Laying out the representation to be solved.

[Doctordick]

Thank you Anssi for your clear expression of your interpretation of my comments. You are indeed misinterpreting that first paragraph. When you write down [math](16_1, 16_2, 16_3, \cdots, x_n)[/math] you are presuming the unknown and undefined labels are the same on the first three elements.

If a circumstance of interest contains multiple appearances of a specific underlying element defined by the explanation, ...

That phrase, "defined by the explanation" means that I am talking about the numerical labels which are defined by the explanation, not the underlying unknown "things" which are labeled by "x". In the first paragraph, I don't even bring up those undefined labels.

 

The difficulty I am talking about arises because I use the notation [imath](x_1,x_2,x_3,\cdots,x_i,\cdots)[/imath] which implies that every labeled element defined by the explanation is different: i.e., whatever is being referred to (and defined by the explanation) by [math]x_{i_a}[/math] is different from what would be referred to by [math]x_{i_b}[/math]. That interpretation would make my notation disallow multiple occurrences of any defined elements. The problem could be solved by using the much more complex notation [math](x_{i_1},x_{i_2},x_{i_3},x_{i_4},\cdots)[/math] where duplicates of define elements could then be handled by setting (for example) [imath]i_2=i_3[/imath].

 

However, there is another problem that the more complex notation doesn't really handle well and my notation is supposed to handle all possibilities. There exists the possibility that another explanation exists where different elements in the first representation would be multiple occurrences the same elements in the second explanation or vice versa. If the notation did not allow conversion between the two explanations, it would essentially be representing only one of them: i.e., the notation would only be valid for the specific explanation being displayed.

 

On the other hand, the original notation above is just fine for both cases if we simply allow different subscripts to refer separate occurrences of the same defined element anytime such a duplication is needed. After all, the "i" numerical index is supposed to reference some elemental thing required by the explanation: i.e. the i'th thing being referenced is a specific defined element; that two different numerical indices have exactly the same defined element as the item being referred to is really of no consequence. Think of these references as an enumerated list. Is there really any problem haveing the same reference appear twice in that list?

 

Also, since the explanation being represented must always define all these labels anyway, there is no real necessity to use any numerical labels beyond the normal counting set: [imath]1, 2, 3, 4, \cdots, i, \cdots [/imath].

 

The second paragraph refers to the possibility that two apparently different elements (so defined by the explanation) were actually the same underlying undefined element. Certainly, since the "x" label is undefined, we absolutely can not know if this is or is not the case; however, if the notation disallows such a thing we can't really say "all possibilities" can be represented by the notation. In my notation that case is simply handled by allowing the possibility of [imath]x_i=x_j[/imath].

What makes things perhaps a bit tricky to interpret is that there is no telling about what sort of information the definition of an element is based on, i.e. the concept of "underlying elements" is something that can trip over a lot of people... (I mean it sounds like a real 1:1 mapping to reality, in some sense, is being suggested)

Yes, it can be confusing. I like to use the words defined and undefined to differentiate between the "i" and "x" numerical labels. The word "underlying" can refer to either; however, the underlying element of the explanation is the defined element. The undefined underlying element (referred to by "x") needs a separate numerical label because it very definitely must be in alignment with every possible explanation. The problem is that there is no way that we can "know" every possible explanation so that, for convenience, if we wish to talk about what it is we are talking about, we only have one option: use the term referenced by the explanation currently being modeled.

 

Actually defining what "entry should be in that list" referred to by the "x" numerical label is impossible; so all we actually have is the numerical label itself: i.e., that such a numerical label must exist is the only fact we actually have . That is an important issue to keep in mind.

Well the problem is just that it's just almost impossible to discuss this via english language.

You have got that right.

I think he wants to stick to the terminology related to "generating expectations". I don't read too much into it, but I did think it can generate confusion, as I commented earlier.

The problem is that most people want to generate confusion and really make little effort to analyze what they are talking about. I am reminded of Theseus' boat (in Athens) which was apparently maintained and repaired for many many years in order to display to the public. Philosophers found it rational to argue about whether or not it was his boat (because every piece had been replaced at least once over the centuries). None of them seemed capable of recognizing that all they were arguing about was the inadequacy of their language. This is why I want to lay out my representation of circumstances such that they can fulfill absolutely any representation conceivable and philosophers simply can't seem to grasp that concept. They would rather argue about the adequacy of their current representations. As far as I am concerned, let them have at it; continuing centuries of failure to resolve anything is apparently their goal in life. :shrug:

 

Thank you Anssi, and have fun -- Dick

[AnssiH]

Just a quick reply....

