Defining the nature of rational discussion!

[Turtle]

That is something I have wondered about myself and the only thing which seems to make any sense is the Pirahã problem. :lol:

First, do you follow my deduction of the equation at the end of An Analytical Model of Explanation Itself?

 

___As the decuction must follow from the proposition(s), you propose this at the beginning of your above linked thesis:

"...That is, it seems to me that if all the information is known, then any questions about the information can be answered ..."

 

___On the underlined empahasis I added, it is in fact not the case as I undertand Goedel's theorem. The "all information" constituting a single internally consistant system, Godel proves not every proposition is knowable, i.e. "provable" within that system.

___I plan to revisit the rest of the thesis to peruse the algebra. The question came to my mind since my last reply, as to what , if any, part an "irrational discussion" plays in this? Thanks for your patience, Turtle

 

PS On the Pirahã example. Your conclusion here presupposes that one, or more, individual Pirahã, at the time of the experiment or earlier, or later, never has, does, or will in the future understand & or like mathematics or writing. What if just one of them did get it, but kept their mouth shut for fear of ridicule or retaliation from within the tribe?

[Doctordick]

To quote my post to "questor" above, :P

... instead, every time I try, my post is followed by whole series of posts subtly changing the subject to some obscure philosophical point.

Which is exactly what is happening here! :lol:

___As the decuction must follow from the proposition(s), you propose this at the beginning of your above linked thesis:

"... it seems to me that if all the information is known, then any questions about the information can be answered ..."

___On the underlined empahasis I added, it is in fact not the case as I undertand Goedel's theorem. The "all information" constituting a single internally consistant system, Godel proves not every proposition is knowable, i.e. "provable" within that system.

Godel's theorem has utterly nothing to do with what I said; you are completely misinterpreting my comment. I notice you omit my defense "(that could be regarded as the definition of "knowing")". I am referring to the fact that "if all the information is known" the concept of explanation sort of loses value: i.e., to quote you, "... proves not every proposition is knowable" which pretty well implies "all the information is not known". What I am doing, is laying aside the rather unlikely case where there are no unknown subsets of information. In essence, if there is nothing unknown then an explanation is a rather purposeless concept. (Trying to cover all the bases so to speak which seems never to accomplish the intended goal.) :P

The question came to my mind since my last reply, as to what , if any, part an "irrational discussion" plays in this? Thanks for your patience, Turtle

Not much at all; actually it is more "base covering". :) The philosophical position as to exactly where is the starting place for a truly "fundamental" thesis. No more than what happened to be on my mind when I first posted on this forum.

 

Prior to posting here, I posted some 443 posts on the physicsforum site achieving less than I have achieved here with 81. But it was fun and I learned a lot about how people react. Let's just say that the underlying need for a certain number of inductive conclusions are required to provide a starting place was on my mind when I got here (differentiating between "squirrel" and "logical" thought being a significant issue which, by the way, I don't think anyone has really picked up on). :lol:

PS On the Pirahã example. Your conclusion here presupposes that one, or more, individual Pirahã, at the time of the experiment or earlier, or later, never has, does, or will in the future understand & or like mathematics or writing. What if just one of them did get it, but kept their mouth shut for fear of ridicule or retaliation from within the tribe?

No, I don't think my conclusion presupposes that at all. :lol: I have had a lot of discussions with a lot of people over the last forty years and their reactions generally fall in one of three or four categories (the number depending on how one looks at it). :lol: There is one category which I think is very significant. When I bring it up to well trained physicists who can easily follow my mathematics and who are willing to discuss the subject (a rare breed to begin with), I can usually bring them up to some significant point: the deduction of the Schroedinger's equation or Dirac's equation or, one time actually getting to my generalized Maxwell's equation. Somewhere around there, they tend to suddenly just do their best to avoid me. :lol: Never pointing out an error or criticizing my work; just not wanting to talk about it anymore. :lol: I have come to the conclusion that they can't find an error but are scared to death of recognizing that I might be right.

