Jump to content
Science Forums

"a Universal Representation Of Rules"


Doctordick

Recommended Posts

As I said, the symmetries arise from the mapping issue. If one examines the representation of two absolutely identical explanations they must yield absolutely identical probabilities for all representations of identical circumstances but that does not require the numerical labels be identical. Following the consequences of adding a constant to every numerical label in one of those representations leads directly to the necessary validity of those differential relationships. It follows that those differential relationships must be universal consequences of the fact that such a mapping is possible.

 

It is also possible to make a replacement of every individual label with an alternate label. So long as every appearance of a given specific label in one explanation appears as that alternate label in the same circumstance being represented in the other representation of that explanation; if the explanations are identical, the probabilities for the circumstances must be identical. This leads to some interesting universal consequences which can only be understood with a clear understanding of that “simple geometric proof” I laid out back in 2006.

 

I think a good alternative way to express this issue is to note that, if those symmetries did not exist, it would mean that the meaning of some particular label was embedded into the notation itself. I.e., if a circumstance consisting of bunch of 3's had non-symmetrical expectations from a circumstance with bunch of 2's, that would mean "3" is taken to have a meaning, that is different from "2".

 

If that was the case, it would be very much contrary to the original intention of the notation; to be entirely general method of expressing any circumstances of any explanation.

 

In order to be a general notation, it cannot define any meaning to the labels themselves. Whatever defined behaviours or properties an explanation may contain, they must be embedded into the distribution of collections of labels one way or another; they cannot be simply implied by a given specific label.

 

-Anssi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the try Anssi, but I think you are talking over their heads. I don't think they have the slightest idea of what we are talking about.
 

That's nothing like the problem.

 

Then I clearly do not understand what the problem is. All I know is that I cannot figure out a way of applying your complaints to my presentation. All I have done is try to explain myself from different perspectives and that seems to just beget further misrepresentations.
 

You take a word (or example or analogy) and find from it a manufactured implication which confirms your suspicion that the person is misinterpreting what you're saying.

 

I think you are referring to comments I make when I am trying to understand the complaints you, Rade, and Qfwfq come up with.
 

Another example. I onetime used the word "between", saying "well... if you define the present as the boundary between past and future..." Your reaction was to say:

This post seems somewhat intelligent; however, I would see nothing wrong with simply referring to an “instant” being exactly the same as what I have defined to be a “present”: i.e., a change in the past (what is known). I seriously doubt that I used the word "between" but perhaps I did; I do get sloppy sometimes. The real problem here is that you have not defined what you (or Rade) mean by the word “between”.

Yet, in your last post which I just read and quoted you have:

The whole purpose of the index "t" is to divide what is known into changes in our knowledge (the present was defined to be the boundary between the past, what is known, and the future, what is not known).

 

 

The issue, as far as I see it, is that you guys are putting constraints on these meanings which I am not; that is what I am referring to above when I ask for your definitions. My intention seems to me to be quite clear: Given the fact that no one is all knowing, one can expect that, with regard to any interpretation of any information (absolutely any problem conceivable) the full set of circumstances to be explained could change. That is a pretty universal perspective. Given that perspective, I merely gave names to the three significant categories.

I proposed calling what was known, the information the explanation was based upon, “the past”, what was not known “the future” and the present being any new circumstance added to what was known. I proposed that because of its absolutely universal applicability: i.e., the categorization can be applied to absolutely any problem. And you guys just keep coming up with specific problems with inherent ontological interpretations you presume known: i.e., you presume the explanations are correct and no other valid interpretation of the underlying information exists. If valid explanations have to be correct, you have totally wiped out the general applicability of your interpretation. You have essentially presumed the solution you have discovered is the only "correct" interpretation possible.
 

So clearly the use of the word "between" isn't a problem. The use of "cracked" isn't a problem either. There is no reason to derail the progress of discussion based on these things.

 

Then why did you guys work at derailing the progress? The comments you made at the time were totally inapplicable to my proof and I simply cannot comprehend why you made them other than that you misunderstood what I was doing. Using that common interpretation of "cracked" seemed to me to be an applicable explanation. I would not have brought it up otherwise. If I was wrong, I am sorry; however, if I was indeed wrong, I can think of no explanation for the complaints.
 

Please just consider that you might do what I'm saying and it might not be helpful.

 

Well you place me in a difficult position as I cannot comprehend your complaints via any interpretation except the you don't understand what I am talking about. Rade in particular seems to have no comprehension of of my efforts to avoid all constraints other than “it answers question” and why that avoidance is absolutely necessary if one wants to find constraints imposed by definition only and nothing else. You all keep bring up issues that require some background of information which you seem to think is not part of the problems you want to talk about (things you apparently assume are true) and I cannot comprehend why you do that; other than the fact that you simply don't understand what the underlying issues of the presentation are.