 

If a circumstance of interest contains multiple appearances of a specific underlying element defined by the explanation, ...

That phrase, "defined by the explanation" means that I am talking about the numerical labels which are defined by the explanation, not the underlying unknown "things" which are labeled by "x".

 

I remember looking at that sentence for quite some time, it was the word underlying which was throwing me off the most. I think if that word wasn't there, I would have interpreted it correctly. But now I ended up concluding that you were referring to the information underlying an explanation and that "defined by the explanation" just referred to it being the explanation that establishes the connection between defined elements and the underlying information.

 

I'm thinking perhaps the word should be dropped, as even now I'm not sure what meaning it has (what does it mean when a defined element is an "underlying" one)

 

The difficulty I am talking about arises because I use the notation [imath](x_1,x_2,x_3,\cdots,x_i,\cdots)[/imath] which implies that every labeled element defined by the explanation is different: i.e., whatever is being referred to (and defined by the explanation) by [math]x_{i_a}[/math] is different from what would be referred to by [math]x_{i_b}[/math]. That interpretation would make my notation disallow multiple occurrences of any defined elements. The problem could be solved by using the much more complex notation [math](x_{i_1},x_{i_2},x_{i_3},x_{i_4},\cdots)[/math] where duplicates of define elements could then be handled by setting (for example) [imath]i_2=i_3[/imath].

 

So, then I take it you are talking about the possibility of different i indices being used to denote multiple occurrences of entities of the same type? Like two different electrons?

 

I think there's always that bothersome ambiguity when someone says something refers to "same" thing, because I can't tell if they mean something is literally referring to one and the same exact instance of something, or to a different instance of the "same stuff"... I.e. the one and the same electron, or to two different electrons. I just kept juggling between those two possibilities when reading the original text. (And chose wrong :D)

 

I see you have updated the OP too, and it is definitely less ambiguous now, but seems to still contain this ambiguity of "same instance" vs "same type".

 

However, there is another problem that the more complex notation doesn't really handle well and my notation is supposed to handle all possibilities. There exists the possibility that another explanation exists where different elements in the first representation would be multiple occurrences the same elements in the second explanation or vice versa. If the notation did not allow conversion between the two explanations, it would essentially be representing only one of them: i.e., the notation would only be valid for the specific explanation being displayed.

 

On the other hand, the original notation above is just fine for both cases if we simply allow different subscripts to refer separate occurrences of the same defined element anytime such a duplication is needed. After all, the "i" numerical index is supposed to reference some elemental thing required by the explanation: i.e. the i'th thing being referenced is a specific defined element; that two different numerical indices have exactly the same defined element as the item being referred to is really of no consequence. Think of these references as an enumerated list. Is there really any problem haveing the same reference appear twice in that list?

 

I think I must be interpreting you correctly now; at least the above seems to make sense to me.

 

The second paragraph refers to the possibility that two apparently different elements (so defined by the explanation) were actually the same underlying undefined element. Certainly, since the "x" label is undefined, we absolutely can not know if this is or is not the case; however, if the notation disallows such a thing we can't really say "all possibilities" can be represented by the notation. In my notation that case is simply handled by allowing the possibility of [imath]x_i=x_j[/imath].

 

Yup.

 

Yes, it can be confusing. I like to use the words defined and undefined to differentiate between the "i" and "x" numerical labels. The word "underlying" can refer to either; however, the underlying element of the explanation is the defined element. The undefined underlying element (referred to by "x") needs a separate numerical label because it very definitely must be in alignment with every possible explanation. The problem is that there is no way that we can "know" every possible explanation so that, for convenience, if we wish to talk about what it is we are talking about, we only have one option: use the term referenced by the explanation currently being modeled.

 

Actually defining what "entry should be in that list" referred to by the "x" numerical label is impossible; so all we actually have is the numerical label itself: i.e., that such a numerical label must exist is the only fact we actually have . That is an important issue to keep in mind.

 

Yeah, I'm thinking the OP could benefit from clarifying that exact issue a bit more. Sort of what I was implying in #7 by;

"I think it would be a good idea to explain something about that whole idea of "representation of undefined information in this notation". And also clarify again that it is not the issue to actually know how some information would be thus mapped out; it is only important that the notation itself does not exclude any possibilities regarding whatever information an explanation might be based on.

 

-Anssi

[Doctordick]

I remember looking at that sentence for quite some time, it was the word underlying which was throwing me off the most.

