What I believe an explanation is!

[Doctordick]

Hello Dr. Dick. I see now more clearly where you're coming from with this. I was thinking of the set of information to be explained comprising the present—but, you're saying it is the past. Setting that straight in my mind puts other things in perspective.

I knew you would pick up on it if I managed to put it right. Actually, I think I am the one learning things here.

I await the thread's continuation and please assume I understand and have no objection to your description.

That is exactly what I am after; so please don't hesitate to let me know the moment something I say seems unclear to you.

So... I think I pretty-well understand, and all my questions involve what happens to that equivalence between the past and the explanation and what happens to the explanation itself when it is more than just a list of ontological elements—when an epistemology is 'present'. But, you haven't gotten into that yet.

You are right, I haven't; but now is the time to begin. As I said, “my approach will be to generate a general explanation by means of a subtle string of modifications of the ”what is”, is “what is” explanation”.

 

The first thing I want to do is to make sure you understand the anyalytical dichotomy I proposed for this ”what is”, is “what is” explanation.

We need to maintain the actual conceptual difference between the two roles. The best way to do that is to think of the “explanation list” as a different thing from the “knowledge list”. From that perspective, we can conceive of “having the explanation list” (no mention of how that result was achieved) without actually having the “knowledge list”. If that is the case then it is possible to conceive of a knowledge list which consists of less than the explanation list. This allows the ”what is”, is “what is” explanation to fulfill the single most important role required of an explanation: it provides a method of obtaining expectations from given known information. All we need do is look at our list.

This presents us with a problem worth solving. The list consists of a collection of indexed “presents”, each of which consists of a collection of numbers (which stand for a specific set of ontological elements). Suppose we are given a set of numbers (a supposed “present”) and are asked, “what is the correct t index assigned to that set?” All we have to do is look at our explanation (our list). The answer is quite simple: we look at our “explanation”, find that particular list, recover the t index on that entry and we have the correct index. Unless that specific collection is not in our list; then our answer is “that is an invalid set!”

 

But that same problem brings up another interesting possibility. That possibility lies in the character of the list. (We are starting down that subtle string I spoke of.) As I said, having an explanation means that we have a specific set of numbers which express that explanation. This brings up the possibility of “persistence”. (And I thank Anssi for pointing out the issue; it was actually in my original construct but not decently presented.) Persistence (the idea that the same ontological element exists at more than one specific “present”) is a very important aspect of almost every explanation. In my attempt to fabricate a general model, persistence yields a very real difficulty. The difficulty arises because a specific explanation may make the assumption of persistence for some elements. The fact that any persistence is actually an assumption means that, to be general, the model must possess a mechanism to include that persistence while maintaining the fact that there may be another explanation which lacks that specific persistence.

 

Essentially that means that every ontological element in the ”what is”, is “what is” “explanation” requires two indices: one which is consistent with the explanation under examination and another which maintains the generality of the model. Clearly the “past” must actually consist of only the general index (so that all possible explanations are still included) but, for the moment, we are concerned with analysis of the specific “explanation”. I will denote the general index with the number “x” and the "explanation" index (possible presumptive persistence) with the number “i”. Thus it is that every element in the current ”what is”, is “what is” explanation will be represented by the number x_i and each present in that explanation will be represented by a specific collection of numbers. As an example,

[math](x_2,x_{151},x_{293},x_{10591},\cdots,x_i,\cdots)_t.[/math]

 

I would like to point out that one must include the possibility that the past might actually include real persistence and we don't want to eliminate that possibility from our model: i.e., the same x index might appear at different times. That issue will come up later. Meanwhile, this new indexing procedure has highlighted another subtle issue (it was actually embedded in the circumstance already brought up but was not very obvious). Let us go back to that original question, suppose we are given a set of numbers (a supposed “present”) and are asked, “what is the correct t index assigned to that set?” The possibility certainly exists that there are multiple presents with exactly the same set of reference numbers associated with different “t” indices. In that case, our ”what is”, is “what is” explanation (as currently defined) will fail to provide us with an answer.

 

I will stop here in order to assure you comprehend the exact nature of what I have presented at this point.

I'm also going to look at your wiki page this weekend. I'm curious, are you intending to present the math of your model in this thread?

You can look at if you wish but keep in mind that it is a rather confusing presentation. What I am trying to do here is get confirmation that my new presentation is more understandable. If you have looked at my wiki page before, you will know that I am currently rewriting it in conformance with this thread as I comprehend what is and what is not clear. Qfwfq had major problems with that presentation and I would like to provide an easy map to the path around his problems.

