Deriving Schrödinger's Equation From My Fundamental Equation

[Rade]

 

"There is absolutely no 'critical mistake' to know that Angels exist as real entities...

 

Oh yeah, my definition of "the past" as "the past is what you know" is meant to be what your explanation is based upon.  Please correct that definition to "the past is what you think you know!"  If you think you know that Angels exist then your explanation had better be consistent with t'hat belief.  

 

Concerning your first comment, I completely disagree with your claim.   You consistently take the tactic to refuse to define what you mean by "to know".   Using your logic, you reach the conclusion there is no difference to say you know that Angels exist as a real entity as to say that you know you, DD, exist as a real entity.   Also, in the future, please do not change the wording of my comments to make a point.  If you read what I said I never made a claim that one knows that particles exist as real entities, and the reason you do not understand this is because you have a false understanding of what it means "to know".  

 

As to your second comment, I congraduate you that you have come to realize that the definition of the past you have used at least since 2006 is false.  Now we see you add the word "think" to the definition.  Question, if the past is what you think you know, what would your philosophy claim would be what you do not think you know ?  And how about the future, would it be defined as what you think you do not know ?  But, what if what you think about the future is false, would that mean that the future is not what you think about what you do not know ?   I think you have made a critical mistake adding the word think to your definition of the past. 

[AnssiH]

Concerning your first comment, I completely disagree with your claim.   You consistently take the tactic to refuse to define what you mean by "to know".   Using your logic, you reach the conclusion there is no difference to say you know that Angels exist as a real entity as to say that you know you, DD, exist as a real entity.   Also, in the future, please do not change the wording of my comments to make a point.  If you read what I said I never made a claim that one knows that particles exist as real entities, and the reason you do not understand this is because you have a false understanding of what it means "to know".  

 

As to your second comment, I congraduate you that you have come to realize that the definition of the past you have used at least since 2006 is false.  Now we see you add the word "think" to the definition.  Question, if the past is what you think you know, what would your philosophy claim would be what you do not think you know ?  And how about the future, would it be defined as what you think you do not know ?  But, what if what you think about the future is false, would that mean that the future is not what you think about what you do not know ?   I think you have made a critical mistake adding the word think to your definition of the past.

 

So you just didn't take any heed of what I said in the previous posts, and you are still just more interested at wordplay than trying to understand the topic?

 

Go back to your actual complaint. This is my statement that you are not agreeing with;

 

"So it appears the critical mistake is to assume that the particles we have defined are also in themselves real objects"

 

Try to understand what it says. The particles that we have defined. Get it? I'm talking about the defined particles of quantum mechanics. Of course it is an assumption that they exist as thing in themselves, by the definition of what science is. You make guesses and when it yields valid predictions, you take your guesses as correct. If you insist that the validity means you have created the only correct definition, you are knee-deep in quantum mystery of your choice.

 

Either you think I am saying something else than I'm saying and insist on talking about a different topic, or you think naive realism is a fact and I make the mistake of seeing it as an assumption.

 

Which one shall it be?

Edited August 14, 2014 by AnssiH

[Rade]

AnssiH.  To answer your last question, it shall be neither.  

 

I think you have presented your argument in your last post in reply to my complaint about the comment you made, and before I reply to your reply,  I would like to hear what others who follow this thread (of course other than DD) think about what you assume... or as you say 'what you are taking about' concerning particles of quantum mechanics.

 

I see you mention the term 'by the definition of science".  I am not aware that DD has ever defined science...what would that definition be ?  Seems important given this thread is under the heading 'philosophy of science'. 

 

And, I still wait for the definition of 'to know' that is used in the presentation.  I think once that is given it will help with what you call wordplay in how the presentation is to be properly understood.  Wordplay is a direct consequence of making claims not clearly defined,  not from making comments in reply to such claims. 

Edited August 9, 2014 by Rade

[AnssiH]

AnssiH.  To answer your last question, it shall be neither.

That is not possible you know. Either you understand correctly what I said or you do not. If it's the former, your argument is defending naive realism. But based on your responses, I'm guessing the case to be the latter. Then the problem is you don't seem to be interested of trying to understand me.

 

I think you have presented your argument in your last post in reply to my complaint about the comment you made, and before I reply to your reply,  I would like to hear what others who follow this thread (of course other than DD) think about what you assume... or as you say 'what you are taking about' concerning particles of quantum mechanics.

You are aware that there exists very many quantum interpretations, right? And you want to hear opinions about whether or not it implies the existence of assumptions when something is explained via many different means?

 

Or, you are just not reading what I am saying?

 

I see you mention the term 'by the definition of science".  I am not aware that DD has ever defined science...what would that definition be ?  Seems important given this thread is under the heading 'philosophy of science'.