I think you are trying to put too much meaning into the words I use. When I use the word “underlying” I am just referring to things closer to the foundations of what is being talked about, not any specific category: i.e., I am presuming the ambiguity in the word is understood. I want to keep those ambiguities because I don't want to make any assumptions. If I am referring to some specific underlying thing I will try to identify the category of interest.

I'm thinking perhaps the word should be dropped, as even now I'm not sure what meaning it has (what does it mean when a defined element is an "underlying" one)

I generally mean those things which are usually taken as understood and not ordinarily mentioned. Not a well defined word but rather an ambiguous word pointing your attention in a certain direction.

So, then I take it you are talking about the possibility of different i indices being used to denote multiple occurrences of entities of the same type? Like two different electrons?

Yeah, that would be a fine example.

I think there's always that bothersome ambiguity when someone says something refers to "same" thing, because I can't tell if they mean something is literally referring to one and the same exact instance of something, or to a different instance of the "same stuff"... I.e. the one and the same electron, or to two different electrons. I just kept juggling between those two possibilities when reading the original text. (And chose wrong :eek_big:)

That is why I like a little ambiguity here. My representation is supposed to be absolutely general so the actual thing which the “i” index refers to depends entirely upon the explanation being modeled. You have to go to the actual “list” of elemental things the explanation uses to find out what is meant. Whatever it is, the explanation either defines it or presumes its definition is understood. The “x” stands for what is actually being explained which is some “fact” making up that “known” past whatever that is. The central issue is that what it actually is, is unknown. More ambiguity here! How do I know if another possible explanation is explaining the same thing? I don't! But it is certainly possible that they are explaining the same thing and that issue needs to be handled in the representation.

 

If two people think they are explaining the same thing then they should be able to translate their “underlying elements” into the other's “underlying elements” and thus, “right or wrong”, they are explaining the same “x” even if neither can define it. Difficulties only occur if they don't believe they are explaining the same thing. In that case, well, I guess you can't say, “They are explaining the same thing!”

And also clarify again that it is not the issue to actually know how some information would be thus mapped out; it is only important that the notation itself does not exclude any possibilities regarding whatever information an explanation might be based on.

You are absolutely right. That is the only important issue here. Getting people to recognize what is meant by “unknown” is one issue that has got me baffled. People who do not understand mathematics seem to have no concept of the meaning of “unknown”. And some people who understand mathematics seem to be at a loss to understand a "complete unknown"; they always seem to want some kind of definition. All I am saying, when I introduce the numerical referrence label "x", is that you can refer to it; in a conversation what you are actually referring to is identified by the numerical label "i". The label "x" is no more than a numerical label for that unknown thing which your "i"th referrence is supposed to be explaining.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Doctordick]

I am presuming that my original post on this thread is understood by most everyone interested in understanding it as no one has expressed any concerns for almost two months. If this is not the case (i.e., if anyone still has difficulty understanding my post) I would like to be aware of their problems. Otherwise, I can only presume I am being understood.

 

Thank you -- Dick

[Rade]

I am presuming that my original post on this thread is understood by most everyone interested in understanding it as no one has expressed any concerns for almost two months. If this is not the case (i.e., if anyone still has difficulty understanding my post) I would like to be aware of their problems. Otherwise, I can only presume I am being understood.

 

Laying out the problem to be solved. Section 1: My definition of an explanation:

 

Quote:

An explanation is a procedure which will provide rational expectations for hypothetical circumstances.

 

Question (since you ask): Why do you limit explanation to circumstances that are hypothetical ? A hypothetical is not a fact, it is a type of hypothesis. However, many circumstances are factual. Thus (and please do correct me if I error) it would appear your approach only deals with a limited set of all possible explanation---that is, it addresses only those situations that require rational expectation for what is hypothetical.

[Vox]

I am inserting this preamble because it has been quite evident that very few people comprehend the underlying essence of my work.

 

I was trained as a physicist so most everyone presumes I should be discussing physics.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Is this also your own assumption?

 

I would suggest that during "free time" you could occupy your activities in the other areas, not to the areas to which you have been trained for. Could the idea of having hobby/activity which is opposite to physics sound good? It would enable creation of comparison point and contrast.

 

As the saying goes you actually do not know your own mother language before you have learned a new one..

I have up to now "learned" 4 languages and it looks that every new one would be easier to learn..

 

You do not need to answer this in this thread due it is not linked to your questions directly, just few seeds for thought.