 

To me the issues are so clear that I simply cannot comprehend why people find what I say to be so confusing. But obvious to one certainly is not obvious to another. I need all the help I can get.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[arkain101]

Quote:

Originally Posted by arkain101 View Post

Lastly, this topic is DD's effort to communicate fully what "he" thinks an explanation is. I assume he expects our contradictory thoughts to patiently wait until DD's effort is complete, or possibly be directed to another topic all together.

 

If you delay confirmation of your understanding until I finish, I am afraid my arguments are lost. I need your complaints as I present what I present. The chain of logic is not exactly "short".

 

Logic is the only connection between “what is” and “what can be!”

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Well sure. But if we just say, your wrong, and "this is whats right", that isn't being very fair, for your part and purpose.

[Doctordick]

Well sure. But if we just say, your wrong, and "this is whats right", that isn't being very fair, for your part and purpose.

How about you say, "what you are saying makes no sense to me" or "why didn't you say _____" (insert what you think makes more sense). I have just edited my previous post because it became clear to me that something I had said made no sense.

 

I really can use any help I can get here. What I am trying to say is actually quite simple but not easy to express clearly. :ud: If anything is not obvious to you please let me know.

 

I appreciate any comments at all because they make me think and I need to do that.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[arkain101]

How about you say, "what you are saying makes no sense to me" or "why didn't you say _____" (insert what you think makes more sense). I have just edited my previous post because it became clear to me that something I had said made no sense.

 

But of course!

 

 

I don't want to take this off track; but you seem to keep misinterpreting what I am talking about. I was originally,and have been, and still am referring to the type of post rade made.

 

We are on the same page you and I! This is good things!

 

Oh and by the way, I've been reading through your posts bit by bit, and so far I don't seem to have very many problems understanding what your getting at, what your purpose is, and what you have done about it.

 

I lack some understanding of the math used, as well as a lot of the physics(math); However, I believe I have a decent grasp on where the whole picture is going based on your posts, in so far as it does not seem at all difficult to follow; your doing an exceptional job communicating your work (I say this not for the sake of being polite, but for the purpose of confirming [for you] that your efforts are coming across loud and clear [in my case]. I know how frustrating it can be to try and communicate such an expanse of work and ideas to a relatively unknown audience in a way that will be easily understood [ie:am using the right words, tools, methods"????]). You bet.

 

I will be sure to post my understandings, where you can then evaluate and let me know if I am up to par on this whole matter.

[Doctordick]

I lack some understanding of the math used, as well as a lot of the physics(math)

Just let me know what you don't understand and I will try and at least give a common example. In fact, after my mother-in-law's house burned, I have been cleaning out our attic. I have already disposed of almost a dumpster full of shtuff including thirty years worth of various science magazines and boxes of papers and computer parts that go back to the 1970's. Anyway, I ran across a letter I wrote to a niece some thirty years ago (when she was in high school) that I think I ought to post on this forum. You might find it interesting.

 

As it can be seen as a statement about how physics should be taught, I will post it in the “Philosophy of Science” forum this afternoon. That is, if I manage to set aside the time; I have just discovered a minor leak in our roof (some wet paperwork!) :shrug:

I will be sure to post my understandings, where you can then evaluate and let me know if I am up to par on this whole matter.

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[modest]

The first thing I want to do is to make sure you understand the anyalytical dichotomy I proposed for this ”what is”, is “what is” explanation.

 

 

This presents us with a problem worth solving. The list consists of a collection of indexed “presents”, each of which consists of a collection of numbers (which stand for a specific set of ontological elements).

 

Seeing if we have our t's crossed and i's dotted: we now have an "explanation list" which I'm now thinking is more like a model for any explanation rather than "an explanation". The "explanation list" contains different sets denoted "t" which we seem to be semantically interchanging with the terms "instant", "a supposed present" or "different times". Each set of "t" contains an index of X. At each X is an element (or ontological element). X then is a label which locates an element and is not itself an element. In other words "X=12" does NOT mean X is element 12, but rather at X₁₂ we might have ontological element "18", so that X₁₂=18. Is this correct? This is the only way I can interpret what you're saying because there must be more than one X in t.

 

Each element then has another label i which allows it to change from one t to the next (or to persist). Let me just stop here and see if you can unravel any confusion that I'm showing.

