ldsoftwaresteve Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Well, as to the posting problems, one thing is that I never got an indication that a post was made. I was coming back in to copy some content into a word doc and found that other posts have been made. I wonder if when a post is made, especially a long one, is it possible that the server is tied up so when the next request comes about the server can't honor it?Submitting a post must submit changes to the server, the changes have to be put into the thread and then what? Does the original page generate a request to see the updated thread? That's what appears to be happening because I sometimes get a 'page not found' type of an error after a submission. But not when I do a preview of changes. So the two are handled differently. Perhaps delaying the request for the new thread to give the server time to handle the update might work. Or is there a way to find out if the server is busy (as opposed to 'not there') prior to sending in the request? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldsoftwaresteve Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 DoctorDick:No, I actually had nothing in mind. I was merely looking at 'gaps' as an adjective modifying the character or appearance of some inductive construct. Sorry I keep creating confusing metaphors. Please don't be. I need those things or I'd be totally lost. Is it possible that's part of my problem? You need to give me some time to respond and to take another shot at it. I'll send questions as they arise.I just got an error "Page cannot be displayed" on a preview. So my previous post is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldsoftwaresteve Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 DoctorDick: Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteveAn abstract model would be an identification of how all explanations are similar. Each term in the model would have to be an abstraction representing the set to which it refers.I am not sure of exactly what you are saying here. I do not understand the applicability of "representing the set to which it refers". What I would have said would be more like "each 'component' (instead of term) in the model would have to be an abstraction of some essential component which exists in all explanations and displayed the fundamental behavior of that component".[/Quote]I think this is a good place to drill. Let’s take the snippet “an abstract model would be an identification of how”…‘An’ is a pointer implying a single thing being pointed at. abstract model is the set, any instance of which constitutes the ‘an’. ‘Would be’ is another way of saying we have an equivalence to ‘an abstract model’, and here it is….the ‘would’ part implying a condition of some kind will be appearing shortly. When you say ‘component’, are you saying the ‘pointer’? The thing being pointed at would be another component. The equivalence part also another component. Everything past the equivalence has to be equal to everything in front of it. This is the mathematical connection, right? Tell me if I’m getting warm here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctordick Posted January 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Hi Steve, I have no idea what is going on here. I posted an answer to your last note to the "wish list" forum (actually, I posted it to the "watercooler" but it was moved. There are very strange things happening because I received a note in my e-mail that you had posted; however, when I went to the thread, your post wasn't there. On the other hand, the e-mail included a copy of your actual post and (except for your quote of my post) it is exactly the same as your message. Tormod says it is the server which is hosting them and they have no control over it. They are currently looking for a new host. Now, with regard to your message, I think you and I are operating on different levels. Analytically thinking, I operate on a very abstract level; I take logic and mathematics very seriously and very much regard mathematics as a language. Analytically speaking, all the other languages are appallingly vague. In my head, they can only be used as vague signposts toward the underlying concepts of logic and mathematics. In other words, I use English only to develop enough interest in my abstract concepts to get people to think about them. I would never subject my English to analytical analysis as it is not an analytical language. On top of that, I am firmly convinced that it is impossible to make such a language analytical anyway as the number of relationships standing behind those vague definitions is almost beyond conscious comprehension. Essentially, when you use the term, "an explanation", you have a certain concept in your head. I can not be sure at all of exactly what you have in mind but, if it is in reasonable alignment with the understanding of most people, I suspect that most things you categorize as explanations, I will also so categorize. Mathematics is far different. When it comes to a mathematical expression or a mathematical operation, I can be far more confident that we have the same concepts in mind (that is the issue driving the development of mathematics for many long centuries). The same thing is true of all the words and expressions you use: if what goes through your mind is in reasonable alignment with the understanding of most people, I suspect that I also will categorize my experiences in a very similar manner. That is what we call "understanding the language". However, as is pointed out by many people these concepts are independently developed by everyone and there is no proof that they are the same. In the final analysis, even mathematics is subject to that same doubt. To quote any intelligent person, "nothing is known for sure." What I have discovered is that a simple mix of mathematics and my concept of "an explanation" will yield astounding volumes of relationships regarded by physicists to be defining relationships of reality. But in order to understand that, one has to be able to do the abstract logic and mathematics based on that specific concept. Your interest seems to be in analyzing the English I use to construct the concept, not the concept itself.I think this is a good place to drill. Let’s take the snippet “an abstract model would be an identification of how”…‘An’ is a pointer implying a single thing being pointed at.The first step required to understand that English sentence would be to understand what a "model" is. The model of anything is something which appears very similar to another thing (the thing which is being modeled); at least sufficiently similar to play the roll of