Obviously I am referring to the common definition. Falsifiability, theories, scientific method, all that stuff that I presume you are aware of. You know, everything that was supposed to remove redundant and arbitrary beliefs from our world views. Sadly, many people choose to believe into theories. But from a purely scientific angle, theories are by definition just useful ways to view things, that can potentially be falsified at any moment.

 

And from a philosophical point of view, the ontologies defined by theories are not provable. You should be well aware of this issue by now.

 

And lastly, not believing to an ontology is not a belief, in the same sense that atheism is not a belief, when it is referring to not having a functionless component (god concept) as part of your world view.

 

That is to say, believing in something that cannot be proven (like a particular defined ontology, such as some quantum interpretation), is exactly that; a belief towards unnecessary components. Not employing such belief, but instead viewing the quantum theory as a valid way to view something, is more neutral. It just removes an unnecessary component, that does exactly nothing but tickle our fancy.

 

DD's presentation shows exactly why that component does absolutely nothing at all. A quantum ontology is NOT a necessary belief, for a person to understand why quantum relationships are absolutely valid.

 

Do you really want to argue that those beliefs are necessary, instead of looking at the mathematical relationships that show you they are not?

 

Which one shall it be?

 

And, I still wait for the definition of 'to know' that is used in the presentation.

This is called english language, and many words have different meaning in different contexts. I pointed out to you many times that "to know" has different meanings in different contexts here, and I have suggested alternatives in the attempt to clarify the meaning here. And I told you the better you understand the actual analysis, the better equipped you are to read it correctly. You seem to refusing to think about it.

 

I will tell you one more time; in the context of the definition of the "past", "knowing it" is referring to having some data, but it is NOT referring to knowing how the data is to be explained (Which also implies not knowing if the way you are looking at it is ontologically correct or not)

 

What that means would be blatantly obvious to anyone who understands the analysis, so the best advice I can give you is to keep in mind that you do not understand how he means that, and move on. Then come back to it later, and you will probably understand exactly how he means it.

 

Can you do that?

[Rade]

AnssiH.

 

Thank you for your definition of to know as: "to have some data". I can work with this definition.

 

First we need to define what it means to have, then data.

 

To have in the context of this discussion means mental possession. Data from english dictionary is defined as facts about physically real entities, and facts are defined as information based on a real event or occurance.

 

Putting the above together, the presentation of DD uses this definition

 

TO KNOW <mental possession of information relative to the occurance of a real event involving physically real entities>

 

This definition applies to both the past and future. To know the future is to have mental possession of information relative to the possible occurance of a real event involving physically real entities. To know the past is to have such information relative to actual occurance. The change over time in the quantity of variety of information between a potential and actual occurance of a real event represents change in knowledge. If no change in quantity of variety over time, knowledge remains unchanged.

 

Your definition of to know helps understand this comment you made:

 

"What you think it is (and how do you fill the blanks), is a function of how you explain the data."

 

So, if we define the past as 'what you think you know", as presented by DD above, then, it is a logical conclusion of the presentation of DD that the past is <a mental possession of information relative to the actual occurance of a real event involving physically real entities as a function of how you explain the information> Conversely, it seems obvious that the future is such a mental possession of information relative to a potential occurance of a real event involving physcially real entities>

 

Hence it becomes clear that the presentation of DD has a veiled human independent ontology that underlies a perceptual reality as you nicely explained with this comment:

 

"I'm talking about the defined particles of quantum mechanics. Of course it is an assumption that they exist as thing in themselves, by the definition of what science is. [AnssiH]"

 

==

 

As relates to knowledge as you defined above, science then can be defined as the method of thinking that yields "uncertain knowledge" about defined particles of quantum mechanics that exist as thing in themselves. Thus the presentation of DD reaches the valid conclusion that if you claim to have certain knowledge about particles that exist as thing in themselves, such knowledge was not gained via methods of science.

 

==

Edited August 15, 2014 by Rade

[AnssiH]

Thank you for your definition of to know as: "to have some data". I can work with this definition.

 

First we need to define what it means to have, then data.

It really could be easier if instead of creating a definition for each word one by one, you just moved on and understood a broader context first, which in turn would allow you to understand the definition implied by the author.

 

While you do appear to be one step closer to the intented definition, there are few critical misinterpretations;

 

To have in the context of this discussion means mental possession. Data from english dictionary is defined as facts about physically real entities, and facts are defined as information based on a real event or occurance.

...In post #136, I said:

 

"Anyway, the definition of the past [to say "past is what you know"] here is simply a reference to some "noumenaic data", which is to say, "knowing it" is not referring to knowing a correct explanation for it. What you think it is (and how do you fill the blanks), is a function of how you explain the data."

 

I included the word "noumenaic" there, which is Kant's concept I know, but just work with it for now.