 

You can look at if you wish but keep in mind that it is a rather confusing presentation. What I am trying to do here is get confirmation that my new presentation is more understandable.

That's good, because I didn't study it as I intended. I had to take an unexpected road trip which has kept me offline.

 

~modest

[Doctordick]

Seeing if we have our t's crossed and i's dotted: we now have an "explanation list" which I'm now thinking is more like a model for any explanation rather than "an explanation".

No, at the moment it is heading towards a model but is still, very definitely, no more than a ”what is”, is “what is” explanation. What I am trying to do is point out some subtle issues which need to be handled. First that the information list itself does not really qualify as “an explanation”; you have to include that ”what is”, is “what is” relationship. As you say, it is important that we cross our t’s and dot our i’s. So I very seriously want you to conceptualize these two lists as different entities.

 

Secondly, if this is to be a valid model of any ”what is”, is “what is” explanation then the elements in the explanation list must have two indices. Even a ”what is”, is “what is” explanation may include the concept of persistence: i.e., an element from two different presents may have exactly the same label. Now that brings up another subtle issue: that persistence may be either merely a characteristic of a specific explanation or it could be an actual characteristic of the actual information list. These two possibilities must not be lost in the analysis being modeled by our model of the ”what is”, is “what is” explanation.

 

The "explanation list" contains different sets denoted "t" which we seem to be semantically interchanging with the terms "instant", "a supposed present" or "different times".

I don’t think I have said that anywhere. I have reread my posts and, if it is there, I missed it. Now down the road, t will indeed map over to the common concept of time but at the moment I would rather not use the word “instant” as it brings with it associations which have not yet been established. I think one should be very careful here.

Each set of "t" contains an index of X. At each X is an element (or ontological element). X then is a label which locates an element and is not itself an element. In other words "X=12" does NOT mean X is element 12, but rather at X₁₂ we might have ontological element "18", so that X₁₂=18. Is this correct? This is the only way I can interpret what you're saying because there must be more than one X in t.

This seems to me to be a bit confused. The two indices refer to the two different lists. The specific “present” specified by a given “t” index consists of a collection of ontological elements. These same elements are in both the “information list” and “the explanation list” but the actual relationships in the “information list” may not be the same as the relationships implied by labels in the “explanation list” (the explanation may be “flaw free”, totally consistent with the known information, and still be wrong). I have used “i” to represent the specific element labels in the explanation list because, if we know and understand the explanation, we will know and understand the meaning of these labels. I have used “x” to represent the specific element labels in the “information list” because these labels are essentially unknown: we can only be sure our labeling is valid if we are all-knowing and I certainly know I am not.

Each element then has another label which allows it to change from one t to the next (or to persist). Let me just stop here and see if you can unravel any confusion that I'm showing.

I am glad you stopped here because I think it is important that these issues be clear before we go on. You used the word “change” without actually defining what you mean and I am afraid you are emotionally trying to bring in the idea of dynamic physical change which has certainly not yet been developed.

 

These are, as so far defined, no more than label indices and their change, from present to present have utterly nothing to do with movement. As I said, the labels in the explanation list are clearly understood if the explanation is clearly understood. The labels in the information list are not so constrained, you do not know them unless you understand the information and that issue must be left open.

 

Perhaps the label issue would be clearer if you viewed the problem as trying to understand a foreign language, say trying to translate an ancient script where your examples could be years apart. You could have two different words in the information list which you have concluded refer to the same thing thus in your explanation list you might give them exactly the same label. This could very well be an error in your explanation which could be totally consistent with the information available to you (it’s a flaw free explanation). You need to keep in mind that your assumption could be invalidated by future information (information not yet available to you, the definition of "future" here).

 

The point is that we must keep the possibility that any labels we give to the information list might change and the model needs a way of keeping track of such possible changes in labels: i.e., we need to keep the labels in the information list totally arbitrary.

That's good, because I didn't study it as I intended. I had to take an unexpected road trip which has kept me offline.

Actualy I am somewhat off line myself. My wife and I have gone to Denver for our granddaughters third birthday and I like to use my portable as a gps navigation device. About ten miles outside Salina Kansas we hit a pot hole and my portable gave up. Wouldn’t do nuthin. All that happened was the power light came on, the disk light would flash once and then it just sat there (the hard disk was not running); the only way I could shut it off was to push and hold the on button and, after a few moments it would shut off so I knew something was wrong in the boot. Tried to restart the thing several times got exactly the same result every time (I thought I could hear the hard drive try to start, a momentary noise).

