Exactly What Is Tractatus?

[lawcat]

Hi Lawcat.

 

It caught my attention that you criticized DD's use of the word "Fundamental" [Equation], and your criticism made me wonder what is that you think he means by "Fundamental". Your comment implies you think you understand what he means, so could you just explain in your own words what is his equation "fundamental to", and what does it represent?

 

-Anssi

 

 

My objection to DD's conclusions is anachronism and magic. My objection to DD's definitions is related to those umbrella objections because his definitions lead to anachronistic conclusion and conviction in magic.

 

DD has set up some definitions that allow his results to be manipulated logically (tautologically, through definitions) to lead to Schrodinger and such. this I call magic. He disregards perceptive, experiential evidence in favor of made up definitions--which is obviously the point.

 

From there, based on magical manipulations through definitions, he concludes that all formulas are tautological constructs. This I call anachronism. Of Course all formulas are tautological, because all are based on definitions. Nothing new here as far as conclusion.

 

finally, even if his definitions are the only set of definitions of all possible definitions that yield this specific result, the equation is good for both truths and lies, it is too broad, it is unusable to find truth or lie other than through additionally introduced constraints. It's a hot mess, a mental circle jerk that has no point. It's a book of fiction.

[Doctordick]

From there, based on magical manipulations through definitions, he concludes that all formulas are tautological constructs. This I call anachronism. Of Course all formulas are tautological, because all are based on definitions. Nothing new here as far as conclusion.

 

finally, even if his definitions are the only set of definitions of all possible definitions that yield this specific result, the equation is good for both truths and lies, it is too broad, it is unusable to find truth or lie other than through additionally introduced constraints. It's a hot mess, a mental circle jerk that has no point. It's a book of fiction.

Except for your use of the term "magical" (which I think you should clear up) I don't disagree with you at all!

 

You seem to miss the central point of the exercise.

It is indeed “a mental circle jerk”; an internally consistent construct based upon nothing but my definition of an explanation (which is, by the way, a method of obtaining expectations consistent with presumed known information; a rather simple concept). Don't you find it rather surprising that all the relationships of the great and profound “science” of modern physics, , are no more than approximate solutions to that equation?

 

As you say, the equation is good for both truths and lies. May I ask if you are asserting that modern physics theories are facts and contain no lies? Please put your mind to this.

 

As far as it goes you are perfectly correct, "it is unusable to find truth or lie other than through additionally introduced constraints", what you fail to bring up is that these additional constraints are exactly the presumed constraints used by the various theories which I show to be approximate solutions to my equation. :artgallery:

 

 

 

Have fun – Dick

[AnssiH]

My objection to DD's conclusions is anachronism and magic. My objection to DD's definitions is related to those umbrella objections because his definitions lead to anachronistic conclusion and conviction in magic.

 

DD has set up some definitions that allow his results to be manipulated logically (tautologically, through definitions) to lead to Schrodinger and such. this I call magic.

 

Do you mean that you find his conclusions (e.g. universal validity of Schrödinger) impossible/unbelievable to begin with, or is there rather some specific part in his argument that you see as constituting some kind of specific assumption about the nature of "what-is-to-be-explained"?

 

He disregards perceptive, experiential evidence in favor of made up definitions--which is obviously the point.

 

This reflects a misunderstanding regarding where his arguments are coming from. I can give you one easy example, just so you can see what I mean.

 

Consider the fact that the laws of physics are not changing all the time. From a naive realistic perspective, that would be seen as something we can experimentally see and verify. Someone might think "how wonderful it is that the laws of physics don't keep changing, it would be hard to understand reality otherwise".

 

What that person would be missing is that, regardless of what the reality is actually like, our descriptions of its "laws" are whatever can be described time independently. Any behaviour that isn't time independent, we just cannot consider to be part of "the laws". In actual fact, we do see unexpected behaviours all the time throughout our lives, but it would be against the very definition of "laws of physics" to categorize those things as "laws of physics"* *that were true just that one time.