the thing being modeled in some possible circumstance. "Abstract model: identification of how ..." is almost sufficient to communicate the issue being communicated by "that snippet" you refer to. The gramatical purpose of the "An" is little more than an expression of "good grammar". That realization brings us to the adjective "Abstract" and the general consensus is that what ever concept being modified with that adjective is being conceptually modified as to contain no "real" or "physical" components. Thus it is that "an abstract model of an explanation" would be something totally imaginary (having nothing about it which is real or physical) but still able to "play the roll" of an explanation: i.e., act in a manner analogous to an explanation or "obey the same rules an explanation obeys". That is why I spent so much time establishing the rolls of those various components of an explanation: a component, "what is being explained"; another component, "what is known about what is being explained"; another component, "what does an explanation achieve"; another component, "by what mechanism yields that achievement". Each of these aspects of an explanation are real things so if one wants to fabricate an abstract model, one needs to dream up abstract representations of each of them. abstract model is the set, any instance of which constitutes the ‘an’.Apparently you think I am talking about a "set" of abstract models" here. What I am talking about are the requirements of "any" abstract model of an explanation. There may vary well be many ways to model the concept of "an explanation" but I am aware of only one. As far as I know, no one else has ever even tried to create an abstract model which had the properties of an explanation. As a matter of fact, I am unaware of any attempt to even examine the properties of "an explanation". All I have ever heard are vague loose requirements of the concept. Perhaps I have misunderstood what you have tried to say but it seems to me that you are trying to complicate a simple issue. I am going to try and post this to the thread and send it to you as a private message. Have fun -- Dick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldsoftwaresteve Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 DoctorDick:a component, "what is being explained"; another component, "what is known about what is being explained"; another component, "what does an explanation achieve"; another component, "by what mechanism yields that achievement". Okay. I think that I have a vague suspicion of an inkling of a hint of what you are talking about now. :hihi:You are saying to let the components above be the abstract for an explanation. Is that right? I will agree that they are components. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldsoftwaresteve Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 DoctorDick:a component, "what is being explained"; another component, "what is known about what is being explained"; another component, "what does an explanation achieve"; another component, "by what mechanism yields that achievement". Rational discussion then is built upon explanations. You have to forgive me for stopping the train just to look at a railroad tie.Before I continue on the journey(assuming I'm on the right train..) any further I want to step back just a tad first, get my bearings, and then move forward, if that's all right.There are two fundamental types of explanations (internal and external) and aren't you dealing with just one? In an external explanation there are two actors the explainer and the listener. We have to assume that a congruence of terms exists or the lines never intersect. So by definition an internal explanation has congruent terms, but that might not be true for external explanations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV-gap Posted January 11, 2006 Report Share Posted January 11, 2006 rational discussion = language Language is the Supreme Comedy because except for a few dozen people, who can laugh at language, each of 6-billion will read the same words differently. And if this is not funny enough then each one of these 6-billion will read the same words differently minute to minute and even second to second even though dictionaries tell us otherwise. And the Comedy gets even more supreme because I read the same words differently second to second and yet you want me to tell you how to read the words so their meaning does not change. To have a "rational discussion" you, or someone else, has to find a way that makes everyone on the planet read the same words the same way all the time. GOOD LUCK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khan N. Singh Posted January 11, 2006 Report Share Posted January 11, 2006 you are talking about Intuition vs. Thought. rational discussion *should* emphasize Thought more than Intuition. however, Intuition might be a gateway into a truer understanding of our abilities to percieve through our senses, and thus could be a vehicle for more definitive rational discussion. since you already have the credentials in physics, you should definitely check out philosophy of all kinds...i mean actually read what the major philosophers in every culture have written in the last millenia. its almost accepted that philosophers and physicists would hop between one and the other constantly. i think Neurology is the new hottest field in philosophy, and we need more "Philosophy of Physics of Neurology". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khan N. Singh Posted January 11, 2006 Report Share Posted January 11, 2006 rational discussion = language Language is the Supreme Comedy because except for a few dozen people, who can laugh at language, each of 6-billion will read the same words differently. And if this is not funny enough then each one of these 6-billion will read the same words differently minute to minute and even second to second even though dictionaries tell us otherwise. And the Comedy gets even more supreme because I read the same words differently second to second and yet you want me to tell you how to read the words so their meaning does not change. To have a "rational discussion" you, or someone else, has to find a way that makes everyone on the planet read the same words the same way all the time. GOOD LUCK. it'd be much easier to figure out how they think (being fellow humans), and then give it to them in their 'language'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV-gap Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 you are talking about Intuition vs. Thought. rational discussion *should* emphasize Thought more than Intuition. however, Intuition might be a gateway into a