 

At first I thought the hard drive had crashed but, if that were the case, I ought to at least get to the CMOS data which I couldn’t. When we got to Denver, my son-in-law (a professional computer guy) said the thing was probably failing the power-on self test. The noise sounded like the CD drive not the hard drive was trying to start (from the wrong side of the computer). Maybe a memory error was making it try to boot from the CD which was empty.

 

So we found a bootable CD. We had to power up before the CD tray would open and, when I opened the CD tray, the computer started right in on the normal boot off the C drive. ??????? It has been working fine since then so I have no idea what the hell happened. I closed the door (never put any CD in) and have had no further problems. Raj said he had no idea as to what was wrong; says I should buy a new portable, (it would be cheaper than checking this thing out, it’s about seven years old).

 

If any of you guys out there think they know what happened, let me know.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Jway]

Depends on what sort of explanation you desire. What you think would satisfy you (truly).

 

From what I can tell:

- you hit a pot hole

- device you had with you appeared to not work

- you attended to resolution as best you could, given available resources

- device is working now

> isn't working now most important?

 

If it were me, I'd be curious as to why and what happened. And I may not be satisfied with just one (or even two) technical savvy attempts at explaining why and what. I'd be skeptical. But I'd really want to know if there is something more (or less) I could do, should the same circumstances present themselves again. IOW, (obsessive) curiosity may be more important to me than current quality of function (fine working device).

[Doctordick]

If it were me, I'd be curious as to why and what happened.

We have been discussing it and I suspect I know essentially what happened (or should I say "I have a possible explanation!") I have not used that CD ROM drive for a long time. Not since I loaded some software a couple of years ago.

 

About a week ago, I went to load some software I wanted to take to Denver to entertain our granddaughter. When I put the CD in, the system acted like it was a blank disk. So I tried a couple other disks I had and it acted a little flaky but it worked on one so I put the CD I started with in again and was a bit surprised when it kicked in and loaded the new software.

 

I think the switch which indicates the CD ROM is in the tray was stuck (just old and probably gummed up). I think that, when we hit the pot hole the switch changed position and stuck again. The computer thought I had inserted a CD and attempted to read it with a failure. I suspect it was waiting for the non existent disk to come up to speed or something like that.

 

Afterwards, I think the boot tests failed because it had a disk in the drive which didn’t exist. When I opened the tray to put a bootable disk in, I think the switch changed state; the boot tests succeeded and the thing booted right up.

 

If you see a flaw in that logic, let me know. I will probably buy a new one when I get home but I’ll go ahead and use this one as long as it works.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

Would it be correct to conclude that this statement of yours

..a valid model of any "what is, is, what is" explanation...

can be restated symbolically as your attempt to present a valid model to explain the philosophic Law of Identity A (=) A ; where A = what is, and is = (=) ?

[Doctordick]

Would it be correct to conclude that this statement of yours can be restated symbolically as your attempt to present a valid model to explain the philosophic Law of Identity A (=) A ; where A = what is, and is = (=) ?

Philosophic Law? Isn't that rather the axiomatic definition of the equal sign? Or do you presume "=" requires no definition? :D :lol:

 

Identity is identity; I don't think the idea requires a model. :D

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

In logic (a branch of Philosophy), the Law of Identity states that an object is the same as itself: A ≡ A. In previous post I used (=) for ≡, just found an internet link to correct symbol, sorry to create such confusion for you. See here to learn more about the topic:

 

wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity

==

 

To say one is interested in discussing a valid model of " what is, is what is" (the topic of this thread) is to say one is interested in discussing a valid model of the Law of Identity, A ≡ A.

 

If as you say the statement, 'Identity is Identity' is in your mind an axiom that does not 'require a VALID model' TO EXPLAIN IT, that is fine, then also the statement 'what is, is what is', is likewise an axiom and does not require a model. It appears you attempt to provide a valid model to explain any tautology (what is, is what is), but then you claim that the specific tautology (Identity is Identity) does not require any such model--which is then a contradiction.

[modest]

As you say, it is important that we cross our t’s and dot our i’s. So I very seriously want you to conceptualize these two lists as different entities.

 

Two lists? The "explanation list" and the "knowledge list"? Yes? (or is it the explanation list and the information list?)

 

Secondly, if this is to be a valid model of any ”what is”, is “what is” explanation then the elements in the explanation list must have two indices.