 

If we noticed that the current "laws of physics" would suddenly seem to start shifting, you can be sure that we would invent a time independent reason for it; we would come up with a set of rules that would explain our entire past, and again we would call that entire set of rules as "laws of physics".

 

Therefore, to say "the laws of physics are time independent", is nothing but a statement about what we mean by "laws of physics", not a statement about the structure of reality itself.

 

That is an epistemological issue entirely, and it does play a role in DD's arguments. There's just a passing mention of it because it's such an obvious issue, but not all of his arguments are that obvious. But they are similarly arguments that arise from epistemological issues.

 

Just like time independence of "laws of physics" can be seen as always true by the definition of "laws of physics", Schrödinger's equation can be seen as always true by the (DD's) definition of "explanation". The only difference is that the latter connection is buried beneath far too many logical steps for intuitive understanding.

 

And those arguments cannot be understood if his arguments are interpreted as if they are making undefendable assumptions about how reality itself is. Almost everyone so far seem to have interpreted his arguments from some sort of naive realistic stance, unable to think about how those issues arise from epistemological considerations. If he states "laws of physics are time independent", many people would just read that as an assumption about reality.

 

I will comment on one more thing. You have probably heard the arguments about "elegant universe", i.e. how wonderful accident it is that the fundamental forces of nature have just the right values to them, to maintain a stable universe. That is also a case of naive realism; to be able to think that way, you must assume that the structure of reality that we see in our experiments, is reflecting the actual structure of reality, as oppose to reflecting the structure of our categorization of reality (i.e. reflecting our mental terminology of reality).

 

It is very important to think about the fact that our categorization is whatever is required to be able to express expectations. Would you think reality is concerned with actually being structured in a manner, where its "future" is easily apaprent in terms of expectations? Don't you think it is only rational to think that it is only we who are concerned about representing reality in such format, and that that format in itself might put some requirements as to how things are to be represented? DD's argument has very much to do with the fact that such format itself has got some unavoidable features to it (one being the time independence of the expressed laws).

 

What thoughts does this bring to your mind?

 

-Anssi

ps, you didn't respond to my question about what do you think his fundamental equation is fundamental to, I am interested to hear if you have interpreted it correctly.

[lawcat]

Apparently the equation is fundamental to all rational and irrational explanation, true and untrue, which is in direct conflict with it's goal of providing rational expectations.

 

As far as laws of physics, it's a bit late to question those and whether things function in accordance with them. If you lived 3000 years ago you may have had better success attracting followers to your beliefs.

[Doctordick]

Apparently the equation is fundamental to all rational and irrational explanation, true and untrue, which is in direct conflict with it's goal of providing rational expectations.

Well, I wouldn't say it has anything to do with “irrational” explanations; at least insofar as I define “irrational”. What I would say is that it is fundamental to all “rational” explanations; but, to understand what I mean by that you would have to understand what I mean by “rational”. To understand what I mean by that term you would have to understand "Defining the nature of rational discussion!"; which I doubt is of any interest to you. :shrug:

 

However, the fact that you assert, “which is in direct conflict with it's goal of providing rational expectations” indicates that you have no idea as to what the “goal” of the exercise was. The “goal” was to express the constraints implied by the definition of “an explanation” in a mathematical form. It is only the definition of [math]\vec{\Psi}[/math] which has any bearing at all on the issue of providing expectations.

 

No where, in any post, do I ever even suggest the idea that my equation can be used to find explanations. What I do say is that any rational explanation (by my definition of the phrase) can be expressed in terms of index identified elements (a language of some form) such that the expectations (the probability of an event express-able via those same elements) can be expressed by a mathematical function of collections of those very same indexes. Think of those collections as thoughts expressed in the language consisting entirely of the “Ludwig Wittgenstein's simples” which those indexes refer to. Your expectations are express-able in that same language! In my opinion, Wittgenstein's mistake was to attempt to define those “simples”; in effect he did little more than create another “language” (defined by relationships he believed to be true) and subject to exactly the same flaws he was complaining about.