 

I suspect that, in their head, I can not possibly be correct and I must therefore be wrong and their inability to find an error would be a bad reflection on their intellect. They certainly wouldn't want to support me in the face of the academy. Now, that's just my impression. :lol:

 

Another, very similar event took place during my second year as a graduate student. I showed one of the resident experts on relativity (chairman of the department actually) something I thought was interesting. :lol: After I had finally managed to get him to understand what I was presenting, he said, "well of course you are right; but don't show this to any of the other graduate students, you will just confuse them". :lol: So I never mentioned it to any of the "other graduate students". :D If you want to see what I showed him, I tried to explain it to "Hurkyl" on the physicsforum. (And, by the way, I obtained no discussion of the thing to speak of.) I don't think the professionals want to "rock the boat" their careers depend on. :hihi: :P :hihi:

 

Have fun – Dick

 

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[Turtle]

___The topic certainly is important, inasmuch as it has its roots in information & information theory. I think Pyrotex mentioned Alan Turring's work, & that does seem germane.

___While I think Godels Incompleteness theorem does apply, it needn't be a complete barrier. It says simply that not all propositions have resolutions under an internally consistant system, but it doesn't say some don't.

___I reviewed your tau/x/... axis setup again & went Gedanken on it without any real data or regard for any unseen logical errors; I tried to visualize the plot of an explanation as it were. Do you have any real plots or tables from the implemented equation(s)?

___How does your model accomodate the subtle changes of subject? It seems each point in your axis requires many other point plots to explain their meaning. Further, subtle changes (interuptions if you will) may have different causes/motivations; that is to say some may have a motivation to interupt/confuse, whereas others have the motivation of seeking clarification.

___I do not (yet) accept that "there are no unknown subsets of information". In particular because of the principle of emergence/synergy wherby some observed phenomenon (information) cannot be predicted (explained?) on the basis of known pre-existing phenomenon(information).

___:lol:

[Doctordick]

___The topic certainly is important, inasmuch as it has its roots in information & information theory. I think Pyrotex mentioned Alan Turring's work, & that does seem germane.

Yes and no; Turring and I are thinking of a totally different issue. I am sorry I made the response I made to Pyrotex that I did because it again seems to have deflected attention from what I am doing, once more encouraging exactly the same confusion generated by the earlier subtle subject changes in this thread. :(

___While I think Godels Incompleteness theorem does apply, it needn't be a complete barrier. It says simply that not all propositions have resolutions under an internally consistant system, but it doesn't say some don't.

The issue of things which cannot be proved under a set of axioms is simply not germane to my presentation. I am presenting a specific proof and a specific proof is a specific construct. The given proof I have put forth is either logically valid or it is not. The existence of things which cannot be proved is little more than another change of subject. :eek_big:

___I reviewed your tau/x/... axis setup again & went Gedanken on it without any real data or regard for any unseen logical errors; I tried to visualize the plot of an explanation as it were.

I am not sure of what you are talking about here. Are you talking about trying to mentally plot the Psi in the final equation of that paper, "An Analytical Model of Explanation Itself"? If that is what you are talking about, you are missing a very important issue here. B)

___How does your model accomodate the subtle changes of subject? It seems each point in your axis requires many other point plots to explain their meaning. Further, subtle changes (interuptions if you will) may have different causes/motivations; that is to say some may have a motivation to interupt/confuse, whereas others have the motivation of seeking clarification.

My model represents "an explanation" (which has been defined to be a method of obtaining expectations from known information) and you ask me, how does the model accommodate changes of subject? In order to answer that question, you have to tell me how the "explanation" you have in mind accommodates changes of subject. And you are absolutely right, in the model, the meanings of absolutely everything cogent to that explanation must be derived from the information itself and, for the simplest constructs, that alone requires massive amounts of information. Now, as soon as you start talking about "causes" and/or "motivations", you have got to be thinking about some particular explanation, not "explanations" in general. :naughty:

 

I can only conclude that you have gotten the impression that my presentation has to do with proving a method of obtaining an explanation (something analogous to Turring's proof). That is not at all what I am doing. I am talking about something entirely different; I am talking about the constraints one may put on "an explanation" (any explanation) which can be derived from the definition alone (that would be "no other considerations"). A very very different matter indeed. B)

___I do not (yet) accept that "there are no unknown subsets of information". In particular because of the principle of emergence/synergy wherby some observed phenomenon (information) cannot be predicted (explained?) on the basis of known pre-existing phenomenon(information).