[Doctordick]

Rade, I presume you know you are on my ignore list. In spite of that fact, I occasionally look at some of your posts just to get an idea as to what you are currently raving about and to see if you show any signs of having come to your senses.

However, many circumstances are factual.

If you cannot comprehend that your statement is a “conclusion” you have reached by presuming many many personal assumptions are valid, you just don't have the mental capabilities to follow my thoughts.

 

And Vox, you are sorely tempting me to put you on my ignore list along with rade and lawcat.

I have up to now "learned" 4 languages and it looks that every new one would be easier to learn..

But have you learned the most important language; mathematics? Without mathematics, you are just barking in the wind. Simple strokes for simple folks.

 

All the world's a stage,

And all the men and women merely players;

They have their exits and their entrances,

And one man in his time plays many parts,

His acts being seven ages. At first, the infant,

Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.

Then the whining schoolboy, with his satchel

And shining morning face, creeping like snail

Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,

Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad

Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,

Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,

Jealous in honor, sudden and quick in quarrel,

Seeking the bubble reputation

Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,

In fair round belly with good capon lined,

With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,

Full of wise saws and modern instances;

And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts

Into the lean and slippered pantaloon,

With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;

His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide

For his shrunk shank, and his big manly voice,

Turning again toward childish treble, pipes

And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,

That ends this strange eventful history,

Is second childishness and mere oblivion,

Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

 

by William Shakespeare

 

Do you wish for that to be a good description of your experience with life? It seems to be a rather good allegory of my life except for one very important thing: it seems to omit thought! And, without thought, all lives are but a simple waste.

 

Just a few seeds for thought.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Vox]

 

And Vox, you are sorely tempting me to put you on my ignore list along with rade and lawcat.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Please do it (stating this naturally just from my own behalf )

 

Why you are sending these questions out if your ego can not tolerate any challenge from "medicore minds"? Are you living in a closed environment where all bow you regardless ?

 

I apologise to be a bit mean but arrogance is one of the things which I do not digest easily.

[HydrogenBond]

One pitfall of math ,as the final say for reality, is one can use math to create abstract art. It can look perfect on paper, but still may not reflect reality. That is why you need another way to look at things, since math can be use to create illusions.

 

Let me give an example. Say I said that gravity is due to the repulsion of matter by space. (This is false but only an example). What I will do is use all the existing gravity and relativity equations and inverse them, so the math aligns. This would be an example of good math art. This math art could even give practical results (predictions) even if it is not in touch with reality.

 

When it comes to reality, one needs conceptual or representational thinking to make sure any math art work is consistent with reality, since some are genuine. The example that first came to me are all the theories for the creation of the universe. Using the math criteria, mutually exclusive theories are able to exist at the same time, which is irrational. This may be OK within a math art gallery, but if the goal is reality, we need another way to see which is which.

 

This observation came to me from knowledge of history and art. Art will often proceed culture by many years and anticipates changes in culture. With the rise of the industrial revolution, impressionist art appeared, where the former clarity of art became a little fuzzy, as people leave the farm and begin to enter something new to humans; factories. Then abstract art appears in the late 1890's, reflecting cause and effect beginning to break down. Not much later Einstein publishes and things becomes relative.

 

In physics, one is not always allowed to use common sense, since many of the abstract math art works can't be seen this way. Like visiting the museum, you can't expect to see clarity and proportion, when looking at works of art by Dali. One has to let their emotions and imagination guide them so the art can move you. Don't get me wrong, I appreciated and admire the skill and effort required for all math art. but we need to depend on something more if the goal is to differentiate math art from math reality.

 

Below might represents many math art references, for the same thing, all side by side. Each looks valid by itself, but if we put them all together, they all can not exist at the same time, at least not in reality (maybe in the math art museum). Conceptual thinking would try to find logic to show which of all these is the correct one. It is not easy.

 

[Vox]

I am pondering where the naming "exact science" is coming from?

 

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

Albert Einstein

[Rade]

Laying out the problem to be solved. Section 1: My definition of an explanation:

Quote:

An explanation is a procedure which will provide rational expectations for hypothetical circumstances.

 

Your definition of an explanation recognizes logically two possible types of circumstances (1) hypothetical circumstances (2) non-hypothetical circumstances. My question to you was, why do you limit your definition of explanation to hypothetical circumstances ? Why do you put the word hypothetical in front of circumstances ?

 

Perhaps you view all circumstances to be hypothetical of nature ? But this is not obvious from the definition of circumstance you provided:

 

circumstance..a description of whatever it is we are concerned with expecting

 

==

 

Let us try to apply your definition of explanation to an example. Suppose you are asked to explain how to use a thermometer to measure the temperature of liquid in a flask.