I am sorry, I may be stupid but I personally do not understand any of the complaints being put forward.

Have fun -- Dick

 

Edited by Doctordick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I clearly do not understand what the problem is.

No truer words.

 

And you guys just keep coming up with specific problems with inherent ontological interpretations you presume known: i.e., you presume the explanations are correct and no other valid interpretation of the underlying information exists.

You are just demonstrating my point.

 

You apparently can't distinguish between "classical mechanics doesn't explain the underlying information" and "no other valid interpretation of the underlying information exists".

 

Being capable of paying attention, it should be obvious that I never said the second and that the former doesn't imply the latter.

 

I don't know why you insist on making wild and untrue characterizations of things I say (or Qfwfq or other people you distrust for that matter). I honestly don't. But, that coupled with your refusal to respond to questions of doubt, and your refusal to investigate refutations, makes the advancement of discussion with anyone who could potentially disagree with you impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I proposed calling what was known, the information the explanation was based upon, “the past”,
But, the problem with this approach is that the shift symmetry expectation probabilities that can be labeled, which represent what the explanation is based on, can be derived fully from mathematical expectation itself (and thus "known" mathematically), while at the same time, the facts of the circumstance upon which the explanation is based on (your past based on perception of some undefined event) is uncertain, thus cannot be said to be "known". Thus, the "past" must always be a combination of that which is completely known mathematically to represent the complete set of expectation probabilities (what you will label) PLUS that which is known but incompletely. Thus the past is both what you know fully mathematically and what you do not know fully perceptually. However, in your argument, you demand that the past must be 100% "known" both mathematically and perceptually, and the future 100% unknown, which is clearly incorrect based on a common sense understanding of these two topics. I conclude from your comment that you do not have a clear conception of what it means to say anything is "known". If not true, then please define the concept "know" as you understand it to relate to past and future.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you guys just keep coming up with specific problems with inherent ontological interpretations you presume known: i.e., you presume the explanations are correct and no other valid interpretation of the underlying information exists.
Well, from my perspective, this is exactly the attack you take when approached with critical comments of your proof presentation. You "presume" that your "explanation" of your proof presentation is the only one that is "correct" and that no other valid interpretation of the underlying information of your proof "exists".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry, I may be stupid but I personally do not understand any of the complaints being put forward.

 

And none of you have put a single thing forward which clears the thing up in any way!

 

I have no choice but to presume there is no sense behind your complaints.

 

Have fun -- Dick

Edited by Doctordick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And none of you have put a single thing forward which clears the thing up in any way! :shrug:

 

I have no choice but to presume there is no sense behind your complaints.

My point is that nothing could clear up complaints for you. You are predisposed to characterizing and misunderstanding them — or, at least, professing a misunderstanding. Then you say post that :rolleyes:

 

How clear is this argument?...

 

What I have discovered is that I can guarantee you that, for any explanation of anything, there exists a totally consistent interpretation of the symbols used to communicate that explanation which will require the fundamental elements of that explanation to obey my equation so long as that explanation is internally consistent

 

~Doctordick

 

Yet,

 
Classical mechanics is an explanation

 

~Doctordick

 
Classical mechanics is internally consistent

 

~Proven Fact

 
Classical mechanics DOES NOT obey Doctor Dick's equation

 

~Will

 

It's not that you can't intellectually add those things up and find they equal a contradiction. It's just that anyone who points it out must have some kind of complaint with your analysis, and your only reaction to a complaint is saying something like "You don't understand what I'm doing. You've been brainwashed by physics. You are assuming the reality of ontological elements. You aren't an idiot, but you apparently can't keep up... etc."

 

How much better and more helpful would it be to honestly delve into the counterexample — to discuss it in the same way you discuss your own analysis?

 

It should tell you something when you've said repeatedly that "Anssi is the only one able to understand my analysis", while, he is the only one with complete faith in you and that analysis. It's obvious — you are conflating agreement with understanding.

 

 

I have not expressed complete agreement with your conclusions and I've asked critical questions about your analysis, so you apparently have no choice but to say:

 

...there is no sense behind your complaints.

 

And you don't realize how you're proving my point when you do this. You apparently can't help it, and it destroys the conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, in your argument, you demand that the past must be 100% "known" both mathematically and perceptually, and the future 100% unknown

 

No he doesn't.