I have utterly no idea of what you are saying here. You have put quote marks on the phrase , [there are no unknown subsets of information], as if it is a quote of something I have said somewhere in my proof. If it is, I don't remember where I said such a thing but I am, nevertheless, rather astounded that you would assert that you do not accept that there are no unknown subsets of information. That would imply that you think everything is known. And who said anything about predicting any phenomena? The issue is that an explanation must yield your expectations. If it can't be done, how do you do it? :eek_big:

 

I can only conclude that you do not understand what I am doing and are trying to jump ahead of the proof to see if you like what it says. The only way to know what the proof says is to follow through the proof step by step and understand the definitions within the proof; otherwise, how can you possibly know things like what is being summed over in the sums given in the equation. :confused:

 

We need to step through the proof line by line first before you can even begin to comprehend it's truth. B)

 

Sorry about that -- Dick

[Turtle]

I can only conclude that you do not understand what I am doing and are trying to jump ahead of the proof to see if you like what it says. ...Sorry about that -- Dick

 

___That's a fair assesment; I'll leave off to study a while & allow the others who have expressed an interest to further the discussion.B)

[ldsoftwaresteve]

DoctorDick:

A is the universe (which is the collection of things which are expressed by that collection of concepts which are required to understand the universe); B is the change in what we know (the present, expressed by the collection of concepts which have been developed in our creation of our current understanding of the universe) and C constitutes everything we know (the collection of all the "nows" we have become aware of expressed again by the collection of concepts which our experiences have led us to).

Okay, I think I have an understanding of those referents. Now I need to see if I can use them. Thank you for your patience. Am I walking down the mountain or up it? Sideways?

A is that which would be reflected in the content of my brain if I understood the universe and all things were known to me or could be predicted by me. Originally I thought you meant that A would be the ideal map, not the terrain. But you mean the actual terrain, correct?

B and C reference the current map of the terrain.

B implies a correction to C (the map of the current terrain). That would come from new information or a re-evaluation of old information using a new method or technique. Nothing about the change is necessarily correct. It's just different than C.

C The map, our work in progress. Nothing about the map is necessarily correct.

 

So A is different in that it is that which we want to correctly map. B is motion. C is that which is moving toward or away from the map of A. Or sideways.

[Pyrotex]

Yes and no; Turring and I are thinking of a totally different issue. I am sorry I made the response I made to Pyrotex that I did because it again seems to have deflected attention from what I am doing, once more encouraging exactly the same confusion generated by the earlier subtle subject changes in this thread.... B)

Just a note to say that I am reading this thread. Soon (SOON!) I will make time to read the paper on your math in much more detail than a cursory scan. And I have a hunch that the connection between your theory and Turring's is more than happenstance. He was not trying to create a computer. He was trying to prove that an abstract machine, with minimum and sufficient properties, could 'solve'. I will leave it for later to explore the associations if any between 'solve' and 'explain'.

 

And I am toying with the possibility that the collapse of the Derivative to zero may mean something ... ELSE. B)

 

Tally ho!

[Doctordick]

Thank you very much Steve as you have put forth an excellent metaphor. :( You are making only one major error with regard to representing what I intended A, B and C to stand for (and probably that is mostly my fault for not expressing myself very clearly). :o I would tend to call A "reality": which certainly can be seen as "that which would be reflected in the content of my brain if I understood the universe and all things were known to me". You add, "or could be predicted by me". I would ask, if all things were known to you, what is there to predict? ;) I would presume "all" means "all" which would include the future. Other than that minor comment, your idea of A seems to be essentially what I had in mind. I would only add one simple adjustment which, at the moment is pretty insignificant and, is best left to after we have solved the fundamental problem. For the moment I am going to presume you and I mean the same thing by "the actual terrain"; that would be what is actually true without any embellishments. :)

