Well, A Sign Of Intelligence!

[AnssiH]

This makes no sense to me.

 

What I mean is that there is a fair bit of responsibility on the reader to understand that everybody uses the same words slightly differently depending on their alignment and the context. That is not always a trivial problem, depending on how closely the reader already happens to be aligned with the used terminology.

 

The words used by DD to define what he means have been, in my mind, very clear in the posts. But that's just because I happened to be closely aligned to think along similar lines. In your case, I really don't think it has been a problem for you to read those words. Arranging the same words into a list does not change the original problem at all. Understanding what is meant by the words that explain some definition, have been the problem.

 

I have often deliberately used different words to make the same definition, because sometimes that helps the reader in interpreting what I mean. Instead, you have complained that I am saying contradictory things. What you should have realized at that point is that you are probably interpreting one or another explanation wrong, because I was actually meaning the same thing.

 

Just to give you an example of how prior aligment to this terminology helps; to just use the label "Explanation" to refer to any system that generates valid expectations for something, that is from my perspective very obvious reference to a world view whose validity is judged by its prediction accuracy; exactly what we mean when we say we "understand" something.

 

And, since it is said that "something" is being explained, it also tells me that PRIOR to employing an explanation, that "something" is considered to be entirely UNexplained. That to me means quite obviously that it is the same as entirely undefined, which is the same as "noumena".

 

Because, if some part of it was defined, it would not be "something TO BE explained", it would be something that HAS been explained. That kind of definition for "explanation" would not make sense to me, yet, it seems to be the most common interpretation (more or less tacitly).

 

For many people, when they think about the "what is being explained", they intuitively think about something sensible "to test their ideas" so to speak, without realizing that then they have already employed an explanation prior to "explanation". That is a trivial logical fallacy to me.

 

Now to discuss the communication problem here, I think it should be clear that there just is no silver bullet to explain the thing. Everybody looks at it from within their own conceptualization and their own belief set as to what the words mean, and there are very considerable differences there between individuals. Some individuals are much further away from understanding it than others, and a flat list of definitions is not very helpful with that problem.

 

I am thinking about ways to actually communicate the whole thing a bit differently (or at least I'm planning to, when I have time), but I don't have any clear ideas in my head yet.

 

-Anssi

[Doctordick]

This makes no sense to me. It would be very easy to compile such a short list..so, let me make the offer. With both your and DD permission I will start a new thread topic titled "Definitions used by DoctorDick for Fundamental Equation". I will take the lead to add definitions from all his previous posts.

Rade, I know you think you are making sense but you are not; you are attacking the wrong problem. It appears to me that both you and Qfwfq (and probably many others) are missing one very significant issue. What I said I was doing was that I was deducing constraints implied by the definition of an explanation. In essence, definitions are used to establish the ontology necessary to understand whatever is intended in the communication which uses whatever it is that is being defined. You are concentrating on that issue when it actually has nothing to do with what I am talking about. You need to be able to think the situation out in the abstract without worrying about definitions.

 

I know that the above makes no sense to you so I have come up with an example which might clue you in on what I am doing. I will put my example in terms of the definition of “an explanation” so that it will be directly applicable to my proof. The example will be put in a somewhat abstract form so as to emphasize the point you are missing.

 

Suppose the two of us have agreed upon the definition of an explanation and the complete agreed upon definition has the format:

 

an explanation:

 

1. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

2. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

3. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

4. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, it provides answers to questions regarding things to be explained, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

5. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

 

You will notice that although we have agreed upon the definition, I have left out many of the issues brought up by that definition (the ones we hypothetically agree upon). I have done that because only the issue I have explicitly specified is of importance to the deduction I have presented. Let me try and point out to you why that assertion is true.

