truly understand a language next to zero

 

Do you think “true” understanding of a language actually exists? When you get to be as old as I am, you will begin to comprehend what authorities mean by a “living language”. You will begin to see the various changes in meaning used by the young. I used to think my grandfather was warped when he used to insist that I use the word “yon”. He taught English at one time and he held that there were three articles in the English language: this, that and yon. “This” was an object near the speaker, “that” was an object near the listener and “yon” was an object near neither. I am today very disturbed by the vanishing of the word “fewer” people now use “less” for all circumstances and apparently have no concept of the difference. I now understand my grandfathers problem with my failure to use the word "yon".

 

Children guess the meanings of words and, if they never learn of their error, the language changes. The hope of ever creating a human being that can truly understand a language is next to zero! Consider Rade.

 

... as any one that hopes to ever make such a machine will have to come up with the meanings of all the words used, that is they will have to make up an explanation that is equivalent in some way to the language being used.

 

Mathematics could be considered a language with well defined words but, even there, there are problems. But there are a lot of serious people trying to make the usage as universal as possible and it still changes as emphasis as to what is important changes. I think that is exactly the problem I have with Qfwfq.

 

I've only glanced at that a little bit, actually it is vary hard for something to hold my attention when it is talking about philosophy unless it says something very interesting and is done in a vary precise manner. Not something that seems to go with philosophy very often I would hope that at some point this was different.

 

About the same as my reaction. I was sent to that site by a reference to someone trying to create a language which could not assert fallacies.

 

Generality is not really a concern of actual explanations, only our representation must be truly general. But of course we aren't interested in any particular explanations either.

 

Well, in a sense, I am interested in some of those “particular explanations” as the academy is pretty adamant about them being real statements about reality. I find in my analysis that they are exactly the same as those authoritarian pronouncements about God and heaven asserted by the religious thinkers of the dark ages. That is why I started referring to modern science as a religion.

 

Yes there are, but the real point that I am getting at is not one of miscommunication but rather of consistent communication. That is, is it possible for two people to try to communicate in such a way that one of them will not appear to be consistent to the other and that there is no way to interpret it in a consistent way without changing his world view?

 

You are overlooking a subtle but serious issue here. Two people may live within a context totally different from the other. If those two people have a contact of some sort (some channel of communications), they may very well come up with an explanation of the others communication consistent with their model of the universe they find themselves in. That model includes the meanings of the communication elements. Thus it becomes possible that there is no resemblance whatsoever between the collections of circumstance which make up their universes. At the same time if both possess a valid explanation of their universe they may very well think they are talking about exactly the same thing. If both explanations satisfy my fundamental equation, there is utterly no way to uncover the differences in their universes.

 

I still don't really understand what you mean by “my fundamental equation is not solvable” do you really mean that it has no possible solution or only that any solution is beyond our ability to find, or are you saying it in some other way?

 

I mean that any solution of the entire equation is so large and complex that the actual solution can not be found.

 

AnssiH not to be overly critical but while I think that I know what you are trying to say, that way of putting it seems to be somewhat deceptive if you are not very critical of the definitions being used.

 

Anssi is essentially talking about exactly the same situation I am talking about above: “if both explanations satisfy my fundamental equation, there is utterly no way to uncover the differences in their universes.”

 

That is there is no way to truly say that the mapping is correct as the mapping need only be consistent and anything more is just undesired assumptions.

 

That is right on the money!

 

But it seems to me that this is somewhat hiding the difficulty in arriving at an explanation in the first place and what the failure of the explanation is, for one thing even the past is a consequence of our world view and so any failure of our explanation can only be due to an inconsistency in our definitions.

 

I think you are missing the point that “an explanation” is actually nothing more than a means of reproducing what you think is known (in particular, the statistical distribution of possibilities) from given slices of manageable context.

