Laying out the representation to be solved.

[Doctordick]

Sorry I have been so slow to respond to your post but I have been busy with other things in my life. I can't comprehend how I managed to take care of things when I was working considering how much I have to do now that I am retired. For the moment I will try to clarify my problems with your latest post. I thought I had already expressed my problems with your current perception elsewhere but maybe I was going to post and didn't.

 

The web-site is currently so slow that composing a post inside the site is just too irritating so I compose in OpenOffice and then just paste it into the reply box; when the web-site gets slow I often let my computer sit while I go and do other things and I don't always remember exactly what I have and have not done.

 

At any rate, I think you are making a serious misinterpretation of my position.

 

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|.

My goal is not in anyway an attempt to explain anything. What I am looking for are constraints imposed upon an explanation by the definition of “an explanation”. In order to do that, I have to open my mind to all possible explanations. In order to assure my analysis is “exact” in the sense of “exact science” I need a method of representing any and all explanations totally independent of what those explanations are. That is exactly what this thread is all about: how can I represent “any possible explanation” when I know nothing about what is being explained.

 

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).

In a sense, I think you are getting ahead of the game here. This issue actually comes up in the analysis of possible explanations and becomes important under that “any possible explanation” issue. Unless you can prove that no conceivable explanation is built upon “what does not exist” that possibility must be included. I don't get the feeling that this is the actual idea which stands behind your assertion of what you understand.

 

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

Yes I do. I certainly cannot generate an exact analysis of the “constraints on an explanation” implied by “the definition of an explanation” without an exact specification of that definition. So the first issue here is, “my definition of an explanation”: i.e., an explanation is a procedure which will provide rational expectations for hypothetical circumstances.

 

Within that definition, I also defined what I meant by “a procedure”, “rational”, “expectations” and “circumstances”.

 

To clarify:

 

Anything which requires more than one logical step (or a logical step which requires a description) can, in my mind (and in my analysis) be called “a procedure”. A procedure is a way of getting to a conclusion and I shouldn't have to define “a conclusion” as it can be whatever you want it to be.

 

I will consider a statement to be “rational” if it generates no emotional opposition to its apparent truth. If a statement is “not rational”, that means a different path (if possible) to the result must be found or the truth of the statement must be questioned. (I tried to clarify my concerns with “rational thought” in that thread, “Defining the nature of rational discussion” but apparently failed quite seriously.) In my mind “rational” is a very clear and necessary concept. If you do not like my definition, give me what you would consider to be an “exact” definition of rational.

 

Expectations are clearly, “what you expect”. The problem there is that “what you expect” is usually taken to mean a statement of the actual results. It should be quite clear to you that a general exact representation of such a thing is quite impossible; however, I hold that the collection of yes/no answers to all possible questions (using a probability distribution for cases where the yes/no answer is not necessarily known) can represent such a statement. Given a complete set of such answers to all possible questions, it should be obvious to you that a statement of “what you expect” could be created. Thus I propose to define expectations as that set of yes/no answers and associated probabilities. In my mind, those two definitions are equivalent. If you do not see it that way, please give me an example of “what you expect” (as obtained from some explanation) which could not be represented in an infinite version of “20 questions”.

 

Of course, in the perspective given above, “circumstances” consist of that list of questions and I can refer to that list by merely labeling them with a numerical label. That allows them to be absolutely anything.

 

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.

Yes! And, regarding that issue, in order to reject my definition of an explanation as not being identical to the common concept you have only two choices. Either show me something which you regard to be an explanation which does not contain any implied conclusions regarding “what is expected”, or show me something which fulfills my definition (i.e., something which provides rational expectations for hypothetical circumstances) which can not be seen as “an explanation”. If you cannot come up with one or the other, you must accept my definition as defining the common concept of “an explanation”.

 

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 ?

No that would not be correct! My definition of an explanation explains nothing! It is the explanation which explains things; all I am doing is trying to represent any and all possible explanations in an exact manner. And, the first question to be asked and answered is, “is that definition of an explanation valid” (if it is not flaw-free, it is certainly not valid).

 

With regard to validity, we are talking about “definition” here. You either agree to use it as a definition or you do not. That validity is, does it align with your concept of “an explanation” or not: i.e., if not, which one of the possibilities discussed above fails. Are you aware of “an explanation” which does not produce expectations or are you aware of some procedure which yields expectations which you don't think can be seen as “an explanation”? If nothing comes to mind, I assert that my definition is an exact statement of what you mean by “an explanation”.

 

Rade, a definition of a word or phrase tells you if or if not something qualifies to be identified as satisfying that label (the word or phrase of interest).

 

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

I agree. The answer I need is, do you accept my definition or, if you don't, would you please give me an example which you feel fails to qualify as an explanation under that definition.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

The answer I need is, do you accept my definition or, if you don't, would you please give me an example which you feel fails to qualify as an explanation under that definition.

Thank you very much for your above comments. I am now thinking about your definition of "explanation" to see if I can accept it. For if not, then it makes absolutely no sense for me to waste your time. So, before I even think about trying to present to you an example that fails to qualify as an explanation under your definition, I must first agree with your definition, each word, each concept you are trying to communicate.

 

So, here is your definition I work with:

 

“my definition of an explanation”: i.e.' date=' [b']an explanation[/b] is a procedure which will provide rational expectations for hypothetical circumstances.

 

Based on my new understanding of the role of |undefined information| I have a few questions:

 

 

1. Why must an explanation be a procedure constrained to "hypothetical" ? Why not this ?:

 

An explanation is a procedure which will provide rational expectations for absolutely any circumstances

 

Please understand, I am not trying to be a troll--I really do not understand your reason for using the word hypothetical, the reason you add this constraint to your definition.

 

To clarify, you said this about circumstances:

 

“circumstances” consist of that list of questions and I can refer to that list by merely labeling them

1. with a numerical label. That allows them
   1. to be absolutely anything. Well' date=' do you see my confusion ? If circumstances can be "absolutely any list of questions""--why must they be constrained to the "hypothetical" ?? I have a major roadblock in understanding you here.