 

From Bertrand Russell's introduction:

Let us now take up another subject -- that of names. In Wittgenstein's theoretical logical language, names are only given to simples. We do not give two names to one thing, or one name to two things. There is no way whatever, according to him, by which we can describe the totality of things that can be names, in other words, the totality of what there is in the world.

It is clear that Ludwig's map of “simples” alone is far too simple to express anything of significance. The correct number of elements to create that “objective” language would exceed the storage of any system known to man at the time he published (and could possibly exceed the current storage capability of the world). He tries to eliminate that flaw by “defining” those “simples”, in effect presuming all the necessary relationships are express-able in German (or English); going right back to the flaw he is complaining about.

 

As far as laws of physics, it's a bit late to question those and whether things function in accordance with them. If you lived 3000 years ago you may have had better success attracting followers to your beliefs.

Who is questioning any of the laws of physics? What I have already shown is that all the fields of modern physics can be seen as consequences of my fundamental equation being valid.

 

Where is that questioning the laws of physics? In fact, the current laws of physics are a pretty good defence that my equation is valid!

 

And the only "belief" I am putting forth can be seen as a deep faith in logic itself and I, ?supposedly?, have a great following in that belief already (they just don't seem to want to use it). I am afraid you just don't understand what I am talking about. :(

 

Have fun -- Dick

[AnssiH]

Sigh... Lawcat, why do you even bother to voice objections if you have not formed any sort of reasonable understanding of the topic?

 

Apparently the equation is fundamental to all rational and irrational explanation, true and untrue, which is in direct conflict with it's goal of providing rational expectations.

 

There's no "goal of providing rational expectations", it's essentially an examination to terminology issues. I thought I gave a very simple example to something like that, when I pointed out that the definition of "laws of physics" means it's a set of time independent rules.

 

His equation is fundamental to epistemological issues, i.e. issues that are inherent to the very act of representing expectations. Those issues in themselves do not provide expectations, obviously.

 

As far as laws of physics, it's a bit late to question those and whether things function in accordance with them. If you lived 3000 years ago you may have had better success attracting followers to your beliefs.

 

No one has questioned the validity of laws of physics. I made a comment about the definition of "laws of physics". You should understand the difference between the definition of the concept, and what the laws supposedly are...

 

You should also realize that your response was a perfect example of what I just complained about in my post;

 

And those arguments cannot be understood if his arguments are interpreted as if they are making undefendable assumptions about how reality itself is. Almost everyone so far seem to have interpreted his arguments from some sort of naive realistic stance, unable to think about how those issues arise from epistemological considerations. If he states "laws of physics are time independent", many people would just read that as an assumption about reality.

 

...including you, evidently.

 

-Anssi

[lawcat]

Nonsense. You two are talking nonsense. To that end I agree with DD, you and DD are the only two that understand DD's nonsense. It's impossible for me to comprehend nonsense.

[AnssiH]

Nonsense. You two are talking nonsense. To that end I agree with DD, you and DD are the only two that understand DD's nonsense. It's impossible for me to comprehend nonsense.

 

Would you go so far as to say that "nonsense" is impossible to comprehend by definition? :lol:

 

If you would not, I'd love hear your explanation about how it is possible that somewhere out there, there exists "nonsense" that makes sense.

 

If you would, I'd love to hear why do you have double standards as to why you can make an argument using the meaning of a definition, and why me and DD can't?

 

Oh my god we are talking nonsense about nonsense! We have finally reached the epitome of internet stupidity... Hold my hand Lawcat, hold my hand.

 

-Anssi

[lawcat]

Would you go so far as to say that "nonsense" is impossible to comprehend by definition? :lol:

I would as far as making a determination about truth or falsity. I would not as far as simply categorizing something as nonsense. I can look at your statements and come to conclusion that I can not determine truth or falsity, then it goes to the nonsense bin.

 

If you would not, I'd love hear your explanation about how it is possible that somewhere out there, there exists "nonsense" that makes sense.

You and DD are the only ones here that can make that happen. As I said, I can not make sense of your nonsense.