 

Have fun -- Dick

Edited May 28, 2014 by Doctordick

[Rade]

The “general explanations” I have uncovered are mere consequences of my definitions (i.e., circularly defined); however, this cannot be taken as proof that all “explanations” are circularly defined. There may exist an explanation which actually is not circularly defined; if such a thing exists, it would imply that some relationship which does solve my equation can be proved to never occur in reality. Such an event would imply that my equation is insufficient to separate what can be found from what can't be found. To date, I have been able to find no such case. Every case apparently solving my equation is represented by some situation accepted by the physics community as a statement about reality: i.e., I can find no experiment which separates our universe from “all possible universes”. Everything which solves my equation appears to be observable phenomena.

You are correct, there does exist the possibility of an explanation that is not circularly defined. Let me suggest an explanation which is not circularly defined, thus a relationship which does solve your equation that can be shown logically to never occur in reality.

 

Enter the concept of the "primitive". A primitive is any term accepted without formal definition (e.g., not circularly defined). As AXIOM is to THEOREM, thus PRIMITIVE is to DEFINED TERM.

 

Any explanation that uses primitives, is not circularly defined, thus its existence would imply a relationship for a circumstance which does solve your fundamental equation but logically can never occur in reality. The implication of the existence of such an explanation that your fundamental equation cannot (USING YOUR DEFINITION OF EXPLANATION ITSELF) separate what can be found, from what cannot, leads to the logical conclusion that the science of physics itself, as a source of knowledge, can NEVER offer a self-consistent explanation of philosophy itself. Why you say ? For the simple reason that physics does not have ANY consistent set of primitives that it uses to gain knowledge of what exists, while philosophy does have a set of primitives, well at least one philosophy does that I am aware of, and all it takes is one valid example to falsify a claim.

 

Therefore, I argue that there does exist an explanation of something that solves your fundamental equation that is not an observable phenomenon, and that something is what we call philosophy itself, which I will define as an emotional thinking response by humans to something they seek to gain and/or keep that is of value, namely a comprehensive understanding of their relationship with existence. If anyone thinks that such an emotional response is an observable phenomenon I would like to hear the argument. So, what is within the set of primitives not circularly defined in this explanation ? I'll let that question stand as a homework assignment for anyone with interest.

 

Everything which solves my equation appears to be observable phenomena.

Well, no, the concept of the 'primitive' solves your equation but can never (by definition) be an observable phenomena. So, your equation is not so fundamental, close but no cigar.

 

Again, view me as a helpful Henry, falsify my claim and your presentation advances.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Rade

[Doctordick]

Enter the concept of the "primitive". A primitive is any term accepted without formal definition (e.g., not circularly defined). As AXIOM is to THEOREM, thus PRIMITIVE is to DEFINED TERM.

 

Rade, your comments carry no weight whatsoever. You insist on failing to include "context". In the absence of context, the symbolic representations “AXIOM”, “ THEOREM”, “PRIMITIVE” and, in fact, “DEFINED TERM” are utterly meaningless symbology. You might as well write them in Linear A. Perhaps solving that feat would convince you that you are leaving out some important issues.

 

The context can not be omitted! What you are actually doing is presuming that the context is a body of known information: i.e., that the surrounding information being used by you to complete your understanding (and provided by your subconscious intuition) is a correct and valid explanation of the required context. In particular, you are assuming there is no other valid interpretation of the information standing behind that context. Essentially, you are putting forth your beliefs as valid. Helpful Henry would have to have at least some comprehension of what I am talking about; you apparently have none.

 

Your interpretation requires underlying belief in the validity of your assertions; my representation requires no such thing and is entirely general.

 

You are wasting time for both of us. It is quite clear that you have utterly no comprehension of what I am doing. I have no intention of responding to any further posts by you.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Doctordick

[Rade]

DoctorDick, your reply would carry more weight if you would have presented a few examples of primitives (terms with no formal definitions) that are used in physics. I cannot think of any, and if it is correct that they do not exist, then my suggestion holds true that any explanation outside physics that does uses primitives (within the context of how I defined the term), is not circularly defined, thus the existence of such an explanation would imply a relationship for a circumstance which may solve your fundamental equation but logically can never occur in reality (within the context of what you said must be possible). No problem with me if you not respond to my posts, I'll wait for others to comment. Cordially....

Edited March 13, 2013 by Rade