 

It is true that the definition imposes constraints on what can deemed an explanation but that is not what I am concerned with. The issue under discussion is, "my fundamental equation is a universal constraint on all explanations is a fact directly implied by the definition itself. Nowhere have I ever suggested that it embodies all possible constraints implied by the definition. There may very well exist “universal constrains” on explanations implied by the other aspects of that definition (aspects abstractly represented here by “blah, blah, blah” in the above format). If you have some aspects of your definition of “an explanation” which also imply universal constraints on all conceivable explanations, by all means, present them for discussion. I am aware of no work done in the area at all other than my thoughts.

 

If you have no aspects of your definition which you can prove are universal constraints on all explanations (even explanations you have not yet seen) then the only issue of interest here becomes that specific phrase, “it provides answers to questions regarding the things to be explained”. The issue of that phrase is quite simple: do there exist explanations which provide no answers to any questions whatsoever regarding the things supposedly being explained or is that indeed a universal aspect of all explanations?

 

I say it is the central issue of explanations and that there can exist no explanations which fail to fulfil that aspect of the definition. If you disagree with me, then give me an example of an explanation which answers absolutely no questions. (It was to make the constraint universal that I included the “what is” is “what is” explanation which provides but one answer: “any answer to any question is possible” thus making the requirement quite universal.)

 

Now, with regard to my deductions, I presume mathematics and its rules constitute an internally consistent construct for the purposes of constructing deductions. If I am wrong in that, then I point you to the mathematics profession as I leave the validity of that field to the experts; I simply take the ontology and constructs of that field as a valid relationships.

 

I'll begin a search of posts by DD to see if he defined the word "definition".

I have made no attempt to define "definition" as I regard the issue as totally immaterial. I suspect I will accept any reasonable definition of the word “definition” you choose so long as the definition of “an explanation” ends up including the fact that “it answers questions” in some form or another.

 

Making a proper definition to allow proper understanding is critical to the process of communication.

Then if any step in my deduction is confusing to you, ask me about the mathematics definitions I am making use of, not the English words as, regarding the English words, I am prepared to allow considerable variation. English is clearly a very inexact method of communication and is full of possible misinterpretations so I would rather avoid the subject as much as possible. I only use it because writing things out in math alone makes discovering one's intentions very difficult. That is why even professional mathematicians use languages outside mathematics to explain their purposes.

 

For example, instead talking about “the incompleteness theorem” in a discussion, one could instead, in every case where the issue was significant, simply present the symbolic proof itself. The only purpose the phrase “the incompleteness theorem” serves is to shorten the presentation. And, I would point out, that phrase is often misunderstood; an issue which is only truly clarified by learning the proof. But most people are not interested in “learning the proof”, they just accept the word of authority that the English representation of the consequences are valid; not really worrying about the fact that errors in interpretation of English are quite prevalent in all fields particularly when it comes to talking to people outside the field.

 

Qfwfq is well aware of that problem, evidence of that fact was given in this ridiculous post.

 

One day I went to buy some supplies for taking a pack of growing youths on a long camping holiday. I found a shop that stocked jars of good quality beef spread for only €1 each, so I put my bag on the counter and requested the attendent to put a dozen of them in; then I requested him to put another half dozen in and gave him €3 as payment for my purchase. He said that wasn't enough!!!! I kept my calm and replied that, in [imath]\mathbb{Z}_{15}[/imath], it is perfectly correct that 12 + 6 = 3 and so I was making no mistake, thus dismissing his objection.

 

Know what? He accused me of making an ad hoc choice to suit my purpose! The darn nerve of the guy, what insolence! I informed him of how irrelevant his complaint was, pointing out that I take mathematics (as the invention and study of internally consistent constructs) as given, which gives me the set of allowed operations, and that everything else is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

The shop owner just wouldn't have it!!! He even had the chutzpah to stick his nose and index finger into my bag and count them; he said "Look Buster, there's 18 of them in your bag and you's gotta pay €18 or dump'em right back on the counter." Obviously, I informed the guy that this is only according to his worldview and he's presuming it to be valid. I just dumped the wares and never set foot in that dude's doggone blasted cott'npickin' shop again.