 

I conclude from your comment that you do not have a clear conception of what it means to say anything is "known".

 

It's pretty clear to me what he means by "known" in this context.

 

Like I said, it's a delicate subject, and it's easy to make a misinterpretation if you are not careful with your intuitive ideas. When I was interpreting the presentation, it was pretty clear to me that "known past" is not referring to knowing some kind of ontological truth. Because, as you say, that kind of interpretation would not make any sense. What I don't understand is, why do you then insist on interpreting it that way.

 

So it is in fact very possible to pick up how it is meant, but if it doesn't appear to you after this much trying, I don't think you should spend more time on it. I think there are plenty of people out there who could more readily understand exactly how everything is meant, and some of those people will find the proof useful for various things.

 

 

It should tell you something when you've said repeatedly that "Anssi is the only one able to understand my analysis", while, he is the only one with complete faith in you and that analysis. It's obvious — you are conflating agreement with understanding.

 

Please, that is a ridiculous idea. Do you really think I'm just parroting things I find him saying when we refer to the same things? I can assure you, I am not operating on faith here, I do actually understand what his analysis is saying, and how it got there. I actually spent an awful amount of time very carefully and very meticulously walking through it. Sure there are subtleties here and there that I am taking on faith because they easily expand onto very complex issues that I could spend years and years on, but they are certainly subtleties; their implications are very subtle compared to the issues we are currently referring to.

 

Also, when he says classical mechanics is not internally consistent, I can understand exactly how he means that, because I understand how it aligns to his analysis. What you keep referring to by internal consistency is different concept with the same label, and you don't seem to be capable of understanding this even though I have pointed it out very many times.

 

Second, classical mechanics can certainly be represented in DD's notation, and not only that, he has already pointed out what are the approximations that get you there. Do you understand why Will said what he said, and do you understand what approximations are required to represent classical mechanics in DD's notation? When you understand both well enough to actually refer to real issues behind that conundrum, then we talk about it. (Actually we probably won't have to because you will have figured it all out by yourself)

 

Let me give you a simple analogy of your complaint.

 

"According to SR, a train shrinks in the direction of its travel. But if two trains pass each others, they cannot both be shorter than the other when they pass. Therefore, there is a logical contradiction in SR."

 

How clear is that argument? I'm sure it seems like a very trivial logical fallacy to anyone, until they understand what SR actually means.

 

And that argument demonstrates exactly as piss poor understanding towards SR, as you guys are displaying towards DD's analysis. And in both cases, you just have to understand the presentation of the argument much better. I'm sure you know how impossible it is to explain that SR problem to people who are convinced they have interpreted SR properly, and think that SR is just logically false.

 

I'm very sorry you are also convinced that something as seemingly trivial as what you are presenting would have escaped both me and DD, and would continue to elude us both even when you so clearly point it out. I have no other solution to present to you, than to either take a better look at the presentation, or give up the complaints and leave it for other people to look at it.

 

-Anssi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should tell you something when you've said repeatedly that "Anssi is the only one able to understand my analysis", while, he is the only one with complete faith in you and that analysis. It's obvious — you are conflating agreement with understanding.

Please, that is a ridiculous idea. Do you really think I'm just parroting things I find him saying when we refer to the same things?

What on earth are you talking about!?! Did I imply, in any way, that you are just parroting?

 

I do actually understand what his analysis is saying

Wow!

 

I didn't read the rest of your post. The first couple sentences left me too awestruck.

 

I said nothing like you not understanding his analysis. I implied nothing even remotely close to the idea that you didn't understand it.

 

Did you mean to respond to me when you wrote this, or perhaps you accidentally quoted me when you meant to quote and respond to someone else talking about something completely different...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What on earth are you talking about!?! Did I imply, in any way, that you are just parroting?

 

Wow!

 

I said nothing like you not understanding his analysis. I implied nothing even remotely close to the idea that you didn't understand it.

 

Really, "the only one with complete faith in you and that analysis" doesn't in your mind imply "taking the issue on faith" in any way?

 

The reason I jumped at that is that taking things on faith is what most people do on most complex issues, and it is exactly what blocks their understanding. It is something I very consciously avoid to the extent I can.

 

"Take on faith" is also pretty common expression, google it if you really have to. I realize you may have meant it differently, but I don't think you should be the least bit surprised at my interpretation.

 

EDIT: It is also possible that your comment arose from a perspective where you view the analysis as the kind of argument that must be taken on faith in some way. Like a theory about ontology or something like that. If so, I can only once again note that, that is very common misconception about what the analysis is. And that, if you understood it, you would realize it is just like a proof of some mathematical relationship; it is either true, or it is not. Faith does not nudge it one way or another.

