Answering Qfwfq

[AnssiH]

The colour perception of bees distinguishes some flowers (that it would be useless to cross pollenate) which look the same to us. It's amazing how natural selection forged the genome of the bees according to how much it contributed to prolification of the flowers. Regardless, it is a different perception of the same light from the same petals. Cats see better than us in the dark but don't know what colour is. We can beat all of them by using instruments of our own design. Our sensory system is already a kind of specific format, after which we can make further choices, according to experience, such as recognizing a given sensory circumstance as "a stone coming toward me" or whatever.

 

And btw, this discussion about "choice of format" is another example of this strange urge to start discussion other issues all the time.

 

Can you guys think of a reason why DD's analysis is not in any way concerned about any supposed format of our sensory system? Let me know what you think.

 

-Anssi

[Qfwfq]

Anssi, I think you and Dick ought to make up your minds as to what you are and aren't talking about.

 

:shrug:

[Doctordick]

Anssi, I think you and Dick ought to make up your minds as to what you are and aren't talking about.

 

:shrug:

Qfwfq, Anssi and I are quite in agreement as to what we are talking about and find it quite disturbing that the subject seems to be totally outside your comprehension. I have defined an explanation to be a method (or prescription) for establishing expectations based upon given information. The question being discussed is, "exactly what can said which follows from that definition and nothing else?"

 

"Laying out the Representation to be solved" is a thread setting forth a way of representing "any possible information" and representing expectations in a form which makes no presumptions as to what it is being represented. The circumstances being explained are essentially undefined as, if they were defined, what is expressed no longer qualifies as "any possible explanation".

 

The whole thing ends up being expressed in terms of numerical reference labels identifying the appropriate "defined" things. What is being discussed are the mathematical constraints on those numerical reference labels not on what is being referred to by those labels. People seem incapable of thinking about the labels without thinking about what they refer to. Any time you start talking about the things supposedly being referred to (other than as examples of the mechanism of the representation) you are off topic. Even I have been seduced into talking about specific cases because of the apparent confusion as to that mechanism of attaching labels and I am very sorry for that.

 

Anssi clearly understands the issue under discussion but is nevertheless easily drawn off subject by your circuitous comments. Bombadil however, still seems to not have that particular issue solid in his mind though he does concern himself with the logic he still often gets to talking about what those labels represent which is simply not the issue.

 

"Conservation of Inherent Ignorance" is a thread setting forth the consequences of the fact that the assignment of those "undefined" numerical reference labels "x", are a completely open and arbitrary issue. That fact, together with the fact that mathemaics can not produce information unless that information is embedded in the axioms of mathematics, yields some interesting conservation laws as a direct result of the inherent symmetry in the representation of the problem (the fact that the actual "x" reference labels are a completely open and arbitrary issue).

 

There is one missing post (the presentation I am currently working on) which puts forth an absolutly genereal mathematical mechanism for expressing any possible rule as to what circumstances can and/or cannot appear in the explanation.

 

What is very important is that none of this has anything to do with explaining anything. It is an entirely tautological construct. It is either correct or I have made an error in my logic; that is the basic nature of a tautology. What I find interesting is the fact that one hell of a lot of modern physics can be derived from my fundamental equation. If everything can be derived from my fundamental equation (which at the moment appears to be entirely possible) then modern physics is indeed a tautology.

 

And, by the way, that has nothing to do with the information being totally random. The circumstances to be explained can be whatever they happen to be. The issue is that the explanation be internally consistent with itself and the circumstances which are being explained.

 

Since you have made it clear that you have no interest in the logic whatsoever (which is the only real issue here), I do not see why you are still posting to these threads.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

What I find interesting is the fact that one hell of a lot of modern physics can be derived from my fundamental equation. If everything can be derived from my fundamental equation (which at the moment appears to be entirely possible) then modern physics is indeed a tautology.

Doctordick. I realize you find the above to be very important because you are trained in physics. At this point I have no reason to disagree with you, because nobody has presented a discussion where they start with your fundamental equation and find that important aspects of modern physics cannot be derived from it.

 

But, you claim that your fundamental equation is universal, and if true, you should be able to derive a hell of a lot of geology, chemistry, biology, economics, political science, etc. etc. from it also. If true, then "modern science is indeed a tautology", not just physics. Taking it one step forward, if philosophy can be derived from your fundamental equation, then it also is a tautology.

 

I find nothing wrong with modern science being a tautology, for the negation would mean that modern science is a logical contradiction, and it is important that modern science be based on non-contradiction.