 

Two indicies? x and i, yes? x and i exist in the explanation list? Neither index have any equivalence to the knowledge list at all? Is this correct? (I feel as if I'm reading the instructions to a game I've never seen played).

 

I don't understand the difference between the "knowledge list" and the "explanation list" nor the difference between x and i. For all the importance put on it, I don't see a qualitative difference.

 

Even a ”what is”, is “what is” explanation may include the concept of persistence: i.e., an element from two different presents may have exactly the same label. Now that brings up another subtle issue: that persistence may be either merely a characteristic of a specific explanation or it could be an actual characteristic of the actual information list. These two possibilities must not be lost in the analysis being modeled by our model of the ”what is”, is “what is” explanation.

 

You introduced the index t in order to allow for (or keep track of) change. You've now introduced i for (apparently) the same reason. t₆ may have the same set as t₈, but we nevertheless know t₆ [math]\neq[/math] t₈ by virtue of t's index alone. I don't understand the use of i as far as "persistence" goes. I don't mean it as a criticism and I don't mean it as a roadblock—I just honestly don't understand the distinction.

 

The "explanation list" contains different sets denoted "t" which we seem to be semantically interchanging with the terms "instant", "a supposed present" or "different times".

I don’t think I have said that anywhere. I have reread my posts and, if it is there, I missed it.

I don't recall where I read these things. You appear to say "different times" here:

I would like to point out that one must include the possibility that the past might actually include real persistence and we don't want to eliminate that possibility from our model: i.e., the same x index might appear at different times. That issue will come up later.

and "a supposed present" here:

Suppose we are given a set of numbers (a supposed “present”) and are asked, “what is the correct t index assigned to that set?”

By saying "semantically interchanging", I'm just trying to keep track of all the labels you're using. Is the past equal to the "information list" equal to the "knowledge list" equal to the "explanation list" equal to the "general index" equal to the "what-is, is, what-is explanation", etc?

Each set of "t" contains an index of X. At each X is an element (or ontological element). X then is a label which locates an element and is not itself an element. In other words "X=12" does NOT mean X is element 12, but rather at X₁₂ we might have ontological element "18", so that X₁₂=18. Is this correct? This is the only way I can interpret what you're saying because there must be more than one X in t.

This seems to me to be a bit confused. The two indices refer to the two different lists.

You just said (earlier in this post) that both indicies are part of the "explanation list". How can they refer to the two different lists? If "the elements in the explanation list must have two indices [x and i]", then how can either index (x or i) be (or refer to) the explanation list? That doesn't make sense. It's like saying the elements of a bucket are "water" and "sand" while saying "sand" refers to the bucket. I'm thinking we need a venn diagram.

The specific “present” specified by a given “t” index consists of a collection of ontological elements. These same elements are in both the “information list” and “the explanation list” but the actual relationships in the “information list” may not be the same as the relationships implied by labels in the “explanation list” (the explanation may be “flaw free”, totally consistent with the known information, and still be wrong). I have used “i” to represent the specific element labels in the explanation list because, if we know and understand the explanation, we will know and understand the meaning of these labels. I have used “x” to represent the specific element labels in the “information list” because these labels are essentially unknown: we can only be sure our labeling is valid if we are all-knowing and I certainly know I am not.

If the same elements in i are in x and x refers to the information list then we know the elements in the information list? Yes? It seemed like earlier you were saying that it's impossible to know what's in the information list (or was it the "knowledge list" that was unknown?)?

 

I'll again stop and see if you can iron out this confusion. Don't give up on me yet, Dr. D. I just want to be comfortable that I understand what you're saying, and I'm currently not.

 

~modest

[lemit]

If I may, the math is all foreign to me. I would say it's like injecting Cyrillic quotes except that I could probably translate them, so let's say it's like injecting cuneiform quotes into a post. I simply ignore the rest of the thread because I feel like a child trying to follow a grown-up conversation. I go somewhere else to play.

 

If anybody can explain those mathematical cuneiform posts in English I'll be very happy. If not, I'll be happy too. I'll just go somewhere I can play.

 

--lemit

[Doctordick]

Hi modest, sorry about being slow to answer but the last two days have been somewhat busy and, on top of that, my son-in-laws internet connection has been flaky. It is now up and doing fine. We presume it was a comcast problem.

 

You do an excellent job of expressing your confusion and I thank you for that. There are a lot of indices flying around here and it is quite easy to get them confused. I will try to be more careful but please don’t be too hard on me (I tend to use context to differentiate between the meanings).