 

--

 

2. You asked about your definition of rational.

 

I will consider a statement to be “rational” if it generates no emotional opposition to its apparent truth.

I find that you give "emotions" importance not needed for an explanation. Again (and I know given our past relationship you may find this hard to believe) I AM NOT TRYING TO BE A TROLL, I am trying to answer your question--what do I think of your definition of rational.

 

I see absolutely no logical reason why a "rational expectation" must be filtered by emotion. In effect, what you are saying is that any statement (x) must either (1) generate an emotional opposition or (2) not generate an emotional opposition. Then, depending on the outcome of the emotion, (x) either allows for "rational expectations" or it does not. Thus, you demand the "rational expectation" to be "rationalization". You demand that the "truth" of an explanation not be judged by the its logical correspondence to |undefined information|, but that |undefined information| be judged by its correspondence to emotions, to feelings. I find this to be completely unnecessary to your definition of explanation.

 

If you do not like my definition' date=' give me what you would consider to be an “exact” definition of rational.[/quote']OK. I offer an "exact" definition of rational is: non-contradictory use of reason. Thus, an explanation is a procedure that will provide non-contradictory and reasonable expectations of circumstances.

 

Therefore, I would suggest you replace the word "emotion" in your definition of rational with "logical", which of course is related to non-contradictory thinking, one of the fundamental "laws" of logic. See then how |undefined information| is judged via thinking by its correspondence with "logical" rationality and not "emotional" rationality?

 

-----

 

3. Concerning your use of (yes/no) as a constraint for your definition of "expectation". Clearly, this relates to "bits" of information, correct ? Thus, it would be possible for your algebra mathematical approach to be presented in "bit" (for classical) and "qubit" (for quantum) mathematical language--correct ? This makes sense to me given you begin with |undefined information| and the fact that information itself can be reduced to bits and qubits.

 

-----

 

To summarize, you asked if I could accept your definition of "explanation". My answer is--almost. Here is one modification of your definition I could accept--the reasons outlined above.

 

 

An explanation is a procedure which will provide non-contradictory expectations derived from reason for absolutely any circumstances.

 

This definition modifies your definition of "rational" (i.e., replaces the role of emotion with logic and reason ) and removes the constraint of "hypothetical" from the universe of circumstances.

 

Clearly, I need to know from you Doctor exactly why my modified definition is a false understanding of what is "an explanation" in your world view. Thank you. Once we reach agreement, I will then see if I can provide, as you request, some examples that may fail to qualify as an explanation under that definition.

[Rade]

At any rate, I think you are making a serious misinterpretation of my position...My goal is not in anyway an attempt to explain anything. What I am looking for are constraints imposed upon an explanation by the definition of “an explanation”.

 

Good Doctor, I have cut-paste my comments from the other thread below. If you do not wish to respond, OK with me, but you must become more consistent is all I ask--this is hard enough as it is.

 

==

 

Cut-Paste from other thread discussion:

 

I am sorry Rade, but I think you are reading something into my work which simply isn't there. I am NOT "trying to explain" anything at all! I am trying to discover the constraints on "an explanation" which are solely required by the "definition of an explanation". This cannot by any stretch be thought of as an attempt to explain anything. Explaining is left to others; all I am trying to do is see what constraints can be put on the issue without saying anything at all about what is being explained or what the explanation might be.

 

Good Doctor--please excuse me--but how do you expect me to understand what you are claiming when you here claim you are NOT trying to explain--when just a few days ago on the other thread you told me this, and it is what you see below in large font that I was referring to in reference to the book I cited:

 

Hi Rade,...I have a few comments which I think you should consider carefully...We are interested in “explaining” what is “undefined”. That is the central issue of what I have discovered.

 

Again, PLEASE understand, I am not trying to be a troll--but I am no fool--and either you are interesting in explaining OR you are not, you cannot have it both ways.

 

===

 

OK, so you claim you "are trying to discover", and not "to explain". You have no interest in trying to discover |undefined information|, but you try to discover "constraints on an explanation" [of the undefined information] which are required by the "definition of an explanation" that you use. Sure, makes sense, first you must define then you look for the constraints that follow.

[Doctordick]

Thank you very much for your above comments. I am now thinking about your definition of "explanation" to see if I can accept it. For if not, then it makes absolutely no sense for me to waste your time.

I absolutely agree with that comment.

 

1. Why must an explanation be a procedure constrained to "hypothetical" ? Why not this ?:

 

An explanation is a procedure which will provide rational expectations for absolutely any circumstances

You are misinterpreting my use of the word “hypothetical”. I suspect you are seeing it as a constraint as it is generally associated with the word “uncertain”. In my mind, certainty, is a rather undefendable status. Thus, when I use the word hypothetical, I am attaching no “certainty” to the circumstances at all. My purpose in doing so is to expand the circumstances under examination to all cases (thought to be possible or not): i.e., not constrained in any way.

 

The only complaint I might have with your statement is the fact that “circumstances” has not been defined. The common interpretation would be that “absolutely any circumstances” would be presumed to be constrained to what is possible. I feel this way because most people have a strong tendency to ignore what they see as “not possible” circumstances whereas I often see what they think of as quite obvious circumstances to be quite uncertain: i.e., in my mind the word “hypothetical” is not a constraint but rather removes constraints.

 

I would certainly not be happy with the adjective “all possible” as it constrains the circumstance to being “possible” and that is an issue we cannot satisfactorily determine and the simple “all circumstances” also bothers me because the common interpretation is often “all relevant circumstances” and is my wish is to avoid all presumptions. The real issue here is that English is simply far too ambiguous and interpretation requires too many inherent presumptions. If we can reach agreement as to what is intended, that is fine (and, for the moment it seems that we do). If you want to sit and argue about the correct meanings of the words, I am of the opinion that such a discussion is a mostly a waste of time.

 

Please understand, I am not trying to be a troll--I really do not understand your reason for using the word hypothetical, the reason you add this constraint to your definition.

Because I simply do not see “uncertain” as a constraint but rather see it as the opposite of a constraint.

 

If circumstances can be "absolutely any list of questions""--why must they be constrained to the "hypothetical" ?