 

Suppose some physicist posts a discussion that shows conclusively that some aspect of modern physics cannot be derived from your fundamental equation. Suppose they also show that this aspect is neither a tautology nor a contradiction. What this would mean is that there are contingent aspects to physics that could be identified by lack of application to your fundamental equation.

 

It is too bad that more trained physicists on the forum have not taken an interest in your fundamental equation to show how aspects of physics cannot be derived from it. Such peer review is critical to the methods of science. Maybe you could offer $$ to anyone that can mathematically show how some aspect of physics cannot be derived from your fundamental equation.

[Qfwfq]

Qfwfq, Anssi and I are quite in agreement as to what we are talking about and find it quite disturbing that the subject seems to be totally outside your comprehension.

You are simply missing my point, I remarked on Anssi's recent posts. After that, you are again just repeating the same old things to me.

 

And, by the way, that has nothing to do with the information being totally random.

I was discussing things Anssi said, including his reply to a question of mine.

 

I do not see why you are still posting to these threads.

Telling me to get the hell outta here, because I don't agree with you.

 

 

nobody has presented a discussion where they start with your fundamental equation and find that important aspects of modern physics cannot be derived from it.

This is really not the problem Rade.

 

I find nothing wrong with modern science being a tautology, for the negation would mean that modern science is a logical contradiction, and it is important that modern science be based on non-contradiction.

You are equating science with pure mathematics (as well as ambiguating on the meaning of the word tautology), just like Dick does. He believes he has proven this identity, I believe he hasn't. :shrug:

[AnssiH]

Can you guys think of a reason why DD's analysis is not in any way concerned about any supposed format of our sensory system? Let me know what you think.

 

Anyone?

 

-Anssi

[Bombadil]

Who, me? Anssi talks about them and I was raising points about his statements. I am not concerned with "so far" and there's no use in telling me what to do. If they give me a reasonable version of the presentation from the OP of this thread, till the Famous Equation, in which the right details are clear, without being lost in a plethora of confused rambling, then I will address them.

 

You do realize that you are looking at a piece of work that is refined only in the sense that it is carefully constructed from one persons experiences and very little help from any one else. It has not gone though many people each adding or removing what seems to be the most important piece to that person.

 

In short if you see something that looks like rambling say that it looks like rambling don’t just say that the OP is “a plethora of confused rambling” because this really wont help anyone.

 

I don't need to start from his equation. I have been discussing some mathematical topics which cast serious doubts on his contentions. But of course, before saying this, you were telling me not to talk about things that come further down the road.

 

And you clearly have no interest in developing anything so maybe the next best thing is that you use what you already know. As long as consistency has been proven it should be in agreement with what is being said and if it’s not, the reason it’s not needs to be known .

And yet I have no idea what those topics are and I don’t think any one else here knows exactly what you are talking about either so please stop getting distracted by what is said and just say what it is that is bothering you. All that I am getting is that you don’t like how entropy works with the fundamental equation and something about information theory but maybe AnnsiH accidentally brought this up since it seems to be just a matter of repeating patterns anyhow.

[Qfwfq]

Bombadil, you are not making much sense at all and you clearly have no idea how much time I and others have wasted in the past on trying to get Dick to define his presentation better. Currently, the two OP's in question are more clear than his past ramblings. Mathematically, they add nothing further to the von Neumann quantum formalism but, as to how he applies the formalism and the claims he and Anssi make, it is still ill-defined and doesn't hold up to mathematical scrutiny. The onus of proof is on them who make the claims and you folks keep ignoring that I said that I cannot critically examine the part that he has not yet more clearly presented.

 

As long as consistency has been proven it should be in agreement with what is being said and if it’s not, the reason it’s not needs to be known .

And yet I have no idea what those topics are and I don’t think any one else here knows exactly what you are talking about either so please stop getting distracted by what is said and just say what it is that is bothering you.

It isn't my fault if you are at a loss to understand my points. Your input does nothing to support Dick's contention, you might as well be barking like a guard dog that has no idea how lethal the burglar's gun can be. :shrug:

[AnssiH]

Can you guys think of a reason why DD's analysis is not in any way concerned about any supposed format of our sensory system? Let me know what you think.

Anyone?

 

Seriously no thoughts on this whatsoever?

 

Let me phrase it this way;

If we are concerned of all the valid ways to explain/predict reality, why are we not starting the analysis from some supposed format of our sensory system?