 

The whole thing is simply a reference to the fact that, past can be explained in multitudes of ways (most of which no one is even aware of), and what you think the past "is", is a function of your explanation.

 

Still, all the possible explanations are based on some "noumenaic data". They are not based on entities and particles or even conscious perceptions fundamentally, because those all must be in themselves a result of an explanation (meaning, they can all be transformed into another equally valid version).

 

I did not include the word "noumenaic" in my previous post on purpose (I thought about it, opted not to); because I wanted to express the same thing with different semantics; The same meaning is embedded in exactly what I said. I didn't want to confuse you with Kant's concept you may not want to work with, as saying "having it does not mean knowing how the data is explained" implies the same idea as "noumenaic data" already.

 

So it is erroneous to think that with "data" I was referring to "facts about physically real entities" (not under my terminology anyway). I was just referring to the raw material that a world view is based on, whatever that material is. "Physical entities" arise as an explanation of the data.

 

This is a perfect segway to another complaint I have. You must have noticed that many people, when they try to explain something to another person, they often opt to explain it in many different ways, in the attempt to let the "student" find inconsistencies in their interpretation. If the student thinks he understands one version, but another version appears to conflict that understanding, he must find an understanding that yields consistent interpretation to both versions. Just look at all the different ways to explain relativity (a subject particularly vulnerable to misinterprations), to understand what I mean.

 

Now, when you find yourself in a situation where DD or me appear to say something that sounds obviously conflicting to another thing we have said before, the chances are, either we have made an error in our thinking and/or communication, or you have made an error in your interpretation.

 

I feel like you always, always opt for the former. You really should work more with the idea of trying to create consistent interpretation of something people have said. The more your personal terminology differs from the one used by the other party, the more effort this requires (which is exactly the source of the difficulty for paradigm shifts). Go back to what you think they have said, and note how many different ways those things can be understood (and let me tell you, you will find that is not trivial).

 

Your definition of to know helps understand this comment you made:

 

"What you think it is (and how do you fill the blanks), is a function of how you explain the data."

 

So, if we define the past as 'what you think you know", as presented by DD above, then, it is a logical conclusion of the presentation of DD that the past is <a mental possession of information relative to the actual occurance of a real event involving physically real entities as a function of how you explain the information>

Possibly, if I understand correctly what you mean. I might not, and those would not be the words I would use.

 

Important to note thought that, implied to defining the past as "the data your explanation is based on" (which just another way to express the same definition) is that your explanation of it always has got the potential to change, but the past itself never changes. Say you fall out of religious world view, your explanation of the past has changed. But the underlying data never changed. That unchanging component (which you cannot directly think of) is "the past".

 

Future on the other hand, is entirely a function of your explanation. There are no unchanging components to the future, it just is what you believe it is at any given moment. If you believe rapture will come next week, that's just a function of your explanation of reality.

 

Conversely, it seems obvious that the future is such a mental possession of information relative to a potential occurance of a real event involving physcially real entities>

I don't know what you mean by real, but I would warn your use of the word here is at the very least particularly dangerous. And I would just refer back to my post where I brought up the difference between Rand's and Kant's terminology, and the uselesness of Rand's terminology when talking about the problem me and DD are talking about.

 

As relates to knowledge as you defined above, science then can be defined as the method of thinking that yields "uncertain knowledge" about defined particles of quantum mechanics that exist as thing in themselves. Thus the presentation of DD reaches the valid conclusion that if you claim to have certain knowledge about particles that exist as thing in themselves, such knowledge was not gained via methods of science.

Also here I cannot be sure what you mean, but I would warn that using the phrase "things in themselves" to refer to exactly the opposite thing that Kant meant (who coined the phrase), is probably not a great form of communication. What he wanted to point out was precisely that the objects we define (such as QM objects) cannot be taken as things in themselves. For they had to be defined first.

 

The last sentence could probably be understood as is, from either paradigm; science certainly does not yield certainty in ontological knowledge about anything, as it's not supposed to. Only tautological relationships are "certain", and if your ontological beliefs are tautological to your underlying definitions, what does that yield? It yields exactly what Kant was talking about...

[Rade]

Hello,

 

I have often explained my reason for reply to the presentation of DD and you, it is purely in the spirit of being the devil advocate. Have you observed that I am now one of 2-3 on this forum that has any interest at all ?

 

OK, I see from above that you now wish me to understand your definition of to know as being "to have some raw material". As you explain, your initial use of the word data was not exact in the spirit of the world view of the presentation.