 

If you would, I'd love to hear why do you have double standards as to why you can make an argument using the meaning of a definition, and why me and DD can't?

You won't hear me say that again. When I stated it's nonsense, I stated I can not determine truth or falsity, Therefore I am backing off the wrong/right arguments.

[Doctordick]

Hi Anssi,

 

I think the problem is essentially described in the opening comments of my “Laying out the representation to be solved.” post. :shrug:

 

I was trained as a physicist so most everyone presumes I should be discussing physics. When I was young, I thought I was a physicist but when I came forward with my discovery, physicists said it was philosophy, philosophers said it was mathematics and mathematicians said it was physics. No one chose to see it as of any interest to them. I have come to the conclusion that the physicists were right; it is essentially a philosophical proof as it is a tautological construct.

 

[math]\cdots[/math]

I am currently of the opinion that philosophers have severely undercut the the reputations of their own arguments by failing to be exact with the actual facts they have to work with. In particular, they have grossly short changed their field by failing to be cognizant of all the advances in logical analysis achieved by what is now called the “exact sciences”. Philosophy was once held to be the queen of sciences; a status it has long since lost.

Lawcat says that, if he cannot make sense of something it is nonsense!

 

I can look at your statements and come to conclusion that I can not determine truth or falsity, then it goes to the nonsense bin.

 

[math]\cdots[/math]

When I stated it's nonsense, I stated I can not determine truth or falsity, Therefore I am backing off the wrong/right arguments.

I think this is the exact reason philosophers said it was mathematics and of no interest to them. It also explains Lawcat's earlier use of the term “magic”; a reference I simply could not understand at the time. :doh:

 

DD has set up some definitions that allow his results to be manipulated logically (tautologically, through definitions) to lead to Schrodinger and such. this I call magic.

It is a well known fact that people generally see “what they can not understand” as “magic”. I suspect lawcat does not understand mathematics and has no interest in understanding such a thing. That would make all his responses make sense.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Qfwfq]

Say, Dick, after all this hoo doo, did you at least figure out that tractatus is the Latin word for treatise?

 

I can look at your statements and come to conclusion that I can not determine truth or falsity, then it goes to the nonsense bin.

That's exactly what Gödel's Nonsense Theorem states!!!

[CraigD]

Nonsense. You two are talking nonsense. To that end I agree with DD, you and DD are the only two that understand DD's nonsense. It's impossible for me to comprehend nonsense.

Would you go so far as to say that "nonsense" is impossible to comprehend by definition?

I would as far as making a determination about truth or falsity. I would not as far as simply categorizing something as nonsense. I can look at your statements and come to conclusion that I can not determine truth or falsity, then it goes to the nonsense bin.

 

 

You and DD are the only ones here that can make that happen. As I said, I can not make sense of your nonsense.

 

You won't hear me say that again. When I stated it's nonsense, I stated I can not determine truth or falsity, Therefore I am backing off the wrong/right arguments.

I believe this exchange illustrates, in common language, that “nonsense is relative.” That is, what is nonsense to one person is not to another.

 

An obvious, everyday (at least for folk like me who don’t read Japanese but like to browse manga) example of this are texts a reader doesn’t know. When I look at a text in a language I don’t know, it’s nonsense to me.” For various reasons (eg: I can recognize and see regularities in the occurrence of its glyphs, I know, people who know the language can read it), I understand that it’s not nonsense to everyone, only me and others who, like me, can’t read the language.

 

A less obvious example is cryptography. I can easily transform a sensible plaintext in a language I can read into an cyphertext that can only be transformed back to the plaintext with a non-secret decryption algorithm and a secret key. The cyphertext is, to a reader without the decryption algorithm and key, an kind of nonsenses so strong it has a special common language term: gibberish.

 

I think what’s occurring in this thread, and in all of DD’s “most critical question” related threads, is a more complicated, multi-step kind of foreign language difficulty. Though DD is writing in English, which lawcat, I, and the many others who deem his writing “nonsense” understand, he’s writing about ideas that are, essentially, in other languages – which, not understanding them well enough, I won’t attempt to name here.