Two lists? The "explanation list" and the "knowledge list"? Yes? (or is it the explanation list and the information list?)

At the moment (regarding the ”what is”, is “what is” explanation) the issue you bring up is only beginning to rear its ugly head. I have asked you to consider these two lists to be different because, down the road, an explanation will be quite different from the information upon which it is based. We do have another collection of information, which we might very well call “knowledge”, which certainly does not include all the information upon which the explanation is based. This would be the information given to the person using the explanation as knowledge on which his answer to a specific question is to be based (this presumes his knowledge consists of the explanation plus some other specific detailed information).

 

At the moment, as long as you can agree to view “explanation” as different from the “information” upon which it is based, I don’t really think the words “information” and “knowledge” are really that different; however, if you don’t mind, I would prefer the term “information” as “knowledge” seems to carry a bit more intuitive baggage with it.

Two indices? x and i, yes? x and i exist in the explanation list?

The two indices exist in both the information list and the explanation list. Their purpose has very little to do with the actual lists. They are there merely to assist in the logical mapping of the “explanation list” into the “information list” as these two lists have some fundamental differences when it comes to logical content.

(I feel as if I'm reading the instructions to a game I've never seen played).

That is an excellent analogy to the circumstance. Until I define something it will be presumed to have no definition. It is exactly a logical game being laid out. That is essentially what any tautology is. How I define things is very dependent upon the fact that I know where I am going. Sometimes the necessity of defining them the way I do will not be initially evident, but that is not the real issue. This is another characteristic of tautologies in general: things are often defined for reasons which only become apparent later. The real question you should concern yourself with is, do my definitions create any constraint on the problem being examined, not “what requires them to be defined that way?”

I don't understand the difference between the "knowledge list" and the "explanation list" nor the difference between x and i. For all the importance put on it, I don't see a qualitative difference.

In a ”what is”, is “what is” there is utterly no difference between the “information list ” and the “explanation list”; however, down the road, that “explanation list” will be transformed into something quite different. The important issue here is that any explanation of any kind can be transformed into a ”what is”, is “what is” explanation if “what is”, is known.

 

The difference between x and i is very specific. The numerical label of a specific element in information list will be expressed by the number “x”. Is x an integer? At the moment it certainly could be but there is no reason to so constrain it; as the number of elements in the “information list” rises to infinity (something which will happen down the road) x will transform to a continuous variable. The number “x” can be seen as an index used to refer to a specific entry in the “information list”. That same number is used to refer to the same element in the “explanation list”. The index “i” is an index used to refer to a specific entry in the “explanation list”. Of course, since the label “x” appears in both lists, “i” can be seen as attached to x in both lists.

 

So your real question is, why both x and i? Because different x’s denote different elements in the information list and different i’s denote different elements in the explanation list. But you say, if they are the same in the information list, they are the same in the explanation list. But my answer is, that is not necessarily true. To understand that assertion, let us go back to the definition of the index t.

 

I defined “the past” to be, “the information on which the explanation is based”. The explanation was created to explain the set of undefined elements which make up that past. What these elements are is left undefined thus to give any two the same label (the same numeric label “x”) is to assert that they are the same element. We can’t know that unless we have already solved the problem: i.e., somehow we have come to know what these elements are. It follows that we must leave them as unknowns until after we have found an explanation.

 

So, let us presume we have found an explanation. Within the context of that explanation we know what all the elements are so we can assign a specific numerical label to every element. Now, it appears to me that you immediately jump to the conclusion that we can assign a specific value to each numerical label (which references our definition of that particular element). We certainly can; however, that labeling is only valid so long as our explanation is valid.

 

The problem is, it is always possible that additional information might invalidate that explanation; in that case, the assignment of those labels might be in error. That is the reason I use the term “flaw-free” to describe an explanation which explains all the information upon which it is based: i.e., there exists no information within the set defined as “the past” which contradicts the explanation. That is why I define the index “i” to be the numerical label assigned by the explanation. The numerical label x_i would be “i” (or perhaps some translation of i) if and only if the explanation were valid. Think of x_i as no more than a translation table to be used to translate your presumed elements (presumed in your explanation) into the proper references in the information list.

 

Now we bring in the possibility of more information: additional undefined elements not in the original past (this additional information is what I call “the present”). As I said the introduction of this idea brings forth the possibility that the past might be seen as a serial accumulation of additional information and that issue brings up the need for another index “t” to allow us to specify exactly which present we are talking about.