 

So, to know is modified to be <to have some raw material>. And, raw material can be either physical or non physical since facts are by definiton related to the physical, thus all non factual raw material must then be non physical. Thus to know is <to have some raw material, either physical or non physical>

 

My reply, based on my world view, is that by changing the definition of data to the more complex concept of raw material you have not modified what it means to know, you have separated what is means to know from what it means to believe. I argue that to know is to hold mental possession (to have) of physical raw material, and to believe is to hold mental possession of non physical raw material. Thus you know yourself but you believe in angels. Using your definition you must reach the logical conclusion that you know angels, I hold no such view.

 

If you do not agree with the above, then you need to offer your definition of belief (the one internally consistent with the presentation of DD) and make it clear how if differs from the concept to know, which you clarified above to be, to know is <to have some raw material, either physical or non physical>. Truthfully, you need to offer this clarification whether or not you agree with anything I say.

 

==

 

Edit: Thinking though the above exercise of forming internally consistent definitions of know and belief, it should become obvious why the concept of the past cannot logically be associated with knowledge, belief, or thinking. Priori to such having (which is defined as mental possession) is the phenonmenon of sensation of raw meterial.

 

So, what are possible definitions of the past that would be internally consistent with the presentation of DD...let me offer these:

 

1. The past is raw material that has been, the future is raw material yet to be.

2. The past is raw material experienced, the future is raw material not experienced.

3. The past is raw material actual, the future is raw material potential.

4. The past is raw material that is, the future is raw material that is not.

 

Mix and match any of these or add your own, but the one thing you can never do is associate the concepts of past and future with knowing, believing, thinking, or expecting; in other words, to having in such a way that requires definitions to be attached to the raw material under consideration.

 

==

Edited August 17, 2014 by Rade

[AnssiH]

You know the reason why I created that blog space for this material is exactly that these forums tend to get instantly filled with pages and pages of useless noise. I get you are trying to do the devil's advocate thing, but your handle of the subject matter is so shaky that it comes off as borderline trolling. Sometimes I think it would be amusing to read your attempt to shake the paper of special relativity (a paper that is notorilously filled of semantical ambiguity that cannot be interpreted correctly before you understand enough about the concepts represented in the paper... exactly the same situation as with DD's work)

 

The post #131 that I made, which is a copy of a blog post, was actually related to to the topic, and it might have been useful for someone stumbling upon the thread, had it not been buried to all the unrelated nonsense after that. Why exactly do you think there are no other people interested of this thread? Could it perhaps have something to do with your endless wordplay focusing on some individual word choices?

 

If you scroll back to my responses to you, you might notice they are all addressing your communication methods and attitudes in trying to understand the whole thing, and more general and deeper flaws in your attempts to understand, rather than anything having to do with the actual derivation. It is in a way an interesting topic on its own (epistemology in general I mean), which is the only reason I responded to you, knowing that it's in no way relevant to the thread. But as I said, that's what the blog space is for.

 

As I said, I am in no way interested of defining words with words to you, when you have no interested of trying to understand the actual topic without getting stuck on every single word. If you had that interested, you wouldn't need me to explain single words for you.

 

As of your attitude of "if I can find a way to interpret it inconsistently, it must be flawed", that is actually incredibly common attitude that most people have. Just watch religion debates. Most people are just trying to reach a conclusion that would allow them to *stop thinking*. It's not a feature of religion, it is a feature of human beings. Granted, people who are less interested of thinking are more attracted to religions, but nevertheless you will find the same exact desire in scientific community as well, and with little introspect, you can find it in yourself. We all have that urge to some extent, and fighting against it can give you much higher ability to understand the world in general.

 

Really the only way to find a flaw from an analysis is to understand it from its own paradigm. Paradigm incompatibility is not a flaw. Notice I never said Rand is wrong. I said her terminology is useless for this topic. I didn't say your use of Kant's concepts is wrong. I said it's the opposite of how Kant used them and as such your use is not a great form of communication.

 

See what I'm getting at?

[Doctordick]

 

As of your attitude of "if I can find a way to interpret it inconsistently, it must be flawed", that is actually incredibly common attitude that most people have. Just watch religion debates. Most people are just trying to reach a conclusion that would allow them to *stop thinking*. It's not a feature of religion, it is a feature of human beings. Granted, people who are less interested of thinking are more attracted to religions, but nevertheless you will find the same exact desire in scientific community as well, and with little introspect, you can find it in yourself. We all have that urge to some extent, and fighting against it can give you much higher ability to understand the world in general.

 

Really the only way to find a flaw from an analysis is to understand it from its own paradigm. Paradigm incompatibility is not a flaw. Notice I never said Rand is wrong. I said her terminology is useless for this topic. I didn't say your use of Kant's concepts is wrong. I said it's the opposite of how Kant used them and as such your use is not a great form of communication.

 

 

This was a very significant post as it brings up one of the most serious flaws. 'Most people are just trying to reach a conclusion that would allow them to *stop thinking*.' That is the single most important aspect of most all arguments.

 

Have fun -- Dick