If you really feel “hypothetical” is a constraint, please show me something which is not hypothetical without making any presumptions about what that thing is: i.e., in my opinion the concept of hypothetical as a constraint is itself a presumptuous concept as,in my mind, everything is hypothetical. To think otherwise strikes me as presumptuous.

 

I see absolutely no logical reason why a "rational expectation" must be filtered by emotion.

Neither can I; however, I think it is rather presumptuous to believe it isn't. You propose to define rational as “non-contradictory use of reason”. That is a rather common perception of the meaning; however, I am afraid it is not achievable. If one uses that definition and sticks to it, it is quite easy to demonstrate that, in the absence of presumptions, reason becomes an empty concept and the only outcome is failure. This is, in fact, the single biggest flaw in philosophic discussions. That is the issue being discussed in that post I referred to and, for some reason, no one has been able to grasp the essence of what I was talking about.

 

Put it this way: if we have to argue the truth of everything, we might as well forget about it as I can always ask you to prove something first (that is a rather common tack in most pseudo logical discussions. Essentially I am not requiring your “rational expectations” to be “filtered” by emotion; I am instead allowing the acceptance of logical steps “if those steps themselves do not raise concerns regarding their validity”. If any proposed logical step does “raise concerns as too its validity” (which is an emotional reaction by the way), it behooves us to resolve those concerns. If, on the other hand, neither of us have any difficulty accepting those logical steps as valid, we will proceed as if they are.

 

If concerns about any logical steps were to arise at a later time; we would either have to drop the argument or resolve the validity of those steps. The only reason I put it they way I do is to remove issues which are quite often significant obstacles in many philosophic discussions which can easily drive the discussion far off the subject at hand. All I am doing is forestalling some serious problems evident in most philosophic discussions in a manner which does not constrain the acceptable logic in any way. I am just being careful to define things as well as I can.

 

In effect, what you are saying is that any statement (x) must either (1) generate an emotional opposition or (2) not generate an emotional opposition. Then, depending on the outcome of the emotion, (x) either allows for "rational expectations" or it does not.

No I am not. What I am saying is that, if steps in the procedure defined by the explanation, are not acceptable logical steps then the explanation is not flaw free: i.e., the procedure is not adequately defined.

 

You demand that the "truth" of an explanation not be judged by the its logical correspondence to |undefined information|, but that |undefined information| be judged by its correspondence to emotions, to feelings. I find this to be completely unnecessary to your definition of explanation.

I am making utterly no assertions concerning the “truth” of an explanation. Essentially, all I am saying is that the explanation must be understandable in that the meanings of the logical procedure implied by that explanation must be sufficiently clear as not to generate confusion as to what those steps are. With regard to the individual steps, what is required is that anyone who understands the explanation will jump to the same conclusions as to what those steps are.

 

If this is not apparently true (an emotional reaction until one has a proof), the explanation requires clarification: i.e., so long as an explanation leads us all to jump to the same conclusions I am willing to regard the explanation as “defined” (at least between the people who agree).

 

And finally, I am presuming you mean the same thing as I do when you refer to “the fact that information itself can be reduced to bits and qubits”.

 

An explanation is a procedure which will provide non-contradictory expectations derived from reason for absolutely any circumstances.

Under the presumption that I understand what you mean, I would have no difficulty with your definition. As far as I am concerned it appears to be identical to mine: i.e., in reading your definition, I feel both you and I jump to the same conclusion as to what is intended (I can only hope I am correct). The only problem I see would be the fact that some people I know could bring up a number of cavils which in actual fact have no bearing on the issue at all.

 

This definition modifies your definition of "rational" (i.e., replaces the role of emotion with logic and reason ) and removes the constraint of "hypothetical" from the universe of circumstances.

I hope you do not mean that. If it does indeed remove “hypothetical” from the universe of circumstances, it throws away a whole set of explanations which are commonly acceptable as “explanations”.

 

Clearly, I need to know from you Doctor exactly why my modified definition is a false understanding of what is "an explanation" in your world view.

As I said in my earlier post, what a definition must do is provide a way of determining whether or not something is a member of the defined set or isn't a member: i.e, a definition of “an explanation” can be shown to be invalid if one can point out either, “something which is accepted as “an explanation” which fails to satisfy the definition” or, “something which satisfies the definition which is not seen as “an explanation”.

 

Your definition would consider “God did it!” as not qualifying as such an explanation requires a number of “hypothetical” circumstances. And you cannot remove that explanation unless you can prove those “hypothetical” circumstances don't exit.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

Hello Doctor. Your reply to my comments about your definition of explanation was very clear. I agree with your comment about how you use the word hypothetical

 

Thus' date=' when I use the word hypothetical, I am attaching no “certainty” to the circumstances at all. My purpose in doing so is to expand the circumstances under examination to all cases (thought to be possible or not): i.e., not constrained in any way.[/quote']Yes, and because I was thinking of hypothetical as used in logic as being a conditional, I was under the impression that you were placing some constraint on the circumstances to be examined. Clearly I was incorrect.

 

Your comment that "In my mind, certainty, is a rather undefendable status", I agree with completely as relates to science. I define science as "uncertain knowledge". However, in math, some things are without doubt by definition, such as, all triangles have three angles, of this we can be certain.

 

and I agree completely with this

 

Essentially I am not requiring your “rational expectations” to be “filtered” by emotion; I am instead allowing the acceptance of logical steps “if those steps themselves do not raise concerns regarding their validity”.

Yes' date=' as long as it is understood that the process "raise concerns" is via reason and not emotion.

 

and we agree on how bits and qubits are used for information.

 

==

 

So, I will move forward with acceptance of your definition of explanation as:

 

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

 

and I will keep for reference the definition I provided that you indicated you could live with

 

An explanation is a procedure which will provide non-contradictory expectations derived from reason for absolutely any circumstances.