 

 

An explanation is a procedure which will provide rational expectations for hypothetical circumstances.

 

So, "an explanation" begins with a "procedure" (a set of instructions)...such as, be sure to use a calibrated thermometer, make sure it is clean, wait so much time until you take a reading, take the reading, record the number, etc. etc. And, it is also clear that these instructions will "provide rational expectations" (a number such as 23.67 C degrees).

 

Now, clearly the set of instructions could be of two types (1) one on how to use thermometer on any future possible situation of a liquid in a flask (a hypothetical circumstance), and (2) how to use a thermometer on this flask now (in the present) on the desk in front of you (a non-hypothetical circumstance).

 

Thus my question, why do you limit your definition of an explanation to the hypothetical situation above when clearly the non-hypothetical circumstance also requires an explanation.

 

==

 

Next question, do you really reach the logical conclusion that ALL explanations must begin with a "procedure" (a set of instruction) ?

 

Suppose this situation. You are on a walk with niece Alice and she is attacked by a bear while you step away for a moment. When you return you see Alice being attacked and you do nothing, you stand and watch. The bear sees you and runs away.

Alice asks you a question--Uncle Dick--why did you stand and watch while the bear attacked me ?

 

So, DD, exactly how will you begin your explanation to Alice with a "procedure" (a set of instructions).

 

Next, what exactly is your "expectation" from your explanation.

 

Finally, exactly how hypothetical do you think Alice views the circumstance that you are expecting ?

[AnssiH]

I am presuming that my original post on this thread is understood by most everyone interested in understanding it as no one has expressed any concerns for almost two months.

 

I've been meaning to still review the OP a bit more but just been concentrating on the GR thread more...

 

One pitfall of math ,as the final say for reality, is one can use math to create abstract art. It can look perfect on paper, but still may not reflect reality. That is why you need another way to look at things, since math can be use to create illusions.

 

Well if you have multiple mathematical descriptions that all work, what criteria can you use to distinguish between the ontologically valid and the rest?

 

With math, we are just talking about relationships between defined things. Slightly different definitions yield differently expressed relationships, but we may still be talking about equally useful representations of the same information. I.e. "as far as we know", we simply have different ways to represent the same information, and to choose between different representations is just a matter of belief.

 

So I'm just saying, there's no way to pull out "actual reality" from the "math art" without making undefendable assumptions. Of course, many people often do exactly that, often without realizing it.

 

Often, underneath all the extraneous assumptions and beliefs, people are actually talking about the same fundamental relationships, just expressing them in different ways. And that's sort of the point of DD's analysis. That the relationships expressed by modern physics appear to be actually the relationships between epistemological symmetry requirements, just that modern physics expresses them different form; via certain (universally applicaple) definitions.

 

Whatever "reality" you pull out from the definitions of modern physics is one good representation of information that has been categorized into predictive model, via inductive reasoning. When DD talks about things in terms of [imath]x,y,z,\tau[/imath]-space, that's another good representation of the same thing, and in some ways much simpler when you get to the details of relativity and quantum mechanics (but in other ways of course further away from the intuitive everyday view we all hold).

 

-Anssi

[Rade]

When DD talks about things in terms of [imath]x,y,z,\tau[/imath]-space, that's another good representation of the same thing

This does seem to get to the quick of the matter. The problem we keep going over and over and over, again and again and again....is that a number of people here in this forum with knowledge of physics have reached the conclusion that the approach of DD ....IS NOT ANOTHER GOOD REPRESENTATION OF THE SAME THING. It is perhaps (1) not good, (2) not a representation, (3) not about the same thing or (4) any combination of the three above.

[Doctordick]

Thank you Anssi, that was a very insightful post!

I am pondering where the naming "exact science" is coming from?

I think the Wikipedia entry does a good job of identifying what is meant by the term "exact science":

An exact science is any field of science capable of accurate quantitative expression or precise predictions and rigorous methods of testing hypotheses, especially reproducible experiments involving quantifiable predictions and measurements. Mathematics, physics, chemistry, as well as parts of biology, psychology, and the social sciences can be considered as exact sciences in this sense.

I would say the most important words in that expression are “accurate”, “quantitative”, “precise”, and “rigorous”. If there is no argument about applying these four adjectives to a study, that study has been identified as “exact”.