Or, to quote Budha

 

Words do not express thoughts very well; everything immediately becomes a little different, a little distorted, a little foolish. And yet, it also pleases me and seems right that what is of value and wisdom of one man seems nonsense to another.

 

After 3 years of DD posting on this forum, and at least as many on Physics Forum until he migrated here, don't you see that his presentation cannot move forward until the short list of definitions is provided?

It can't move forward because everyone concerns themselves with issues having absolutely nothing to do with my deductions. Even Qfwfq, whom I would assume is brighter than that, wastes an awful lot of his time with various English misinterpretations he can dream up (I suspect the real purpose is to confuse anyone else reading the thread; a goal commonly attributed to "Trolls" :rolleyes: ).

 

Having a Troll as an administrator is an unusual thing on most discussion forums.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

Rade, I know you think you are making sense but you are not; you are attacking the wrong problem. It appears to me that both you and Qfwfq (and probably many others) are missing one very significant issue. What I said I was doing was that I was deducing constraints implied by the definition of an explanation.

Thank you DD for your reply, very useful. Clearly your constraints are implied by what you call "the definition of an explanation", and this is the problem I am attacking. What is "the definition of an explanation" you refer to ? Once I have that knowledge, then I will simultaneously have the answer to the problem I am attacking.

 

In essence' date=' definitions are used to establish the ontology necessary to understand whatever is intended in the communication which uses whatever it is that is being defined.[/quote']Well, I agree with you that definitions include both ontology (metaphysics) and understanding (epistemology), perhaps in the same way you are thinking. I would say that a definition is a statement that identifies the nature of the units subsumed under a concept, thus a definition answers the question, what is the distinguishing characteristic(s) subsumed under a concept, and what is the category of existents (think also events) from which they were differentiated. Metaphysically, a distinguishing characteristic(s) is the distinctive one that makes the greatest number of other characteristics possible...epistemologically, it is the one that explains the greatest number of others. So, using your blah, blah, blah example, what is missing ? It is the distinguishing characteristic(s) subsumed under the concept being explained and the category of the event the explanation refers to.

 

You are concentrating on that issue when it actually has nothing to do with what I am talking about. You need to be able to think the situation out in the abstract without worrying about definitions.

But' date=' the only reason that I worry about proper definition here is because you began this thread topic with a request about concerns with a definition of explanation that you provided. So, how can it be that definition you provided is not what you are talking about in this thread ?

 

I know that the above makes no sense to you so I have come up with an example...

I appreciate the example, it conforms completely with my comments above concerning the role of metaphysics and epistemology in proper definition. I have no problem with multiple definitions for the same concept, this is what we find in the dictionary. And it is exactly because this is the approach you take in your presentation (to use multiple definitions for the same concept) that it is critical that they be put together in one place, in a dictionary. Clearly you do not find a dictionary useless, correct ? Why such a negative response to the request to have the many definitions you make in your presentation put together ? Is it not true that you have many times over the years said that your presentation is "true by definition" ? OK, so why the negative response to have all the definitions used in your proof in one place so everyone can understand the truth of your presentation?

 

...if any step in my deduction is confusing to you' date=' ask me about the [b']mathematics definitions I am making use of[/b], not the English words as, regarding the English words, I am prepared to allow considerable variation.

Fair enough. So, what is your mathematical definition of "explanation", since we already have a few differ versions in English words ?

[Doctordick]

So, what is your mathematical definition of "explanation", since we already have a few differ versions in English words ?

I have none as "explanation" is not an ontological element of mathematics.

[dduckwessel]

What I mean is that there is a fair bit of responsibility on the reader to understand that everybody uses the same words slightly differently depending on their alignment and the context. That is not always a trivial problem, depending on how closely the reader already happens to be aligned with the used terminology.

 

I hope you don't mind if I jump in but I have been following this topic for awhile?