 

We now have an explanation which is flaw-free so long as the past consists of the collection of all presents prior to some specific index t. It consists of a collection of presents, each of which consist of a set of elements (some set of x_i’s) associated with each t_q. Thus, having an explanation, we can assign an “i” to every element in every present (and thus to every x) in both the information list and the explanation list.

 

This is where the issue of persistence comes into play. If some element, say element 55, (i=55 defined by the explanation) occurs in both presents, t₆ and t₂₅, then that particular element will have exactly the same “i” assigned to it (in this case, 55) in both t₆ and t₂₅. But we certainly can not say that x₅₅ from present t₆ is the same as x₅₅ from present t₂₅. That is no more than an assumption we have made in creating our explanation. Put it this way, there may exist another flaw-free explanation which explains exactly that same information where that particular element is not persistent as presumed above.

 

Fundamentally, we can never assign a numerical label to our information list as that presumes we know what that element is. All we can actually do is use i to indicate our presumptions so that we might compare our explanation with the information list. That is the reason for the double numerical labels.

 

I hope that is a little clearer than what I said before.

I don't recall where I read these things. You appear to say "different times" ... and "a supposed present" ...

I have defined the index “t” on specific presents to be “time”; thus “different times” means different values of that index and a “supposed present” refers to a collection of information (a collection of numerical labels x_i) lacking information as to the proper index “t” which should be assigned. I am proposing a question there as to how our explanation list can be used to determine what that index should be. An issue we would like our explanation to answer.

 

I sort of balk at the term “instant” because it pretty well implies t is a continuous variable which it certainly is not at this point in the discussion. Time here is no more than a discreet index and is, in this way, not yet equivalent to the common meaning of the term.

Is the past equal to the "information list" ...

The past is defined to be the “information list”. The explanation is not yet defined at all except for the specific ”what is”, is “what is” explanation, in which case it is exactly the information list.

 

The term “knowledge list” is somewhat a dangerous term because I want to use the idea of the “explanation list” as an explanation (separate from the information list). In that case, I can presume someone possesses the explanation and can analyze his ability to answer questions given less than complete “knowledge”: i.e., I would like to use the word “knowledge” to indicate the information given as part of the question asked. This has to do with generating the kind of questions I want an explanation to be able to answer.

I'll again stop and see if you can iron out this confusion. Don't give up on me yet, Dr. D. I just want to be comfortable that I understand what you're saying, and I'm currently not.

I think you are doing a good job of pointing out what people find confusing. Let me know it the above clears up the issues you have brought up.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[modest]

Hi modest, sorry about being slow to answer but the last two days have been somewhat busy and, on top of that, my son-in-laws internet connection has been flaky. It is now up and doing fine. We presume it was a comcast problem.

 

No problem, and likewise on my end. I wasn’t wanting to reply until I had the time to think on this properly.

 

At the moment (regarding the ”what is”, is “what is” explanation) the issue you bring up is only beginning to rear its ugly head. I have asked you to consider these two lists to be different because, down the road, an explanation will be quite different from the information upon which it is based.

 

This is what I had previously thought. The equivalence goes only so far as this particular explanation. I'm ok with that.

 

Fundamentally, we can never assign a numerical label to our information list as that presumes we know what that element is. All we can actually do is use i to indicate our presumptions so that we might compare our explanation with the information list. That is the reason for the double numerical labels.

 

What does it mean then, in a practical sense, to assign a value to x, or to map an element of the explanation list into the information list as you indicate here:

 

They are there merely to assist in the logical mapping of the “explanation list” into the “information list” as these two lists have some fundamental differences when it comes to logical content.

 

Actually, scratch that question. I think my only problem is that I'm not seeing these things used. I understand the definitions you've given each label and to some extent why they would be necessary. All the questions in my mind are centered around what you practically plan to do with them, which I believe will unfold in the natural course of the conversation.

 

The term “knowledge list” is somewhat a dangerous term because I want to use the idea of the “explanation list” as an explanation (separate from the information list).