 

Lawcat says that, if he cannot make sense of something it is nonsense!

Yes, exactly. I hope my short “nonsense is relative” tract above convinces that this is not an un-useful common language use of the term.

 

I honestly wish I could better understand DDs writing. I’ve a BS in Math that included a modicum of modern physics, and find that I can read with good comprehension about 25% of the articles in math and physics journals without review or research. With moderate review, research, and self-education, I can read 65% of the others. Of the remaining 10% or so, some I might be able to read with extensive self or instructor-lead education, and some I simply might not be able with any amount of effort to understand completely.

 

Sadly, though, I have a limited amount of time to divide between chores, interacting with others, work, sleep, and personal projects. I often consider trying to reread DD’s posts (which go back about 6 years here at hypography) as I would a journal article that interests me but I don’t understand, trying to acquire the language to “get it”, but conclude each time that such an understanding wouldn’t apply enough to my favorite activities, which are primarily in the fields of number theory and AI, to justify spending the time.

 

Oh my god we are talking nonsense about nonsense! We have finally reached the epitome of internet stupidity... Hold my hand Lawcat, hold my hand.

Ah, Anssi, don’t be like that! :(

 

While I sympathize with how frustrating communication difficulties can be, I think everybody’s discussing in good faith here, with the goal of understanding and being understood. Your statement is hyperbole, and ridicules. Such statement serve only to establish “me good – you bad” hierarchies, which we seek to avoid here at hypography.

[lawcat]

I think what’s occurring in this thread, and in all of DD’s “most critical question” related threads, is a more complicated, multi-step kind of foreign language difficulty.

 

I wish that was the case. What is occuring here is convoluted self-inconsistent thinking. Look:

 

Think of this in terms of the computer file mentioned above. If that file contains all possible circumstances then no explanation is necessary; the file itself contains the answers to all questions. I use the labels “past” and “future” as those labels are fairly well consistent with how we would tend to view such a file. Additions to such a file would constitute answers previously unknown: i.e., expectations (provided by the explanation) would be verified (by experiment or observation), that verification would thus be a specific present which could be indexed by an index I will call “t” appended to the specific circumstance. Symbolically, a specific circumstance will now be represented by the expression

 

This reflects a misunderstanding regarding where his arguments are coming from . . .

 

Consider the fact that the laws of physics are not changing all the time. From a naive realistic perspective, that would be seen as something we can experimentally see and verify. Someone might think "how wonderful it is that the laws of physics don't keep changing, it would be hard to understand reality otherwise".

 

What that person would be missing is that, regardless of what the reality is actually like, our descriptions of its "laws" are whatever can be described time independently. Any behaviour that isn't time independent, we just cannot consider to be part of "the laws". In actual fact, we do see unexpected behaviours all the time throughout our lives, but it would be against the very definition of "laws of physics" to categorize those things as "laws of physics"* *that were true just that one time.

 

If we noticed that the current "laws of physics" would suddenly seem to start shifting, you can be sure that we would invent a time independent reason for it; we would come up with a set of rules that would explain our entire past, and again we would call that entire set of rules as "laws of physics".

 

Therefore, to say "the laws of physics are time independent", is nothing but a statement about what we mean by "laws of physics", not a statement about the structure of reality itself.

 

That is an epistemological issue entirely, and it does play a role in DD's arguments. There's just a passing mention of it because it's such an obvious issue, but not all of his arguments are that obvious. But they are similarly arguments that arise from epistemological issues.

 

Just like time independence of "laws of physics" can be seen as always true by the definition of "laws of physics", Schrödinger's equation can be seen as always true by the (DD's) definition of "explanation". The only difference is that the latter connection is buried beneath far too many logical steps for intuitive understanding.

 

 

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

 

There's no "goal of providing rational expectations", it's essentially an examination to terminology issues. I thought I gave a very simple example to something like that, when I pointed out that the definition of "laws of physics" means it's a set of time independent rules.