 

Anssi, I find that I can follow what you say quite easily and I would go so far as to say that I think you're an excellent communicator, and though I'm not saying it's wrong necessarily, I find DD much harder to follow.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't the whole idea behind good communication to express (or at least try to) our ideas in the simplest form possible so that others can understand it?

 

What's the good of speaking if no one is any more enlightened at the end of it? Isn't that somewhat like talking for the sake of talk?

[Qfwfq]

Qfwfq is well aware of that problem, evidence of that fact was given in this ridiculous post.

It's a pity you don't seem to have recognized the bolded part of what you quote to be the last part of what I had quoted of yours (which must be why you agree with it):

I take mathematics (as the invention and study of internally consistent constructs) as given; that gives me the set of allowed operations. Everything else is irrelevant to the discussion.

If you could get your logic straight, you'd see how, in the anecdote, that point of yours leads to the preposterous disagreement (which is presumably what you mean by the word ridiculous).

[AnssiH]

I hope you don't mind if I jump in but I have been following this topic for awhile?

 

Anssi, I find that I can follow what you say quite easily and I would go so far as to say that I think you're an excellent communicator,

 

Thank you, it is nice to get some feedback about that because it is notoriously difficult to judge one's own communication skills without feedback; we all always make a lot of sense inside our own head :)

 

Correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't the whole idea behind good communication to express (or at least try to) our ideas in the simplest form possible so that others can understand it?

 

Sure, but, what that form is, that's the problem. It depends entirely who you are talking to, and that is very hard to judge online. I think realistically, there just is a fair bit of responsibility on the reader to try and figure out a sensical interpretation. Especially on the more delicate subjects. Any physicist surely understands that problem well, if they just think about the problem of explaining relativity or quantum mechanics *properly* to anyone not familiar with them. Both would be what I'd call "delicate subjects". And this analysis by DD is a fair bit more delicate.

 

When I read an explanation of something I would like to understand, it can feel much like a puzzle to me. That feeling was very true when trying to understand DD's analysis properly (especially since my understanding of the math symbolism was lacking so I had to form understand of that along the way as well). Our views on epistemology was already quite similar, but when I read a text that is very carefully defining an exact analysis of something, I can fairly easily see many different ways to understand it with very slight adjustments to the meanings of things. I usually have to take rather large portions of it into account at once while trying to figure out as self-coherent interpretation as possible (basically, trying to make sure that every sentence in there makes sense to me).

 

That can be very hard, and sometimes I had to give up and try again the next day before I'd suddenly realize some small thing under couple of layers of assumptions was sideways from what was intented, and fixing that finally allows other things to fall in place in very sensible way.

 

It seems to me that most people are not very good at recognizing how many ways there are to understand the same sentences, and instead just respond with their first knee-jerk idea that pops into their minds. I think people should just remember that, even if someone is using a different kind of conceptualization of something, that doesn't mean they are bat-**** crazy. And very often, if something seems like it's incoherent, it can be just because you are trying to relate it into your own conceptualization in incoherent way. There are some very famous books about this very problem.

 

And especially with such a delicate topic as this one, different conceptualizations are inevitable. Typically, as you advance in the subject of epistemology (or any other area), you will change your semantics into more general terminology. One very clear example is the use of the word "definition", which in my and DD's mind is anything that is in any sense "thinkable". Or, "explanation", which me and DD both understand in much more general and fundamental way than most readers. And, I know me and DD both deliberately shift our point of view from time to time with hopes that the reader can relate to different perspective better, and I think we both just expect that the reader would at least try to form a coherent interpretation of what is being said.

 

What's the good of speaking if no one is any more enlightened at the end of it? Isn't that somewhat like talking for the sake of talk?

 

At first I read that as "like talking to a sack of chalk", and I would have accepted that comment as well.

 

Although, I should comment that I know there are lurkers who have an understanding of these kinds of issues, I do get PM's confirming this from time to time. It's just that, readers who agree on the comments they see, don't very often bother to respond just to acknowledge they agree. I know I don't.