 

==

 

Now you have offered an important challenge. Can I show that "your" definition of "an explanation" can be shown to be invalid as explained here:

 

As I said in my earlier post' date=' what a definition must do is provide a way of determining whether or not something is a member of the defined set or isn't a member: i.e, a definition of “an explanation” can be shown to be invalid if one can point out either, “[b']something[/b] which is accepted as “an explanation” which fails to satisfy the definition” or, “something which satisfies the definition which is not seen as “an explanation”.

 

As I see it, it is my duty as a scientist to do all in my ability to show that your definition is invalid, that is, to falsify it. It is my way of showing respect to you. I'm sure you will be able to explain why each of my attempts below fail, and I am very interested to read your logical arguments, for I will learn much from them. As shown in bold above, we are interested in "something".

 

1. Let me offer this attempt. Suppose John provides an explanation of something that, the reason why he does not become pregnant is that he consumes birth control pills every other day of his life. I will argue that the something satisfies your definition but that it is not seen as "an explanation". It satisfies your definition because it includes: (1) a procedure that can be verified (2) yes/no expectations (3) it is a hypothetical circumstance. However, it is not seen as "an explanation" because it is not logical to suppose John can become pregnant.

 

2. And this. Suppose two closed and locked boxes and it is explained that one box contains 1/2 of something as the other, with the something being undefined information. I will argue that the statement is "an explanation" of something, but it fails to satisfy your definition. The reason it fails is because it cannot provide a procedure to provide a rational expectation as you define the term.

[Doctordick]

However, in math, some things are without doubt by definition, such as, all triangles have three angles, of this we can be certain.

I agree; truth by definition is an entirely different matter. I personally have always defined “mathematics” as the invention and study of internally consistent systems. Mathematicians are notoriously careful about their definitions and their structures; but even mathematics contains ambiguities the correct meanings of which have to be picked up from context. For example, exactly what does f(x+1) mean? The number represented by “f” times the value of (x+1) or is the number represented by “f” some function of the variable “x+1”. Care is always required and thoughtless presumptions are always to be avoided.

 

Yes, as long as it is understood that the process "raise concerns" is via reason and not emotion.

I will not cavil with your concern; however, a thoughtful man would understand that “via reason” is insufficient to the problem and emotional responses provide a necessary underpinning of any construction referred to as “reason”. But I will accept the fact that the association I am referring to is perhaps beyond your comprehension (that is why I refer to my difference with you as a cavil).

 

... and we agree on how bits and qubits are used for information.

In my humble opinion the word “qubits” has not been in the human vocabulary long enough to have a decently established definition so I will leave that issue unchallenged.

 

I was hoping you would think things out a little better than what you have. I would classify the two cases you have presented as thoughtless cavils; however, in deference to your apparent confusion I will point out your errors.

 

In case #1, your comment

 

However, it is not seen as "an explanation" because it is not logical to suppose John can become pregnant.

Is a false statement because (in your mind) that makes it a flawed explanation; but a flawed explanation is still “an explanation”. John may very well believe he is not getting pregnant because he consumes birth control pills and his expectation might indeed be that, if he stopped, he would get pregnant. Essentially you are presuming that what you see as an incorrect explanation is not an explanation.

 

In case #2, the exact nature of your complaint is not clear. If it is based upon the fact that “1/2 of something as the other” is not a “rationally defined” concept (being a rather ambiguous English statement), I would say that, if I had two people who jumped to the same conclusion as to what it meant, they would regard it as an explanation and, between them, it would be an explanation.

 

If, on the other hand, you are complaining about expressing the expectations via probabilities, I would say you are being completely thoughtless. The expectations are very clear as, if the boxes cannot be opened, their expectations are “none”: i.e., they do not expect the outcome to be examinable. The collection of possibilities consists of a single outcome: their only expectation is, “they will never know the correctness of the explanation” and they will know that with 100% accuracy.

 

The fact that the explanation provides no information about being able to open the box is really of no consequence as it implies that if the boxes can be opened, their expectations will be that, whatever that second box holds, the first will hold half as much.

 

The reason it fails is because it cannot provide a procedure to provide a rational expectation as you define the term.

It provides a rational expectation in both of the cases just hypothesized; just as the first case, merely requires an interpretation. And the explanation may be interpreted in either way.

 

So again I say, you clearly have not thought the issue out. These are thoughtless cavils as they are no more than the consequences of poorly defined explanations. That does not remove them from being explanations! Being in English they are extremely ambiguous explanations; but explanations none the less under both my definition and common interpretation.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

Thank you Doctor, and thank you for your response on the other thread on my confusion about "explaining".

 

I think you did not completely understand the details of the two examples I presented. I will comment, because I disagree with some of your answers, but it may be that we are using words different.

 

Concerning the first example with John I provided in attempt to falsify your definition of explanation, I do not view the example as reaching a "flawed explanation" as you do. I view it as not being any type of explanation at all, valid or flawed. I view it as nothing more than a nonsense statement, a random grouping of words. To say that John has potential to give birth is the same as saying a tree has potential to give birth to a fly, neither is a flawed explanation, they are no type of explanation at all (flawed or not). In my view there is a difference between "not being an explanation" and "being a flawed explanation"--that is the point of the example I provided.

 

Also, another point of the example, is that I find that there is more to an explanation that nomic expectations that can be put into some sequence (which appears to be your approach), let me try to explain my position:

 

Suppose I offer this set of English language symbols [Oj*YHn and IJ*&Yh therefore JHGTY] as explanation to a circumstance x. Is it an (1) valid or (2) flawed explanation ? I suggest it is neither, it is no type of explanation at all. To be considered an explanation, it is not enough to show some "expectation" from a sequence of events, there must be added an independent factor that accounts for "relevance". Therefore, [Oj*YHn and IJ*&Yh therefore JHGTY] is not flawed or valid using English language as a guide, it is nonsense because there is no relevance in the sequence of symbols [OjnYHn and IJccYh therefore JHGTY]. In your approach, the fact that a sequence of something can be ordered to yield expectations is all that is required (what can be called a nomic expectability) for an "explanation" to be present (valid or flawed). In my approach, an independent factor of relevance must be added to the nomic expectability before any claim of "explanation" can be made, valid or flawed. It is not enough for a valid explanation to be flaw free, it also must raise to the bar of being relevant, a completely different concept. It is not clear to me that your definition includes the relevance factor in all cases ?

