Doctordick Posted March 14, 2018 Report Share Posted March 14, 2018 Well, I reviewed this site and decided I might try to reach someone again. (Failure to communicate seems to be my profession.) My interest is essentially presenting an analysis of the question, “can one find any constraints on the collection of all possible explanations of experiences without making any constraints whatsoever on the assumptions embedded in those explanations?” This question is actually entirely different from the question of what those assumptions are to be. Sir Arthur Eddington brought up the issue in one of his early publication of "New Pathways in Science" first published in 1934. The final paragraph of that book was: "As a conscious being I am involved in a story. The perceiving part of my mind tells me a story of a world around me. The story tells of familiar objects. It tells of colours, sounds, scents belonging to these objects; of boundless space in which they have their existence, and of an everrolling stream of time bringing change and incident. It tells of other life than mine busy about its own purposes. As a scientist I have become mistrustful of this story." It is interesting to note that the above paragraph was totally removed in his publication of 1935. I was not aware of that fact until years later when I obtained a copy of the 1935 publication. I had somehow lost my 1934 copy. If one reads the rest of the Eddington's publication referenced above, it makes it quite clear that he was well aware of the vast number of unexamined assumptions embedded in any world view and understood the critical issue standing behind the underlying problem. After considerable thought, he defended placing the problem into philosophy and outside the interest of physical scientists. As Eddington saw the issue, the development of those signs and indications are the necessary opening assumptions and simply can not be avoided. He thus defends the professional scientists avoidance of the issue as the only rational approach. Roughly 50 years ago I saw a route around that issue and have since tried to communicate my thoughts with utter and complete failure to date. The mechanism around the difficulty is actually quite simple. One merely ignores the actual explanations themselves and instead examines the procedure used to communicate those solutions. I put forth the fact that all communications used by humanity can be seen as a finite collection of explicit ideas (think concepts, words, expressions ... etc.) which can be represented via an arbitrary numerical index. Any specific communication can then be seen as an ordered list of those indices. Something which I choose to represent by the notation (x1,x2,...,xj,...xn) where each xi represents a specific numerical index in the ith position in that list. What is important is that any explanation of anything may be represented by a finite collection of such expressions. Our problem as intelligent entities is to discover the meanings of those explicit expressions being used. We use our experiences to uncover what those meanings are. You should realize that no child is born knowing the language the parent is using. This is something which takes years for the child to decipher. Another issue of profound import is the fact that the actual meaning of an expression changes from expression to expression (a relationship commonly referred to as context). Jokes are built from such effects. Without such changes in meaning, jokes would be almost impossible to fabricate. What is important here is that the entirety of our knowledge can be expressed via a finite collection of such communications (all the books and/or descriptions ever written in the history of man). All we have to do to understand those documents is to learn how to decipher those communications something we have all spent our lives trying to understand. But we manage to do a pretty fair job. There is a very simple issue embedded in that representation with far reaching consequences. The issue arises from the arbitary nature of those numerical indices. First I will introduce an interesting expression P(x1,x2,...,xj,...xn) which I will define to be the probability that (x1,x2,...,xj,...xn) is true; i.e., a communication which should be taken to be valid. The arbitrary nature of those indices leads to a very surprising relationship. Since the indices are arbitrary, exactly the same communications could be expressed by a second collection of indices. That alone is a rather useless observation; however there is a very interesting relationship embedded in a very specific alteration which can be defined. If a specific arbitrary number (which I will call "a") is added to each and every index defined in the communications to be understood, any specific communication, (x1,x2,...,xj,...xn), would be exactly represented by (x1+a,x2+a,...,x+a,...xn+a). Again that seems to be rather imaterial except for the very interesting relationship which arises from the above probability expression. It must be true that P(x1+a,x2+a,...,x+a,...xn+a) must be exactly the same as the expression P(x1,x2,...,xj,...xn) since the list of relevant concepts are exactly the same. Note that the definitions of those relevant ideas are exactly the same in both representations. A trash fact with no consequences?? Perhaps not. If P(x1,x2,...,xj,...xn) were a mathematical function (which it certainly is not) those two expressions could be transformed into a differential relationship which would have to be valid in all comprehendable explanations of anything. I have carefully looked at that problem and have a conceptual mechanism for transforming P(x1,x2,...,xj,...xn) into a mathematical expression. I will explain that transformation to anyone who has an interest in understanding the consequences of that transformation. Let me know if you are interested Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.