 

-Anssi

[dduckwessel]

 

Sure, but, what that form is, that's the problem. It depends entirely who you are talking to, and that is very hard to judge online. I think realistically, there just is a fair bit of responsibility on the reader to try and figure out a sensical interpretation. Especially on the more delicate subjects. Any physicist surely understands that problem well, if they just think about the problem of explaining relativity or quantum mechanics *properly* to anyone not familiar with them. Both would be what I'd call "delicate subjects". And this analysis by DD is a fair bit more delicate.

 

I understand that this topic is a bit more complicated than just talking about going to the grocery store. But basically I hear, "it's no use trying to understand (or communicate it) because it's not understandable". If it's true that communication is dependent upon the hearer's ability to perceive it correctly, then technically we would all be speaking gibberish!

 

Still I appreciate your explanations as I find your mode of expression easier to comprehend (though, and again, I'm not saying that DD is wrong but that I don't understand him as I do you). There again, it could be in the way (semantics) you write that makes it easier for me to grasp, others might find DD's semantics easier! :)

 

Regarding communication though, as I said earlier, I personally believe it has to be put into its simplest form. On a forum we are missing body language and voice inflection cues, which makes communication much more difficult!

 

Watch these two todders: if they can understand each other (and I'm assuming there's some kind of real communication happening in this video) then surely communication must be simple, not complicated (but there again on a forum we don't have those body cues that help us to more easily understand the other person):

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQbYc7qLgBc

 

 

I should mention that I'm not undermining the seriousness of the subject matter of this thread, I just thought you might enjoy this. :)

[AnssiH]

If it's true that communication is dependent upon the hearer's ability to perceive it correctly, then technically we would all be speaking gibberish!

 

Well I think that is a reasonably accurate assessment about most web communication actually... :)

 

Still I appreciate your explanations as I find your mode of expression easier to comprehend (though, and again, I'm not saying that DD is wrong but that I don't understand him as I do you). There again, it could be in the way (semantics) you write that makes it easier for me to grasp, others might find DD's semantics easier! :)

 

Yes, that is how it is, and also different semantics are vulnerable to different misinterpretations.

 

One of the key issues that I think does make any flavored explanation easier to understand, is that the reader is already aligned to think about ontological aspects of world views are entirely immaterial functions of each particular world view. We communicate things (and think about things) via referring to ontological elements, and we expect each others to understand what we mean, yet we all have a different mental idea as to what different ontological elements mean.

 

And I think once you are able to truly see ontological elements as simply features of a particular mental language (to represent expectations), this is pretty much what most of physics arguments start to look like:

 

 

If you understand that issue deeply enough, you can also understand why something like this is just another example of exactly that;

http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-theorem-shakes-foundations-1.9392

 

Just ask yourself, if the fundamental particles and their properties are merely, and ONLY a valid language we use to express expectations of some observable states, and wave function represents the possible trajectories of those particles we have defined as ontological elements in our language, then why should we be mystified by the immediate propagation of all the "wrong" possibilities?

 

Note how the mystery arises the moment you start to believe those particles must be more than just your language to refer to some "undefined states"; when you start to believe they must be real elements with real identity to themselves, and that they must be floating inside real space and real time.

 

And I'm sorry that I'm referring to quantum mechanics again, it really is quite universal epistemological issue. E.g the moment you hear someone say "we know now that the space is expanding...", you should be able to add the disclaimer "...if we choose to define "space" that way". There may be bunch of good reasons to define space that way, but those reasons are also entirely tied to to our choices to define a host of other things in very particular manner. It all boils down to self-coherence between our choices within a particular language that we are using to refer to reality.

 

That is the issue DD's work is analyzing. There are some very good epistemological reasons to define things in quantum mechanical manner. Yet, nothing in DD's analysis is about what specific language/ontology is supposedly "correct" in some magical way.

 

-Anssi

[Qfwfq]

Hilarious, that Vague Scientist!