 

Concerning the second example I provided about the two boxes, you said:

 

The fact that the explanation provides no information about being able to open the box is really of no consequence as it implies that if the boxes can be opened' date=' their expectations will be that, whatever that second box holds, the first will hold half as much.[/quote']Well, no, that is the point of the example, that cannot be the expectation, because the box may hold molecules of a gas, and thus there is no logical reason to hold an expectation such that, whatever the second box holds, the first will hold half as much, for as soon as they open the boxes, neither holds anything. Thus, contrary to what you claim, there is no rational expectation possible "if the boxes are opened" -- that is the point of the example and the reason why the example falls outside your definition -- at least for me. Please let me know where I error.

 

==

 

I have a question. Do you have it in your mind that your definition can NEVER be falsified ? I mean, although you offer a carrot and make the challenge for all to falsify your definition, would you ever accept any such claim ? I do hope that you have not set up an impossible challenge.

 

==

 

Since I have an interest in moving on to your math, given my new understanding of the great importance of |undefined information| in your presentation, I will move forward with the next step as outlined in the begin of this thread. Thank you for working with me.

[AnssiH]

I started to write this reply earlier this week, with a bit of idle time I had in my hands, but then never had time to finish it. It is probably still useful to just re-iterate what DD already responded to, so you can just check if it resonates with your understanding;

 

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|.

 

The way you put that, it could be taken to imply DD's goal is to generate a specific explanation to undefined information (i.e. to generate a world view), and that would be a misconception.

 

More proper way to put it would be; his goal is to explore the possibilities open to us when we are trying to generate an explanation to undefined information. That is why he keeps saying, that it is very important that the notation he is using allows for the expression of any explanation, out of all the possibilities. (i.e. that the notation itself doesn't impose real characteristics to any explanation itself)

 

The first step into understanding the analysis, is to understand how his notation does not exclude any possibilities in expressing any kind of explanation, and then to understand how the fundamental equation is an expression of constraints which constrain and and all possible valid explanation.

 

In order to understand the latter, you need to understand the former (what the notation refers to exactly). That steps has proven to be difficult to many people, because they have taken the notation as an expression of a specific ontology in some sense. It is not that. It is just a framework for laying down information, defined by an explanation.

 

------

 

That's what I had written earlier. Now, I read the rest of the posts about the definition of explanation, and I have few more comments to make;

 

DD, I think Rade's questions about the meaning of "rational" and "hypothetical" are something that almost everyone would go through in their mind when reading the OP, simply because they don't know which connotations of those words are relevant and which are not. I understand you are using the words as an attempt to give a more precise definition, in order to avoid problems further down the road due to potential misconceptions. I made a comment about this problem earlier too, but I still don't really have a suggestion as to how make it better. Haven't really had time to think about it too much either, but I guess it suffices that I just make an observation, that there are unwanted connotations to those words, and people can only guess as to what do you mean. Especially the use of "rational" is problematic, because you are forced to use it little bit against the grain of common conception; people like to say that emotional/intuitive responses are those that are "irrational", in their everyday language.

 

Rade, since you already have some understanding of the analysis, it might be useful for you to know, that how I think of the definition of an explanation is simply "anything that provides expectations for the undefined information". Note that you can't have expectations without definitions (apart from "anything is possible"), so any useful explanation also entails a translation from undefined information, into a terminology of a given explanation.

 

That definition, which is lacking the word "hypothetical" and "rational", is sufficient for any person who already understands that;

1. No explanation can objectively* claim absolute certainty to its definitions nor its expectations (<- everything is hypothetical)

2. All explanations can't be required to take all the accumulated information into account and check for its self-coherence for every prediction they make (<- while the predictions are "rational" in everyday sense, they need not be "rational" in exact mathematical sense in order to be considered part of an explanation)

 

* To be objective would be to hold certain knowledge about the meaning of the information, and about its future, as oppose to merely assuming so.

 

I'm sorry I don't have good suggestions for improving the communication right now, but I do see it as a problem where everyone would stumble on... But, if the above sounds "rational" to you Rade, I suggest you move onto looking at the definitions of DD's universal notation. It is reasonably simple thing actually (it's essentially an imaginary space for laying down "what defined thing exists" at "what given "t"" without worrying at all what those defined things are or "where" they are)

 

Oh, I guess I could comment on your suggestions of challenging the definition of explanation (albeit I think the above should also solve the issue for you if you think it through);

 

Suppose John provides an explanation of something that, the reason why he does not become pregnant is that he consumes birth control pills every other day of his life. I will argue that the something satisfies your definition but that it is not seen as "an explanation".

 

Clearly, a universal definition of an explanation must allow for any supposed reasons that anyone might have for any supposed future. Any attempt to rule out someone's reasons are done either by; an alternative explanation giving different reasons, or; showing that John's reasons are not self-coherent with the rest of his own world view.

 

Essentially you are saying that "most people" would not see John's explanation as "an explanation", but that would be so because of one or the other reason given above. Not because DD's definition of an explanation is "too general" or somehow allowing too much.

 

If you think about it, the world is full of explanations that only a small portion of people think of as "an explanation". Do you know what the church of scientology considers to be an explanation to depression and ill-feelings? :D

 

Suppose two closed and locked boxes and it is explained that one box contains 1/2 of something as the other, with the something being undefined information. I will argue that the statement is "an explanation" of something, but it fails to satisfy your definition. The reason it fails is because it cannot provide a procedure to provide a rational expectation as you define the term.

 

This comment seems to be arising from unwanted connotations to the word "procedure" in DD's definition of an explanation. If we go back to how I just put it down; "anything that provides expectations for the undefined information", you can realize that the word "anything" entails some sort of mechanism; any logical mechanism that can translate undefined information into some expectations about its future.

 

DD's word "procedure" is an attempt to say "any logical mechanism" is allowed, as far as it does indeed provide expectations insted of gibberish.

 

I.e. he does not mean that an explanation must contain the instructions as to how to open the box, or anything like that at all.