 

Here's one hint to get this started...

...if you have an idea of how our sensory system works, where did you get that idea from?

 

Lurkers join in!

 

-Anssi

[JMJones0424]

...if you have an idea of how our sensory system works, where did you get that idea from?

 

By using our sensory system (or tools created to augment that system), obviously :)

 

Thus, if an explanation is to be universaly flaw free, we must strive to make sure that unknown peculiarities of the way we interact with reality are not incorporated into the explanation.

 

I only wish I could use my sensory system to determine the answer to the opening post of this thread.

[modest]

Thus, if an explanation is to be universaly flaw free, we must strive to make sure that unknown peculiarities of the way we interact with reality are not incorporated into the explanation.

 

Well put. I agree

 

An example is that we cannot sense (see/hear/touch/smell/taste) the future.

 

Also, our current physiological methods of perception do not alter (or cause, or cause to be altered) our past perceptions. For example, putting on a blindfold does not cause yesterday to be dark.

 

Past perceptions consist of linearly sequenced sets of data (t1, t2, t3, t4...) such that a set never changes a preceding set. For example, my girlfriend's negative reaction to the gift I gave her yesterday does not cause me to buy her a different gift 2 days ago.

 

In the most general sense, that is how I'd say our perceptions of reality work. It might be a mistake to assume that any valid explanation of any information has to be formatted the same way.

 

~modest

[Rade]

...if you have an idea of how our sensory system works, where did you get that idea from?

All ideas ultimately derive from the facts of reality transformed into concepts. The sensory system has many concepts attached to it (sight, touch, smell, taste, etc.). If you have an idea how sense of vision works, you got the idea by combining concepts that you formed concerning facts you have available about concepts such as "photon", "rods", "cones", "optic nerve", etc. For example, experimental facts inform that the photon has no rest mass, so, you would use this information about the concept to help form an idea about how the sensory system of vision works when photon interacts with a rod or cone.

 

Not sure why this question was asked ? Here is a question I have. If you were born with no sensory system of any kind, where would you get any idea from ?

[Qfwfq]

...if you have an idea of how our sensory system works, where did you get that idea from?

Through the very same sensory system itself, of course.

[AnssiH]

If we are concerned of all the valid ways to explain/predict reality, why are we not starting the analysis from some supposed format of our sensory system?

 

Here's one hint to get this started...

...if you have an idea of how our sensory system works, where did you get that idea from?

 

All ideas ultimately derive from the facts of reality transformed into concepts. The sensory system has many concepts attached to it (sight, touch, smell, taste, etc.). If you have an idea how sense of vision works, you got the idea by combining concepts that you formed concerning facts you have available about concepts such as "photon", "rods", "cones", "optic nerve", etc.

 

Exactly; our idea of how our sensory system works, is entirely dependent on our own conception of reality. (Including our ideas regarding the fundamental structure of reality)

 

And here we are trying to analyze that process of "transforming facts of reality into concepts" (or into definitions).

 

So, if we were to start our analysis about "concept formation" from our current conception of reality, then... Can you see a (somewhat gaping) logical problem in this...? How would you phrase that problem?

 

-Anssi

[Rade]

Exactly; our idea of how our sensory system works, is entirely dependent on our own conception of reality. (Including our ideas regarding the fundamental structure of reality)And here we are trying to analyze that process of "transforming facts of reality into concepts" (or into definitions).

Yes, I know, this is why I am very interested in the approach--I am not aware of anyone other then DD of using a mathematical approach to analyze that process. But, be careful, it is not either/or "concepts-definitions". First ALWAYS are "concepts" formed via transformation of the "facts", only then can "definitions" be given to the concepts (what Wittgenstein calls the "language-game"--[ur]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language-game[/url]).

 

So' date=' if we were to start our analysis about "concept formation" from our current conception of reality, then... Can you see a (somewhat gaping) logical problem in this...? How would you phrase that problem?[/quote']Of course I would need you to explain what you mean by "our current conception of reality"? There is not just one "current conception" of reality, and I am not sure who you mean by "our". The problem (well, not really a problem only a fact) is that you and DD have a different "conception of reality" than many others. Now, given that you agreed with my statement, in fact "exactly" agree, it is very likely that we have the exact same "conception of reality". So, this leads to a question--what exactly is your "conception of reality" and how does it lead you to exactly agree with me ? But remember, this does not mean that DD agrees with either of us :)

[AnssiH]

If we are concerned of all the valid ways to explain/predict reality, why are we not starting the analysis from some supposed format of our sensory system?