 

To some extent I agree with your points Anssi but I really don't see that Dick adds anything useful. Also, you should not just suppose all theoretical physicist to be as narrow minded as that and I have long been thinking along unconventional lines (but I won't go into them). Further, when you say things along the lines of:

...then why should we be mystified by the immediate propagation of all the "wrong" possibilities?

you do nothing but sweep the dust under the carpet. By simply saying that space (and time) must be "some kind of a" way in which we perceive "whatever the hell" is not what I call finding an actual model that actually matches up with experience. That is what the quest is. Dick does nothing more than what the standard quantum formalism does, wait, he does even less.

[dduckwessel]

 

One of the key issues that I think does make any flavored explanation easier to understand, is that the reader is already aligned to think about ontological aspects of world views are entirely immaterial functions of each particular world view.

 

We communicate things (and think about things) via referring to ontological elements, and we expect each others to understand what we mean, yet we all have a different mental idea as to what different ontological elements mean.

 

I understand that one person may perceive certain things differently than another. However, regarding social interaction there has got to be something (else) happening that makes us understand each other? What about body language and tone inflection (these are missing in internet communication and perhaps that's why there's so much ambiguity!)? Perhaps these other forms of communication play a more vital part than we're aware of? For instance when I vote for a government official I make darn sure I know exactly what they're proposing, otherwise what would be the purpose of voting?

 

 

If you understand that issue deeply enough, you can also understand why something like this is just another example of exactly that;

http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-theorem-shakes-foundations-1.9392

 

Just ask yourself, if the fundamental particles and their properties are merely, and ONLY a valid language we use to express expectations of some observable states, and wave function represents the possible trajectories of those particles we have defined as ontological elements in our language, then why should we be mystified by the immediate propagation of all the "wrong" possibilities?

 

Don't we need to have an observable state for everything in order to learn? And where there's little information, or constructs we don't as yet fully comprehend then we can only hypothesize (sometimes badly)! I tend to think however, that any kind of hypothesis is better than none! How can we theorize if there is not first an idea that can be proven to be right or wrong?

 

how the mystery arises the moment you start to believe those particles must be more than just your language to refer to some "undefined states"; when you start to believe they must be real elements with real identity to themselves, and that they must be floating inside real space and real time.

 

An "undefined state" is fine as long as it can move from there. If it remains undefinable then for me, it becomes useless information because it's not benefiting me in any way (somewhat like struggling to put on pantyhose, only to find there's a run in the nylon).

 

Isn't an "undefined state" in the way you're wording it, just another way to say "learning to learn"?

 

And I'm sorry that I'm referring to quantum mechanics again, it really is quite universal epistemological issue. E.g the moment you hear someone say "we know now that the space is expanding...", you should be able to add the disclaimer "...if we choose to define "space" that way". There may be bunch of good reasons to define space that way, but those reasons are also entirely tied to to our choices to define a host of other things in very particular manner. It all boils down to self-coherence between our choices within a particular language that we are using to refer to reality.

-Anssi

 

"Expansion" was just an idea at one time, now it's a certainty! I see what you mean about "space" but not that long ago it was just black nothingness, now it has a name, "dark matter". This is great progress. What was incomprehensible is becoming less so and that happened due to someone expressing, and others understanding, those ideas. :)

[Doctordick]

Well I think that is a reasonably accurate assessment about most web communication actually... :)

We communicate things (and think about things) via referring to ontological elements, and we expect each others to understand what we mean, yet we all have a different mental idea as to what different ontological elements mean.

 

And I think once you are able to truly see ontological elements as simply features of a particular mental language (to represent expectations), this is pretty much what most of physics arguments start to look like:

 

I love it Anssi. You do have an excellent way of putting things and I loved that thing:

 

Whereas many physicists have generally interpreted the wavefunction as a statistical tool that reflects our ignorance of the particles being measured, the authors of the latest paper argue that, instead, it is physically real.

I guess they have proved Solipsism cannot be correct! Reality is Real!!!