 

Note also that in your example, you did not provide any expectations. An explanation is something that provides expectations about the future. In the case of unknown contents in two boxes, the expectations can be that "anything that fits" may be in those boxes, with equal probability given to each possibility. This is a bit counter-productive example for understanding the actual analysis though, so maybe instead you should look at the universal notation. Surely, it could be used to express a situation of two boxes with unknown contents.

 

-Anssi

[Rade]

OK, thanks to both of you for your comments. AnissH, thank you especially for trying to "see" my point of view about the use of the words "rational" and "hypothetical" in the definition of "explanation" used by DD. I believe the modification I provided (that does not use those words) adds clarity to the discussion, but apparently DD does not agree. All I can ask is that my suggestion be given consideration if DD ever attempts to publish his presentation. Take my attempts to falsify the definition of "explanation" in response to the challenge of DD to do so with a grain of salt, because it is not clear to me that DD really believes that any such falsification is possible. Now, if true, that forces me to treat his presentation as if given in perfect form and outside falsification, which I cannot accept. I do hope that is not the case.

 

Time for me to move to the next step, dealing with the notation of how to represent any possible circumstance. Now, what I see missing from this thread is an example of a hypothetical circumstance to use as a teaching tool--to help cement together exactly how the notation represents a specific circumstance. Because the representation must make no presumptions, there should be no problem we can proceed in that direction to help with understanding the presentation.

 

So, I offer a possible hypothetical circumstance. All my questions about the notation will be directed toward that circumstance. I make this circumstance only as complex as I believe is needed to move forward with my understanding.

 

DD defines any circumstance as "a description of whatever it is we are concerned with expecting".

Here is the circumstance we will work with: We wish to explain how to put together a three piece puzzle using less than ten seconds manipulation time between any two puzzle pieces.

 

Now, DD begins with this step:

 

Clearly' date=' the first thing required here is a notation capable of representing absolutely any possible circumstance in a form which makes no presumptions whatsoever about any aspect of that circumstance.[/quote']

 

and

 

I assert that absolutely any circumstance conceivable can be represented by an expression of the form:

 

(x1' date=' [i']x[/i]2, x3...,xn)

 

where xi is a numerical label constituting a reference to a [specific] fundamental [underlying] element of the circumstances being explained

Note, I add the [] terms for clarity based on my read of the thread discussion.

 

So, my first question. What would be the "specific fundamental underlying element(s)" of the puzzle circumstance that would be required in the notation to "represent" this possible circumstance ? Immediately we see the importance of the word "represent", for if the incorrect set of specific fundamental underlying elements are identified, the notation by definition must be incorrect (i.e., incomplete).

 

Here is my preliminary list:

 

1. Each of the three separate puzzle piece elements; (we can refer to the object elements as A1,B,A2). Note, that A1 and A2 are identical elements (as two separate electrons would be identical).

 

2. Each of the separate time elements between manipulation of any two pieces. Here we must take into consideration initial conditions, that is, the procedure could begin by first manipulating any of the puzzle piece underlying elements: (we can refer to the time elements as t1 {between A1 <-> B}, t2 {between A1 <-> A2}, t3 {between B <-> A1}, t4 {between B <-> A2}, t5 {between A2 <-> A1}, t6 {between A2 <-> B}.

 

3. The person putting together the puzzle (P)

 

4. The person measuring the times between puzzle piece manipulations (M)

 

5. The object upon which the puzzle is being made (O)

 

==

 

In summary, the circumstance can be represented by this notation:

 

label for element

====================

x1 for A1

x2 for B

x3 for A2

x4 for t1

x5 for t2

x6 for t3

x7 for t4

x8 for t5

x9 for t6

x10 for P

x11 for M

x12 for O

 

==

 

I will stop here and wait for comments.

[Doctordick]

Rade, we simply do not appear to be communicating here.

 

The whole subject, at this time, is your willingness to use my definition of “an explanation” and you don't seem to comprehend what the idea “definition” is all about. I will give you an example: one definition of a triangle is, “three points connected by straight line segments”.

 

A “definition” is the information required to differentiate things: i.e., what information is necessary to make the decision regarding the question, “is this or is this not a member of what has been defined?” I thought you understood that. We use definitions in order not to have to go through the process of explaining what is being talked about. The whole purpose of the English language is to put concepts into convenient packages for exchanging complex information and one needs “definitions” in order to achieve that.

 

The entire issue regarding the acceptability of a definition is quite simple: “does it provide that differentiation required?” That question is answered in the affirmative if, and only if, in every case of interest, it does indeed provide the correct differentiation: i.e., if the case of interest satisfies the definition, it is a member of the set being defined; if not, it is not!

 

With regard to any definition, that rule can be shown to be violated in one of two ways: either one can present an example which satisfies the definition which does not qualify as the thing being defined or one can present an example which does not satisfy the definition which still qualifies as the thing being defined. Either case makes the given definition inadequate to its purpose. That's all there is to it and nothing more!

 

I think you did not completely understand the details of the two examples I presented.

No, I don't think you understand the issue concerning what is required of a definition. Your statement, “Do you have it in your mind that your definition can NEVER be falsified?”, implies you do not comprehend the fundamental needs of a definition. Given any definition, if you could find an example which falsified that definition (see the above rules), it would quite clear that we were simply not speaking the same language. If I felt that my definition was inadequate to the given task, I would not be posting it nor developing any deductions from it.

 

Concerning the first example with John I provided in attempt to falsify your definition of explanation ...

Then exactly what case do were your examples designed to display?

 

The first one you claimed was not an explanation because it was nonsense statement; so I presumed it was supposed to be a case which fit my definition which in your mind was not an explanation. That one I dismissed because you had added constraints to your presumption as to what was an explanation which had no business being there. An explanation is an explanation and adding adjectives to the word does not remove it from the class of “being an explanation”. An explanation may be flawed and it is still “an explanation”. An explanation may be confused and it is still “an explanation”. An explanation may be wrong and it is still “an explanation”. An explanation can be idiotic and it is still an explanation.