 

-Anssi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Take on faith" is also pretty common expression, google it if you really have to.

oh, please, just stop it.

 

I didn't use that phrase, and I wouldn't need to google it if I did.

 

I said you have "complete faith in..." which doesn't imply anything about how well you know the subject, how intelligent you are, or what tendency you have in 'parroting' things. Einstein had complete faith in GR. What does that imply about Einstein?

 

This is exactly what I was telling Dick he does. You took a small phrase, misconstrued its meaning entirely (reworded it in fact) and based your whole reply on that misconstruction... rather than addressing the actual objection.

 

You must have learned it from Doctordick. It derails conversations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No he doesn't.
AnssiH, of course he does. I have read many times on many posts over many years that DD claims the following...THE PAST IS WHAT YOU KNOW. He has said repeatedly that one cannot add any further constraints to his definition of the past, take it or leave it. It is clear as a bell that for DD the PAST IS WHAT YOU KNOW 100% OF THE TIME THAT YOU CAN CLAIM TO KNOW ANYTHING, FOR ALL WAYS THE WORD CAN BE INTERPRETED. This claim is a basis premise of his proof presentation (shift symmetry presentation)..but as you correctly argue, this basic premise claim about what the "past is" of DD is false. Again, the reason DD has dug himself into this hole is because he has failed (and refused when asked) to define what he means by the word "know", e.g., how one comes to have knowledge of the past.

 

Like I said' date=' ...it's easy to make a misinterpretation if you are not careful with your intuitive ideas.[/quote']Yes, exactly my point. Because DD never defined what he means when he uses the word "know", his proof presentation is based on a false premise due to misinterpretation of his intuitive ideas of how knowledge relates to the concepts of past and future.

 

When I was interpreting the presentation' date=' it was pretty clear to me that "known past" is not referring to knowing some kind of ontological truth.[/quote']Yes, exactly. It is likely clear to everyone. BUT THIS IS NOT THE CLAIM MADE BY DD ! His presented claim was that THE PAST IS WHAT YOU KNOW (100% of the Time, no exceptions in his definition of the past). This is a basic premise of his logical proof presentation, and, as you say, it is pretty clear to all that read this claim that it is logically false, that there is a fundamental aspect to the past that cannot be known. So my question to you and DD, if you have known for 4 years that the claim "the past is what you know" is a false statement, why the heck have the two of you continued to post this as a basic premise of the proof presentation ?

 

So it is in fact very possible to pick up how it is meant' date=' but if it doesn't appear to you after this much trying, I don't think you should spend more time on it.[/quote'] How did you come to reach this conclusion ? Of course I picked up on the difference between (1) what he MEANT to say and (2) what he DID say. And, I will continue to bring forth the contradictory and false claims made in his proof presentation (as a sign of help for him to improve his verbal presentation). What DD needs to do is to completely remove all claims that THE PAST IS WHAT YOU KNOW. You need to work with DD to have him restate his argument concerning the role of past and future and present and knowledge in correct form.

 

I think there are plenty of people out there who could more readily understand exactly how everything is meant' date=' and some of those people will find the proof useful for various things.[/quote']Well, first, it should not be necessary for anyone dealing with a logical argument to understand what someone MEANT to say as opposed to what they SHOULD HAVE said. One does not present a logical argument such that, I said this x, but I really meant it to mean x+y+z. We learn this lesson about correct form of presentation from reading Alice in Wonderland...the logical difference between saying what you mean, and meaning what you say. For this reason, I seriously doubt that any physicist or philosopher will find anything about the proof presentation of DD to be "useful for various things", except understanding the workings of White Rabbit holes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh, please, just stop it.

 

I didn't use that phrase, and I wouldn't need to google it if I did.

 

I said you have "complete faith in..." which doesn't imply anything about how well you know the subject, how intelligent you are, or what tendency you have in 'parroting' things. Einstein had complete faith in GR. What does that imply about Einstein?

 

This is exactly what I was telling Dick he does. You took a small phrase, misconstrued its meaning entirely (reworded it in fact) and based your whole reply on that misconstruction... rather than addressing the actual objection.

 

I don't accept that for a second Modest. My original complaint contained a quote from you, word to word. This quote;

 

It should tell you something when you've said repeatedly that "Anssi is the only one able to understand my analysis", while, he is the only one with complete faith in you and that analysis. It's obvious — you are conflating agreement with understanding.

 

"- you are conflating agreement with understanding" says very clearly what you are trying to suggest there.