 

Note how the mystery arises the moment you start to believe those particles must be more than just your language to refer to some "undefined states"; when you start to believe they must be real elements with real identity to themselves, and that they must be floating inside real space and real time.

 

And I'm sorry that I'm referring to quantum mechanics again, it really is quite universal epistemological issue. E.g the moment you hear someone say "we know now that the space is expanding...", you should be able to add the disclaimer "...if we choose to define "space" that way". There may be bunch of good reasons to define space that way, but those reasons are also entirely tied to to our choices to define a host of other things in very particular manner. It all boils down to self-coherence between our choices within a particular language that we are using to refer to reality.

 

That is the issue DD's work is analyzing. There are some very good epistemological reasons to define things in quantum mechanical manner. Yet, nothing in DD's analysis is about what specific language/ontology is supposedly "correct" in some magical way.

You just continue to impress me with your complete understanding of the underlying issues I am talking about. I can't understand why no one else comprehends these issues.

 

To some extent I agree with your points Anssi but I really don't see that Dick adds anything useful.

You miss the very essence of my proof. It very definitely adds absolutely nothing; that is the very essence designed in every step in the deduction. The necessity of the “fundamental equations” is a direct consequence of the mapping issue used to remove all those specific language/ontology issues. And all you guys want to talk about is “specific language/ontology issues”. Who is crazy around here?

 

By simply saying that space (and time) must be "some kind of a" way in which we perceive "whatever the hell" is not what I call finding an actual model that actually matches up with experience. That is what the quest is.

That is apparently what your quest is all about; not mine! Mine is, what follows from the definition of “an explanation” and ”nothing else”.

 

Dick does nothing more than what the standard quantum formalism does, wait, he does even less.

You are right, I sure am doing less! One hell of a lot LESS. Since it is based on absolutely nothing except the field of mathematics itself, no one would possibly expect my fundamental equation to be the only constraint on modern physics. And yet it apparently is! Not only does it reproduce almost every expectation of modern physics experiments but it also has utterly no problem with general relativity and quantum mechanics an issue unsolved by modern physics since the introduction of modern relativity relations.

 

I am sorry Anssi, I have utterly no idea as to how to get them to even look at the problem. I guess they “know what they know” and are not going to question that knowledge.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Qfwfq]

I guess they have proved Solipsism cannot be correct! Reality is Real!!!

Nah, they've proven nothing and they're just plain delusional.

 

You miss the very essence of my proof. It very definitely adds absolutely nothing; that is the very essence designed in every step in the deduction.

Thou hast said.

 

Since it is based on absolutely nothing except the field of mathematics itself, no one would possibly expect my fundamental equation to be the only constraint on modern physics. And yet it apparently is!

If you want to believe it is so, fine, as long as you don't bug people about it. I'm not taken in by the sleight of hand.

[Rade]

A = A trumps any other fundamental equation. From A = A everything of importance can be derived, including all other so-called fundamental equations. A = A is the fundamental constraint on all of physics, and because this constraint exists, powerful use can be made of it, such as deriving other less fundamental equations.

[Guest MacPhee]

A = A trumps any other fundamental equation. From A = A everything of importance can be derived, including all other so-called fundamental equations. A = A is the fundamental constraint on all of physics, and because this constraint exists, powerful use can be made of it, such as deriving other less fundamental equations.

 

I like your concept of a basic, trump equation. But A = A sounds to me like a mere tautology.

 

It doesn't lead to any new insights. For example, if a person asked you: "What is Clay?". And you answered: "It's Clay." That wouldn't seem to get anywhere. Whereas, if you answered: "It's fine-grained, moist earth." That would increase the person's understanding - he/she would realise, that clay is a different form of the same thing - earth, or soil.

 

So whereas we started with two apparently different things, Clay - "A", and Earth - "B", we now see that "A = B". And we have a new insight.

 

Such insights seem basic to Science. Doesn't Science progress by finding new "A = B" relationships?