 

...

 

So, if we were to start our analysis about "concept formation" from our current conception of reality, then... Can you see a (somewhat gaping) logical problem in this...? How would you phrase that problem?

 

Of course I would need you to explain what you mean by "our current conception of reality"?

 

Not really; there's a problem that always appears if you start from any sort of conception about our sensory system.

 

When you start from any idea of how our sensory system works, you are starting from some specific conceptualization of reality (all the definitions behind your understanding of your sensory system), and thus you have already limited the possibilities of your analysis, to only concern circumstances that are possible in terms of that specific conceptualization of reality.

 

Obviously any sort of idea of your own sensory system is suspect to any errors that may exist in your conceptualization of reality, and it is definitely coloured to the flavour of your own idea of the fundamental structure of reality (including the nature of space and time). You are not analyzing "all possibilities", you are analyzing the possibilities open to you IF and only if your current idea of the fundamental structure of reality is already correct!

 

Essentially you are putting forward a very short circular argument (that argument being a self-coherent set of ontological and epistemological ideas).*

 

Now if you think about it, it is very hard to make useful arguments about "concept formation" without referring to any idea of how anything works or is in any sense. It very easily amounts to arguments of the form "if such and such aspect of what-we-are-about-to-explain is X, then we can say Y", where the conditional is some undefendable ontological assumption(s), and the whole argument ends up being circular.

 

That is exactly the problem that DD is set to circumvent in this analysis, and that is why it doesn't start with any supposed format of our sensory system.

 

It is easy to assume that entirely general epistemological arguments could not amount to anything useful at all (i.e. people intuitively assume that our current conception of reality must be a result of some more or less correct guesses, and not a result of purely logical process). The results are certainly surprising, and ending up with the relationships of modern physics is meaningful ONLY because no ontological assumptions were made.

 

That exact same fact is what convinces many people that the analysis must have an error somewhere in there - since to them the result seems "obviously impossible" from purely epistemological stand point. And thus, instead of walking it through and thinking about it, they just try to spot that error any way they can, so they can stop spending time on this. At least, that's the impression I get, because they objections are really off-phase from what the analyis is actually trying to say.

 

There are also people who have looked at single aspects of the analysis, such as the derivation of relativity, and concluded that it amounts to exactly the same relationships as the standard formulation of relativity. But because they have not walked all the way in there following the arguments from the beginning, they just intuitively assume there must be some ontological assumptions somewhere in the earlier steps, and that prompts them to just comment "well it's just a reformulation of relativity, I don't see any value in that"

 

I hope that makes it pretty explicitly clear, why the analysis is not making arguments about how our sensory system works, and what constitutes a perception and what constitutes a definition in some specific semantics. It's all just arguments between "undefined information of some sort" to "defined information of some sort".

 

There is not just one "current conception" of reality, and I am not sure who you mean by "our". The problem (well, not really a problem only a fact) is that you and DD have a different "conception of reality" than many others.

 

Actually we are very hard trying to stay away from making any undefendable arguments about the ontology of the information-to-be-explained. But the limits of natural language keep biting us back :(

 

For instance, I am able to "exactly agree" with your argument because we know for certain that our idea of reality is a conceptualization of something, and its ontological correctedness cannot be proved or defended.

 

Some people accuse me of merely making an assumption that our ontological assumptions are incorrect, but that's just semantical word play. Even if our conceptualization of reality just so happens to be exactly correct, it is still a conceptualization of reality that had to be formed according to the same epistemological principles...

 

Now, given that you agreed with my statement, in fact "exactly" agree, it is very likely that we have the exact same "conception of reality". So, this leads to a question--what exactly is your "conception of reality" and how does it lead you to exactly agree with me ? But remember, this does not mean that DD agrees with either of us :)

 

You can be sure that he understands and agrees exactly with what I'm getting at, and it's pretty much the same issue he's been referring to very many times already in the past.

 

My and DD's personal everyday conceptualization of reality contains very many undefendable aspects to them. But that has got nothing to do with the arguments made in the analysis.

 

-Anssi

 

* "You" in passive sense :)

[Doctordick]

You can be sure that he understands and agrees exactly with what I'm getting at, and it's pretty much the same issue he's been referring to very many times already in the past.

I want everyone to understand that Anssi is dead on regarding the issue of our agreement. His post puts everything rather clearly (in my opinion). Read it again and seriously consider every issue he brings up.

 

Have fun -- Dick