 

And Vox, I think you have misjudged my reaction to you. I am never upset by “challenges from mediocre minds"; I merely see dealing with mediocre minds as a waste of time. It is quite clear to me, at this point, that, in your own mind, you are a very rational person and I think that is true. You simply lack the tools to follow my thoughts. All I can really say about that is, it's too bad. I agree with Anssi on almost every comment he has made (I would say “all” but I haven't thought them all out).

 

I have moved the original final part of this post. The moved portion can now be found at this location.

 

Sorry about posting it here -- Dick

[Vox]

 

And Vox, I think you have misjudged my reaction to you. I am never upset by “challenges from mediocre minds"; I merely see dealing with mediocre minds as a waste of time. It is quite clear to me, at this point, that, in your own mind, you are a very rational person and I think that is true. You simply lack the tools to follow my thoughts. All I can really say about that is, it's too bad. I agree with Anssi on almost every comment he has made (I would say “all” but I haven't thought them all out).

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

First and foremost I´ll try to be real human being, to understand my weak points and strenghts, not trying to pretend "being better that medicore". I´ll try not to convice of being something like "rational" or anything which is rather static description. From one moment to another, my responses will be slightly different. I can follow your responses in this thread with ease and can read from there how you consider yourself compared to so called others. Surely not "rational" responses, I would say

 

Your earlier comment:

And Vox, I think you have misjudged my reaction to you. I am never upset by “challenges from mediocre minds"

 

Do you consider that rational person would write like that? I could state that it is most likely be the opposite which is closer to the truth"

 

Overall, I would say, fun to read..so please keep posting.

[Doctordick]

I can follow your responses in this thread with ease and can read from there how you consider yourself compared to so called others. Surely not "rational" responses, I would say

I suspect you are misinterpreting what I mean by the word “rational” which is quite understandable as I have some serious differences with the common use of the term. Maybe you would come closer to understanding me if you were to read Defining the nature of rational discussion! That post was essentially my first post to this forum.

Your comment,

And Vox, I think you have misjudged my reaction to you. I am never upset by “challenges from mediocre minds"

Do you consider that rational person would write like that? I could state that it is most likely be the opposite which is closer to the truth"

As I remember events, that phrase, “challenges from mediocre minds”, was a direct quote of something you had said. If I am in error, I apologize. But, more to the point, I think it is wrong to ever be upset by challenges from any source. A challenge either has merit or it does not and all challenges should be objectively examined before any decision as to their merit is made. If the challenge has merit, the challenge can either be met with a good counter argument or it must be accepted as a problem regarding whatever issue is being challenged. If the challenge has no merit then the most proper reaction is to ignore it. The central point in my answer to you was that “getting upset” is never a rational reaction. :)

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

Hello Doctor. I will now communicate on this thread.

 

I have what I think is a valid foundation. Your goal is to explain the undefined, and you add the noun information to be whatever it is that is undefined, so more correctly speaking, your goal is to explain |undefined information|. As I said on the other thread, I understand information as you use it to be <the combination of what exists PLUS what does not exist> (note the importance of the plus). Now, I understand this may not be exactly your worldview of how you understand the noun "information" (recall that you cut and paste a Wiki definition of information to communicate your initial worldview of it, and also suggested it may be related to noumena of Kant), but my worldview <the combination of what exists PLUS what does not exist> helps me understand your presentation and I can see no logical reason why it is not a valid way to move forward. If you do not agree with this, please let me know.

 

===

 

So, you start your thread presentation with a definition of "explanation":

 

An explanation is a procedure which will provide rational expectations for hypothetical circumstances.

 

A “procedure” constitutes some sort of instruction' date=' “expectations” constitute an estimated probability of yes/no decisions and “circumstances” constitute a description of whatever it is we are concerned with expecting. As for my meaning of “rational” see my post Defining the nature of rational discussion! In that post I explain why I feel “rational” means that the the result does not generate an emotionally negative response as to its truth. I will presume the meaning of “hypothetical” is understood.[/quote']

 

==

 

So, all you ask of explanation itself is that it provide rational expectations, and you define expectation as an estimated probability of yes/no decisions. That is, you ask no more or no less of explanation itself other than that it provide expectations, AS YOU HAVE DEFINED EXPECTATIONS.

 

Now, as I see it, and I hope you agree, if your definition of explanation itself is valid and flaw-free, then there should be no possible circumstance that your definition of explanation could not explain fully. Would this be correct ?

 

I focus all my attention on your definition of explanation.

 

==

 

Now, before I continue, it is important I get answers to the above questions. Thank you.