 

Suppose I offer this set of English language symbols [Oj*YHn and IJ*&Yh therefore JHGTY] as explanation to a circumstance x.

And exactly which case is the above drivel supposed to be? Is that supposed to be something everyone would accept as an explanation? Or is that something which supposedly fits my definition? If it is either, it is certainly not in a language I would recognize. You simply don't seem to comprehend how one goes about determining the membership to a category created by a definition.

 

Please let me know where I error.

I have no idea. I gave you several interpretations of what you said which made your statement about the locked boxes an explanation. You say neither is what you meant. Next time, make your example of an explanation clearer so I know what you are talking about.

 

I do hope that you have not set up an impossible challenge.

Apparently I have already set up an impossible challenge: I have challenged you to comprehend what I am talking about and that seems to be totally beyond your comprehension.

 

I will stop here and wait for comments.

You claim that you are, explaining “how to put together a three piece puzzle using less than ten seconds manipulation time between any two puzzle pieces” but I don't see your explanation. I have read this through several times and see nothing I can contrive to be “an explanation” of how that is to be done. All I see are incoherent comments. You are apparently trying to represent an explanation which you simply do not have. That is pretty well a total waste of time! Your time and my time.

 

My only conclusion is that you have utterly no idea as to what I am talking about. I will be gone for several weeks and if your comprehension then is no better than what you have demonstrated so far, I am afraid you will be back on my ignore list. I think Anssi will understand what I am talking about; see if you can get him to help you. At the moment, I do not know how I can help you.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

Rade, we simply do not appear to be communicating here.....

You claim that you are, explaining “how to put together a three piece puzzle using less than ten seconds manipulation time between any two puzzle pieces” but I don't see your explanation. I have read this through several times and see nothing I can contrive to be “an explanation” of how that is to be done. All I see are incoherent comments. You are apparently trying to represent an explanation which you simply do not have. That is pretty well a total waste of time! Your time and my time.

Hello Doctor. Your comments on definition I agree with completely. You indicate that:

 

A “definition” is the information required to differentiate things: i.e.' date=' what information is necessary to make the decision regarding the question, “is this or is this not a member of what has been defined?”[/quote']Yes, I agree. I call your "things" = "concepts". Thus the purpose of a definition is to differentiate one concept from ALL other concepts, your "things". But, then again, maybe your "thing" is not my "concept" ? I think it is, but I may be in error.

 

================== next topic =================

 

However, I do not at all understand what you mean above...that I claim I am explaining "how to put together a three piece puzzle ... ?

 

I made absolutely no such claim to be explaining anything--I was following your presentation on the first page of this post, step by step. So, you will see that your presentation begins with a "circumstance", and you define a circumstance as a description of whatever it is we are concerned with expecting". Of course, the word circumstance is part of your definition of explanation, and I have no problems with it.

 

Therefore, the circumstance I would like to use to help relate to your notational approach is this:

 

How to put together a three piece puzzle using less than ten seconds manipulation time between any two puzzle pieces.

 

I am expecting that some person P can be trained how to put together a three piece puzzle using less than ten seconds manipulation time between any two puzzle pieces. One possible set of instructions [procedure] that could be made to person P is: put together the three puzzle pieces on this table O so they form a complete puzzle but use no more than ten seconds manipulation time between any two puzzle pieces. You will be timed by person M.

[EDIT: I want to explain why the manipulation times are different, if in fact they are different].

 

Next, I follow your comment that,

 

Clearly' date=' the first thing required here is a notation capable of representing absolutely any possible circumstance in a form which makes no presumptions whatsoever about any aspect of that circumstance.[/quote'] So, my only desire at this point is to present a notation for the circumstance presented so I can clearly see your logic of how you represent circumstance to notation.

 

So, if you could please re-read my {post #43} and let me know if the notation I have presented meets your goal of producing a notation capable of representing absolutely any possible circumstance (that is, the possible one I provided also in this post]in a form which makes no presumptions whatsoever about any aspect of that circumstance.

 

But, if you find this all a waste of your time, I will understand, just let me know.

Edited October 24, 2010 by Rade

[HydrogenBond]

One of the concerns I have with math proof is not all math problems can be reduced in a logical fashion. Some math can not be solved directly, but rather needs a numerical or iterative method. Don't get me wrong, this is an excellent invention with much practical value. But say we did that with philosophy. Instead of our logic reducing down to a logical conclusion (solve the equation), the conclusion is not solvable with logic. However, we have a technique that allows us create a solution based on iterations that bring us closer and closer. This can still be practical, but it would represent a procedural jump over a natural logic barrier, that gets a result that does not follow logically, since our logic reaches a barrier.

 

I tend to think that simplicity is closer to the truth. If one does not know the logic of simplicity, we can still iterate with logic after logic to achieve a result that appears to solve the simple problem, but in a very complex way.

[Rade]

Doctor--Looking again at your last comment, I see something of importance to mention:

 

The whole subject' date=' at this time, is your willingness to use my definition of “an explanation” and you don't seem to comprehend what the idea “definition” is all about. I will give you an example: [b']one definition of a triangle is, “three points connected by straight line segments”[/b].

First, yes, my goal at this time is to use your definition of "an explanation", BUT also it must be my goal to convince myself that your definition is valid. So, let us consider your proposed definition of "triangle"---is it valid as it has so been constrained above ? Clearly not, for here are three points connected by straight line segments and they do not represent a "triangle".

o______o______o

 

Note that nowhere in your definition do you state exactly how the lines are to connect, this is a constraint you placed on your definition of a triangle.

 

And, so you see, in the same manner, the fact that you offer "a definition" for "an explanation" does not mean that it is a valid definition, that is the only comment I was trying to make. And I thank you for providing your definition of a triangle to support what I am trying to explain.

 

But, please let us move on to your notation, see my last post.

[Doctordick]

However, I do not at all understand what you mean above...that I claim I am explaining "how to put together a three piece puzzle ... ?

As I said, I reviewed your post several times and could not find your explanation!

 

I made absolutely no such claim to be explaining anything--I was following your presentation on the first page of this post, step by step.