 

Ok, but, when you introduced the idea you used the term "knowledge list" (unless you were referring to something else). Can I assume that that term expressed here:

A very important subtle problem appears to exists in that set up. The problem arises from the fact that we are using exactly the same list for two different purposes. We need to maintain the actual conceptual difference between the two roles. The best way to do that is to think of the “explanation list” as a different thing from the “knowledge list”. From that perspective, we can conceive of “having the explanation list” (no mention of how that result was achieved) without actually having the “knowledge list”. If that is the case then it is possible to conceive of a knowledge list which consists of less than the explanation list. This allows the

”what is”, is “what is”

explanation to fulfill the single most important role required of an explanation: it provides a method of obtaining expectations from given known information. All we need do is look at our list.

is equivalent to what is now being called the "information list"? I certainly don't mind what you call it, but this is the second time you've voiced a problem with my use of a term you introduced. The other was "change".

 

The only other thing that was confusing me is now settled in that 'i' can be considered attached to 'x' in both lists.

 

Also, let me assure you that this is interesting and I am interested in where this is heading.

 

~modest

[Doctordick]

What does it mean then, in a practical sense, to assign a value to x, or to map an element of the explanation list into the information list as you indicate here:

It is quite simple actually, anytime one has a theory one must be able to compare the consequences of that theory to the actual information on which it is based. To the casual observer, it might appear that the “i” index is sufficient to that purpose; however, that is not quite true. The problem with the “i” index is that it is defined by the specific theory being examined and that theory could be incorrect. The fact that the theory might be incorrect implies that the “i” index identification could also be incorrect. It should be held in mind that being correct is actually quite a different classification than is “flaw-free”.

 

If we are to include all possible “flaw-free” theories, we must allow for all possible mappings from each of those theories to the actual information which is to be explained. Our model must allow such a comparison without specifying what the actual labels are.

 

When we are comparing those theories to the actual information, we do not want to change the labels of that actual information as doing so essentially destroys the comparison: i.e., we want the actual values of the index x to remain unchanged during any such examination. What is important here is that we can cast that requirement into x without knowing what x is.

All the questions in my mind are centered around what you practically plan to do with them, which I believe will unfold in the natural course of the conversation.

Nevertheless, I doubt it does any harm to know what is going on in my head when I express these things.

Ok, but, when you introduced the idea you used the term "knowledge list" (unless you were referring to something else).

Sorry about my sloppiness; and it is indeed sloppiness. We all often seem to presume others know what is going on in our minds. You are correct; there are indeed going to be three different lists here serving three very different purposes and it is important that I be consistent with regard to the use of different names. I will try to remain with the following specific names:

 

The “information list” consists of the information upon which the explanation is based: the entire collection of sets of (x_i)_tq. I might note that the double index t_q serves exactly the same purpose as does the double index x_i.

 

The “explanation list” (at least initially insofar as the opening ”what is”, is “what is” explanation is concerned) consists of exactly the “information list” but is regarded as a different issue.

 

The “knowledge list” (as I intended to use it in the quotation you referred to) is an excerpt from the information list which is used for the purpose of analyzing the actual use of the “explanation”.

 

The fundamental purpose of an explanation is to allow one to deduce the constraints imposed upon the answer to a question when given only small part of the relevant information. The essential situation is that if we actually knew the entire “information list” an explanation is rather beside the point; we could simply refer the questioner to the ”what is”, is “what is” explanation.

 

What is important here is that other, quite simple, explanations exist. Explanations which do not require memorization of the entire “information list” and it is these explanations which are of interest to us.

 

I will do my best to be consistent with regard to these three “lists” mentioned here.

The other was "change".

I am presuming that you now understand that I was referring to “change” in the labels associated with a given comparison of two different “presents” (which are defined to be changes in information upon which the explanation is to be based). Persistence from one present to another is “lack of change”; if the same element appears in different presents, the element is called “persistent”.

 

In the absence of persistence, I suspect the simple ”what is”, is “what is” explanation is the only possibility: i.e., we have the information list and nothing more. Element persistence is one of the fundamental aspects of any decent explanation.

 

So, presuming you understand everything up to this point, that brings me back to the question I asked earlier. The one I referred to in post #35.

Let us go back to that original question, suppose we are given a set of numbers (a supposed “present”) and are asked, “what is the correct t index assigned to that set?” The possibility certainly exists that there are multiple presents with exactly the same set of reference numbers associated with different “t” indices. In that case, our ”what is”, is “what is” explanation (as currently defined) will fail to provide us with an answer.

This thread has now exceeded fifty posts and I was unable to find the post where I originally asked that question which is somewhat troubling. Nevertheless, this is a very important question and resolving it will lead to more subtle issues. We need to be able to handle this kind of question. Let me know that you understand the issue I am bringing up.

 

Have fun -- Dick