truer understanding of our abilities to percieve through our senses, and thus could be a vehicle for more definitive rational discussion. since you already have the credentials in physics, you should definitely check out philosophy of all kinds...i mean actually read what the major philosophers in every culture have written in the last millenia. its almost accepted that philosophers and physicists would hop between one and the other constantly. i think Neurology is the new hottest field in philosophy, and we need more "Philosophy of Physics of Neurology". After over 25 years as an MD-specialist I took "the Devil's short-cut to Enlightenment." And I am still laughing because I need wisdom and knowledge like a dog needs fleas, like god needs his devil. The Devil’s short-cut to Enlightenment makes you laugh because far, far beyond your wildest dreams it leaves you untouchable, complete and content, mostly because there are no questions.There are no questions because the only questions left are those the mind needs to go on a wild-goose chase where there is no goose only the question, which is the chase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV-gap Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 it'd be much easier to figure out how they think (being fellow humans), and then give it to them in their 'language'. but what they think changes minute to minute as does what you think, let alone what you think they thought but no longer think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 UV, are you saying that you already know everything, or that you don't need to know anything other than what you already know? you said: ''The Devil’s short-cut to Enlightenment makes you laugh because far, far beyond your wildest dreams it leaves you untouchable, complete and content, mostly because there are no questions.There are no questions because the only questions left are those the mind needs to go on a wild-goose chase where there is no goose only the question, which is the chase.'' what does this mean? have you made a Faustian pact? i, too, would like to be content. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khan N. Singh Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 UV, are you saying that you already know everything, or that you don't need to know anything other than what you already know? you said: ''The Devil’s short-cut to Enlightenment makes you laugh because far, far beyond your wildest dreams it leaves you untouchable, complete and content, mostly because there are no questions.There are no questions because the only questions left are those the mind needs to go on a wild-goose chase where there is no goose only the question, which is the chase.'' what does this mean? have you made a Faustian pact? i, too, would like to be content. it sounds like defying human nature of curiousity by placating it. also, i said HOW they think, not what they think :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV-gap Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 UV, are you saying that you already know everything, . On the contrary, not only do I know nothing but I AM language's nothing which is the Reality that is EVERYTHING. My only knowledge is the same Socrates claimed: “All I know is that I know nothing.” I also know this same nothing. To understand what I am talking about you need the basics of non-duality, Advaita, that gave us the same quantum-gap that physics discovered 5000 years later. So if you want knowledge I am utterly useless. But if you want to know anything about “fiction,” this nothing, then I am by far the greatest expert that ever lived, or will live. But only because not only do I know this Nothing but I AM this language’s nothing that is the Reality that is EVERYTHING, Atman, Samadhi, Nirvana. YOU ARE, and ALL IS, this EVERYTHING.. but you will never know it as long as you think you are something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 DoctorDick: In fact I will contend that the problem of explaining the universe is exactly equivalent to the problem of constructing a rational model of a totally unknown universe given nothing but a totally undefined stream of data which has been transcribed by a totally undefined process. Jesus. Why that statement strikes me I have no idea. Explaining is the same as constructing a rational model....a totally unknown universe.....implies that we have no understanding of it either. ...Yeah, it struck me too. Finally, I remembered what that sounds like. It sounds like the original Turing Machine. This device was fed an (infinite) paper tape containing an unknown sequence of ones and zeros. The device could respond to that input by reading forward, reading backwards, or punching its own output onto another paper tape. In principle, Turing proved that this simple device could SOLVE any problem that was inherently SOLVABLE. ANY. Including (perhaps) the problem of consciousness and self-awareness. :rolleyes: :) :) :D :( :) :) Dick, are your equations congruent to a Turing Machine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV-gap Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 What concerns me is not the way things are, but rather the way people think things are.Epictetus, Greek Philosopher ALL IS the perfection of the timeless NOW. What entertains ME is MY Supreme Comedy that I play as different egos who fight and argue, and even beat each other to death, so their imaginary future can follow their even more imaginary past when the timeless NOW is all there is. UV-gap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 ...the timeless NOW...so their imaginary future can follow their even more imaginary past when the timeless NOW is all there is.Our minds are nothing but a pattern of standing waves echoing back and forth upon a raging sea of foaming cellular chaos. Constructive interference builds finely crafted spumes of water frozen in that timeless instant, my self awareness and my immediate concerns. Destructive interference hollows out the static voids of painful memories and unrequited love. The waves flash back and forth at lightning speed, and the sea itself moves where and how it wants without regard to the waves that beat above. Ahhh, but the waves con- and de-struct themselves into solitons that have a purpose of their own, caring not one wit for the howling winds or the sea. The solitons engage only themselves in a slow stately dance. They are transparent to all else, save the steady streams of ones and zeros that enter through the eyes. They dance their pavon in slow-time, weaving the ones and zeros into Joy at the sight of a rainbow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.