Without an explanation (which contains the circumstances to be explained) you have no circumstances to represent.

 

I am afraid you are confusing the “description of the problem to be explained” with the solution of the problem: the explanation. The explanation has the job of explaining how specific circumstances are to be handled. You are doing no more than throwing out a collection of circumstances with no explanation at all.

 

So, you will see that your presentation begins with a "circumstance", and you define a circumstance as a description of whatever it is we are concerned with expecting". Of course, the word circumstance is part of your definition of explanation, and I have no problems with it.

Ok, you just want to represent assorted circumstances in my notation? Take the fundamental elements of your description (and you have to decide what those fundamental elements are as there is no explanation there to refer to) and assign a number to each one of them. I will give you a start; your first part of the description is “We wish to explain how to put together a three piece puzzle using less than ten seconds manipulation time between any two puzzle pieces. “W” is apparently a fundamental element of that circumstance as are “e”, spaces, and various other letters. So the representations of the index “i” can be:

 

i=1 Is a capital “W”.

i=2 Is a small “e”.

i=3 Is a “space”.

i=4 Is a small “w”.

i=5 Is a small “i”

...

 

Or you could just as well put forth

 

i=1 Is "We"

i=2 Is "wish"

i=3 Is "to"

 

Or perhaps i=1 is the entire sentence.

 

You have to continue this list until you have definitions for all required indices “i”

 

So on to the specification of the “circumstances”.

 

If you read ahead to my discussion of “changing circumstances” you will note that, after defining the index “t” I take advantage of that index to remove order from the information contained in a specific circumstance. Thus it is that, in this example (which you seem to regard to be trivial when it certainly is not), the first circumstance (where t=1) is that capital W. Thus [math](x_i,t)[/math] becomes [math](x_1,1)[/math] (all other [math]x_i[/math], things whose order with that capital W are not significant) are simply omitted (you understand that we have omitted unbelievable quantities of information here. The second circumstance becomes [math](x_2,2)[/math] and continue. Further down the line you will find some of these indices repeating: [math](x_2,12)[/math] will appear.

 

However, you have omitted volumes upon volumes of information essential to understanding what you are talking about. The representation is not completed until “ALL” relevant information is contained in “the circumstances”. This procedure must continue until all possible “elements” required to complete the explanation are present and that includes enough information to constrain the notation to that relevant information.

 

However, without that thing called "an explanation", there is no way to know what is relevant and what is not.

 

I am expecting that some person P can be trained how to put together a three piece puzzle using less than ten seconds manipulation time between any two puzzle pieces.

Oh, so now you have “expectations” do you; however, I once again note that you still do not bother to give me any explanation. Why don't you explain to me “why” you have those expectations: i.e., give me, in detail, the elemental circumstances “necessary” to come to that conclusion (so I can recognize them when they occur in my presence) and the steps by which those circumstances lead you to that expectation so the information necessary to understand those expectations is present in the circumstances. On second thought, don't bother. I suspect you have no comprehension of the complexity of the explanation you have in mind when it is represented in the abstract.

 

But, if you find this all a waste of your time, I will understand, just let me know.

What I want you to realize is that the attack you insist on taking is a waste of your time.

 

Note that nowhere in your definition do you state exactly how the lines are to connect, this is a constraint you placed on your definition of a triangle.

Once again you are raising pseudo intellectual gibberish. It is you who are putting an unwarranted constraint on your definition of a triangle. What you assert is the exact reason why the figure you presented is often referred to as a “degenerate” triangle by mathematicians. The word “degenerate” is an adjective!

 

Please think about these things a little; you will save both of us a lot of time.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

Without an explanation (which contains the circumstances to be explained) you have no circumstances to represent. I am afraid you are confusing the “description of the problem to be explained” with the solution of the problem: the explanation. The explanation has the job of explaining how specific circumstances are to be handled. You are doing no more than throwing out a collection of circumstances with no explanation at all.

Thank you for the excellent explanation, yes, you are correct, I only offered a description. And, thank you for the degenerate triangle information, however, being only a mathematical definition it is thus constrained, and I see from the internet that mathematicians do not agree that a degenerate triangle is by definition a triangle. Seems like a good topic for the Physics and Math section of the forum.

 

==== new topic====

 

Ok, now that I have understanding of what you expect, below is my explanation, and we can then move on to the process of representing the circumstance with your approach of using (xi) as a numerical label as reference to the specific fundamental underlying elements of the circumstance explained below. And please do not jump ahead as you did above to inform me about some topic to come in the future--we can discuss that issue when it comes.

 

Now, to save time, and I think you will agree, it is best that you assign each (xi) numerical label required. My goal is to learn your process, not take stabs in the dark trying to understand how to proceed. And, as an aside, I do not understand how you think I "attack" you ? I am not attacking, I just need to follow a specific example to help me understand your notation presentation.

 

So, here is the explanation for the circumstance:

 

Person M was asked to complete a three piece puzzle (pieces A1, B, A2, with the two A pieces being identical)and was told that the time to manipulate each piece would be recorded by person O. At the end of the process it was observed by person O that less time was taken to manipulate the last piece to complete the task, than the time taken to manipulate the first two pieces. One explanation for the observation is that fewer object choices for manipulation were present over time.

 

OK, given that any circumstance can be represented by (x1, x2, x3...,xn), what exactly would these be for this circumstance ?

[LaurieAG]

Hi Doctordick,

 

Once again you are raising pseudo intellectual gibberish. It is you who are putting an unwarranted constraint on your definition of a triangle. What you assert is the exact reason why the figure you presented is often referred to as a “degenerate” triangle by mathematicians. The word “degenerate” is an adjective!

 

Do you have any references?

 

A degenerate triangle is a set of 3 lines running from a point P to 3 other points A B C that together form a triangle ABC when P is not in the plane of ABC. While A--B--C might portray a triangle viewed from one side of a plane it could not be used to describe a degenerate triangle because P is actually within the plane of ABC when you look at where P can only be.

[Rade]

Hi Doctordick,Do you have any references?

Hello, I have started a separate thread on this topic under physics & math section. It may be best all discussion of these objects is in that area ?