 

Thus, Electricity, "A", = Magnetism, "B". They're both different aspects of a single thing: Electromagnetism. And Space, "A" = Time, "B". Different aspects of a single thing: Spacetime.

 

So I would modify your original equation, and put forward "A = B" as the real trump! Does that make sense - or am I wibbling? :mellow:

[AnssiH]

Also, you should not just suppose all theoretical physicist to be as narrow minded as that

 

I don't.

 

and I have long been thinking along unconventional lines (but I won't go into them).

 

I know. I'd encourage you to go even deeper.

 

Further, when you say things along the lines of:you do nothing but sweep the dust under the carpet. By simply saying that space (and time) must be "some kind of a" way in which we perceive "whatever the hell" is not what I call finding an actual model that actually matches up with experience. That is what the quest is.

 

Think about this now. If quantum mechanical definitions/entities arise as a useful language to represent purely inductive expectations, what does it mean to search for the correct language?

 

Also, of course any valid quantum interpretation is "an actual model that actually maches up with experience". They are all also just different mental terminologies to represent the propagation of our expectations, at the absence of observations. If you really dig down into the meaning of the concepts any flavour uses, they all start to melt down and point towards the exact same meaning; they all just conceptualize the same idea semantically differently.

 

Much better to say that, the quest you are referring to is about finding as accurate and generally valid description of the universe as possible. That's all it can be, and any such description can be expressed in very many semantics.

 

And, I hope you understand, that is not the quest DD is on with his work...

 

Dick does nothing more than what the standard quantum formalism does, wait, he does even less.

 

...it is not put forward as an alternative to QM. You can view it as an analysis about QM; what definitions need to be made for QM terminology to arise as a reference to our expectations.

 

-Anssi

[AnssiH]

I understand that one person may perceive certain things differently than another. However, regarding social interaction there has got to be something (else) happening that makes us understand each other? What about body language and tone inflection (these are missing in internet communication and perhaps that's why there's so much ambiguity!)? Perhaps these other forms of communication play a more vital part than we're aware of?

 

Well one significant aspect in face-to-face communication is that it is possible to react immediately to apparent misconceptions before they become a huge issue. We often react to very small cues, like just facial expressions. My co-worker understood the crux of DD's work pretty rapidly basically over some lunch discussions simply because while I'm explaining it, I'm immediately getting the feel of what things are understood and what aren't, so I can adjust myself much faster. It really isn't such a difficult issue.

 

And I think that just gets us back to the responsibility of the reader over internet forums, where we don't have such a fast feedback loop. If there is no way to correct misconceptions, and the reader doesn't bother to think about such possibilities, suddenly small hiccups become insurmountable obstacles.

 

Don't we need to have an observable state for everything in order to learn? And where there's little information, or constructs we don't as yet fully comprehend then we can only hypothesize (sometimes badly)! I tend to think however, that any kind of hypothesis is better than none! How can we theorize if there is not first an idea that can be proven to be right or wrong?

 

That's the question isn't it.

 

Think about this opening though; even if we don't have the first idea of what something is supposed to mean, we can still start to generate expectations if we can recognize any sort of familiar recurring patterns in any sense. How those expectations or patterns will be represented is entirely immaterial, but we can still find whether our expectations are correct or not (whether particular patterns follow other particular patterns, for instance).

 

Compare that to the fact that any world view is validated exclusively by whether or not it generates correct predictions. And that, any world view that is found to be valid by this process, can still be represented via very many different semantics; any particular form is still just as immaterial as before.

 

That is basically what all the talk about "just a language to represent our expectations" is referring to.

 

An "undefined state" is fine as long as it can move from there. If it remains undefinable then for me, it becomes useless information because it's not benefiting me in any way (somewhat like struggling to put on pantyhose, only to find there's a run in the nylon).

 

Except, if it never becomes necessary to actually know what some information means. Being able to generate correct expectations is useful, and can be considered "understanding", no matter what language you do it in.

 

-Anssi