 

His equation is fundamental to epistemological issues, i.e. issues that are inherent to the very act of representing expectations. Those issues in themselves do not provide expectations, obviously.

 

 

Sorry, internally inconstent message is nonsense. Only they can square that away.

[AnssiH]

When I stated it's nonsense, I stated I can not determine truth or falsity, Therefore I am backing off the wrong/right arguments.

 

I appreciate your honesty, and I don't think there's anything wrong with not understanding what this topic is about. While I think many people would have the intellectual capacity to follow it, obviously most would not have the time that it would require, and I can easily appreciate that problem.

 

And while I am handicapped in mathematical knowledge myself, I had the benefit that I already understood what DD was actually getting at. (Since CraigD seems to understand the ambiguity of communication, he can probably also understand how much of a help it has been to me to already understand what exactly DD is talking about)

 

But I will say that it is bit of a bad form to say "this is nonsense" instead of saying "I can't understand this", because almost everyone reading the former would interpret that as you having understood the argument, and having found an error. Whereas the latter is just stating you don't want to spend the time it would require to investigate it, which is perfectly fine (and causes much less unnecessary noise).

 

Also your complaint about self-inconsistent thinking is a simple result of ambiguities in communication. If you were to interpret everything you quoted in a manner it was intended, you would find it to be a perfectly coherent message.

 

For example;

-Explanation is a procedure which will provide rational expectations

-There's no "goal of providing rational expectations"

 

The latter is saying that DD's analysis does not have a goal of providing expectations; his FE does not provide expectations.

 

Yet, the subject under analysis is [general properties of] "procedures that provide expectations".

 

DD's analysis is to explanations what "universal Turing machine" is to computer programs. It does not replace specific explanations, it says something about the fundamentals of the very act of "explaining" (=the act of providing rational expectations).

 

Another pure ambiguity issue;

-...the fact that the laws of physics are not changing all the time

-...our descriptions of its "laws" are whatever can be described time independently

 

Is simply pointing out that the former is a result of what we mean when we say "laws of physics". Therefore we can never run into a situation where, what we call the "laws of physics", are changing all the time, regardless of what kind of universe we actually live in. That is exactly to say that "laws of physics" should not be considered to be somehow embedded within reality; what they supposedly are, is inherently a matter of what kind of terminology we happen to be using to express expectations.

 

So, like I said, communication is ambiguous, and I've always had the benefit of already understanding what DD is getting at. That allows me to interpret his posts much the way he intended them.

 

-Anssi

[Qfwfq]

I quite agree that Law is not following the meaning of things but you two dudes must admit you are very confusing, even for the most diligent of readers.

 

So, like I said, communication is ambiguous, and I've always had the benefit of already understanding what DD is getting at. That allows me to interpret his posts much the way he intended them.

Indeed the paragraph previous to that is so confused and lacking in nexus that, if I hadn't been through so many exchanges with you on the same matter, I would have no idea of what you meant to say there, I would be wholly unable to decide whether or not I agree with it. The first part is so badly worded I still can't be sure exactly how you mean it, despite knowing what you're getting at on the whole. The second part is clearer, at least it makes sense with the help of past exchanges, even though I disagree that it follows logically as a conclusion.

 

And while I am handicapped in mathematical knowledge myself, I had the benefit that I already understood what DD was actually getting at. (Since CraigD seems to understand the ambiguity of communication, he can probably also understand how much of a help it has been to me to already understand what exactly DD is talking about)

Danger lurks therein.

 

I have known people who were quite capable of enthusiastically entertaining conversation with each other, each not quite understanding the other's words but quite convinced they were both in agreement and "glossing over differences in details" and just telling each other they agree spot on, when in actual fact they were each voicing distinct opinions. Alternatively, such paople are also quite fully able to misunderstand someone who says exactly what they themselves think but putting it in a different manner, only they keep supposing the other is misunderstanding their own speech and/or disagreeing with it. :doh:

[AnssiH]

you two dudes must admit you are very confusing, even for the most diligent of readers.