 

I know your follow-up was "I said nothing like you not understanding his analysis. I implied nothing even remotely close to the idea that you didn't understand it", but I really have to call BS right there. In fact, I don't even care whether or not you can dream up another interpretation to what you said, it is clear what it implies to everyone reading it, and you should not be surprised at all to me interpreting it as a suggestion that I don't understand.

 

Just in case you are still confusing DD's analysis as some kind of a theory about ontology, let me once again point out it is not. What you were saying was like saying I am merely "in agreement" with quadratic equation without necessarily understanding it. Sorry, but it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of self-consistency to the defined concepts.

 

As to your complaint that I am derailing the conversation by "misconstructing the meaning of a small phrase", "basing my whole reply to that misconstruction", and not addressing the actual objection...

 

Well let me just add a gigantic *sigh* right here, and then point you at the very post you are referring to. That is post #127. The one you refused to read. Please do not complain about me not addressing your objection after you refuse to read it.

 

If you have something to say about that particular issue (after you've read it), let's hear it.

 

-Anssi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AnssiH, of course he does. I have read many times on many posts over many years that DD claims the following...THE PAST IS WHAT YOU KNOW.

 

It's just inconvenient semantics to the meaning of "to know" that confuse you. But let's put it other way around; how would you refer to the underlying noumenaic data that an explanation is based on? While you can't know "what it is (in itself)", you must "have" the data in some sense. So, in other semantics, you "know the data" (as in, you "have it"), but in other semantics, you don't "know what it is".

 

Maybe "past is the information you have" would make more sense to you, but I'm afraid someone else would get very confused by that :D

 

I'm afraid many words in this very post can be misinterpreted. I can come up with many misinterpretations myself immediately. Coming up with an unambiguous way to say the same thing is much harder.

 

That's all there is to that conundrum and I think it should be the responsibility of the reader to pick that up.

 

-Anssi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't accept that for a second Modest. My original complaint contained a quote from you, word to word. This quote;

 

It should tell you something when you've said repeatedly that "Anssi is the only one able to understand my analysis", while, he is the only one with complete faith in you and that analysis. It's obvious — you are conflating agreement with understanding.

 

"- you are conflating agreement with understanding" says very clearly what you are trying to suggest there.

 

What I'm "suggesting"?

 

I'm suggesting the same thing I've said over, and over, and over: It is quite possible that I understand his analysis. It is quite possible that Q understands it. It is quite possible that Will understands it... and others. But, Dick will believe, no matter what, that each of these people fail to understand him because none of them are expressing the kind of agreement that you profess insistently. He conflates agreement and understanding.

 

How many times have I said this? I said it in the same post you're quoting in the two paragraphs prior to the one you've selectively misconstrued and again in the paragraph immediately following it.

 

How hard do you have to try to miss my point that badly?

 

Let me say it again in case you missed it again: you are the only person Dick believes can understand his analysis because he attributes misunderstanding to everyone who is critical of his analysis and you are the only one supporting it wholeheartedly.

 

It doesn't matter to my point, and frankly I wouldn't know, if you understand his analysis or not. That has nothing at all to do with the point I was making.

 

I know your follow-up was "I said nothing like you not understanding his analysis. I implied nothing even remotely close to the idea that you didn't understand it", but I really have to call BS right there.

 

I don't care, Anssi. You go right ahead and believe that my plan was to suggest that you don't understand a thing. If that's the way you think then that's the way you think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...it is clear what it implies to everyone reading it, and you should not be surprised at all to me interpreting it as a suggestion that I don't understand.
It has been clear enough to me, reading it, that he did not mean what you are construing but, instead, that you're the only one who agrees with Dick and he interprets this as you being the only one who understands him.

 

Fellas, let's try not to get edgy and I can understand the frustration that Modest feels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe "past is the information you have" would make more sense to you...
No maybe about it AnssiH..you hit the nail on the head ! Do you now understand how silly it is for DD to claim that the "past" must be "what you know" ? Notice how easy it was for you to remove the unneeded word "know" from the presentation of DD in such a way that made the past understandable, what is really nothing more than common sense. Now, good luck to you trying to explain the truth of your claim of what the "past is" to DD, e.g., that the "past is" the information of events given to your senses unconstrained by the concept of knowledge.

 

Edit: Let us complete the presentation and define the future as being the information of events that has not yet been given to your senses unconstrained by the concept of knowledge. Let us define the present as the moment the information is "given to" something that exists. Now, the presentation of DD is on firm logical ground and can proceed to develop the fundamental equation unconstrained by playing word game with the word "know".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...