 

Evidently. It would be nice to know how to communicate this clearly. On the other hand, it might be useful to find readers who are already aligned to think of things with a clear separation between "the map and the territory", or between our mental representation of something, and the "actual knowable information behind that representation" (which in itself is a weird concept that most people don't seem to get).

 

I guess I could say the problem is that there is no clear language to refer to only one or the other, and most people always read every reference to any concept of a world view as a reference to something in reality. All my various attempts to separate the two in my communication seem to have caused much confusion, and yet it is the whole point to treat the two separately.

 

I have known people who were quite capable of enthusiastically entertaining conversation with each other, each not quite understanding the other's words but quite convinced they were both in agreement and "glossing over differences in details" and just telling each other they agree spot on, when in actual fact they were each voicing distinct opinions. Alternatively, such paople are also quite fully able to misunderstand someone who says exactly what they themselves think but putting it in a different manner, only they keep supposing the other is misunderstanding their own speech and/or disagreeing with it. :doh:

 

Yes exactly. That is also an issue that is very fundamental to explanations. We all only know our own explanation, i.e. I can only know what I mean when I say something, and only I know how I am interpreting something. I can't truly check my explanation (=world view) against another explanation, because I can only interpret that other explanation via interpreting some communication according to my own explanation. Whenever I'm trying to understanding something, I see it as an act of incorporating some information into my personal world view in a manner that keeps it all self-consistent (as far as I have the mental capacity to check self-consistency anyway; of course finding conflicts is a life-long endeavour).

 

Likewise, there is no way to even check whether we all perceive reality in the same manner at all. The only thing we can check is whether we hold similar expectations about things, not whether we express those expectations in the same terminology. As you say, the external communication may be identical while the internal terminology may be radically different (at least, that's what I think you are saying :D).

 

It is also possible that the differences in the terminologies are purely semantical over all the explained information, and in that case two different people who perceive the same thing completely differently would not have even a theoretical possibility of ever finding out the differences between their terminologies. They would always agree in their communication during any attempt to check for differences.

 

Or to put all that into the terminology of DD's analysis, we can only check our understanding of anything in terms of the validity of our expectations. If another party responds to some communication in a manner that you would expect them to, then you would take that as an indication that they understand you. If they respond in unexpected manner, then you would think they don't understand you. In both cases, you may well be wrong.

 

That's the reason DD's analysis circles around the validity of expectations, i.e. why "understanding" is measured by the validity of expectations, not by what has been defined and how.

 

-Anssi

[Qfwfq]

the "actual knowable information behind that representation" (which in itself is a weird concept that most people don't seem to get).

Yes, it is a wierd concept, isn't it? No matter how many people have discussed "the map and the territory", you keep assuming that nobody except you and Dick get the point of it. What strikes me even weirder here is you considering it "knowable" when you usually regard it as unknowable.

 

As you say, the external communication may be identical while the internal terminology may be radically different (at least, that's what I think you are saying :D).

Actually I talked about both opposite cases, such as you thinking I misunderstand and/or disagree with things just because you don't follow points that I make about them. You especially draw this conclusion when I explicitly disagree with non sequitur conclusions that you draw from things which I do understand and agree with. That's why it is so tiring when you doggedly repeat these things instead of examining the consequentiality which I criticize; that, along with real life concerns, is why I just had to keep out of here for quite a while. Now the root of the problem really seems to be in your very doctrine:

If they respond in unexpected manner, then you would think they don't understand you. In both cases, you may well be wrong.

Indeed, you may well be wrong.

 

So long as your effort goes none past that paradigm, even in communicating with other people, you will continue to fail in communicating. The thing is that, here, you were being vastly reductive concerning your doctrine, you are missapplying it. That isn't the way to distinguish whether someone misunderstands you, you need to pay more attention to whether you misunderstand them. It's like somebody playing chess and supposing they'll win because the opponent's move wasn't within their expectations. :doh: You should try instead to get what you're missing.

 

Other people's views aren't quite like Kant's inherently unknowable ding-an-sich, it is always possible (and very useful) to put more effort into understanding them than into accusing them of misunderstanding you.