 

The major error I referred to concerns your representations of B and C. B and C do not refer to the current map of the terrain but rather to those points in that terrain which are "real": i.e., those portions of the terrain which would remain even after all things were known to you. The information upon which your map of the terrain is built sans the assumptions you used to build that map. There is a forth set, introduced as "The final aspect of the model" near the end of my paper (you can use "Find on this page" to locate it), which I call set D. This set is introduced in order to create that terrain map which you are thinking of as residing in your brain. It constitutes the information "assumed" to be true and is very much a part of the "explanation" itself. In fact, in my model D is entirely fictitious: i.e., it would totally vanish if all things were known to you. That is the reason I removed the model of an explanation from the situation where everything is known (see the second paragraph of my paper). B)

 

Thus C is what you know and C+D is what you think you know. Likewise, there should be another set corresponding to B (changes in what you truly know) which amounts to changes in what you think you know and I have been a bit sloppy about setting that set up. :o It really makes little difference because it's existence is always arrived at through implication of your explanation (that is, your assumptions) and the actual B. Thus it is an invalid expectation of B which is critical in defeating any explanation. Nevertheless it needs to be included in the construct of your expectations as, what ever the rules of your explanation are, the assumed information cannot violate those rules and still be seen as a reasonable assumption. So you have my apology for being sloppy. :o

 

Finally, B(t) is always an addition to C and does not alter the "real" underlying information other than by adding to it (the past can not be changed). On the other hand, D, being totally fictitious, can change at any time yielding a totally altered view of the past; but at no point can the new D plus that unchanging C violate that new explanation. B) By the way, these are divisions created for discussion and not realizable by examination: i.e., so long as every element of C and D obeys the rules of an accepted explanation, there is no way to differentiate between the two. ;)

 

Lastly, the scientific goal cannot be to eliminate D as that would imply we were all knowing and we cannot expect that result. Instead, the real scientific goal should be to make D as simple as possible to fulfill our needs. What you should recognize is that any explanation requires two things from which to develop our expectations: the entities presumed to exist (since we can't tell the difference between them, that would be C+D) and the rules they are to follow. In a very simple but not very useful example, D could be a set of gods and the rule could be "what happens is whatever the gods want to happen". B) (A little support for religion here B) ) But we scientists like explanations which yield more useful expectations. :eek_big: I introduce a very specific D which has the advantage of allowing a very simple rule to reproduce absolutely any C exactly. B)

 

I hope I haven't confused you any further. From your last post, I think you have a pretty good handle on what the sets stand for; we're headed up the mountain. I sure would like to get into the reference label issue and sub problems one and two. :)

 

Pyrotex: Yes, I do think there is a real relationship between "solve" and "explain", but I am afraid it is easy to get off course here. And you really have my curiosity up with that comment about what the collapse of the Derivative might mean.

 

At least it sounds like we are having fun -- Dick B)

 

Education is the best provision for the journey into old age.

- Aristotle

[ldsoftwaresteve]

DoctorDick:

You add, "or could be predicted by me". I would ask, if all things were known to you, what is there to predict? I would presume "all" means "all" which would include the future.

The future is exactly what I had in mind. B) Now I have to try and understand the following:

The major error I referred to concerns your representations of B and C. B and C do not refer to the current map of the terrain but rather to those points in that terrain which are "real": i.e., those portions of the terrain which would remain even after all things were known to you.

Do you mean remain as unknown even after all things were known to you? No you can't mean that. you use the word 'points' and I suspect that is different than 'things'? Point, as in 'point in time'? Also, you say 'remain' as though you were subtracting one from the other. The smaller set would be the map. Are you 'subtracting' the map from the terrain?

This IS interesting. Reality is now. the map isn't.

[Doctordick]

Hi Steve: you are doing great! After I wrote what I wrote, I decided I should have used the word "misunderstanding" rather than "error" but didn't think it was worth the trouble of editing. Thanks for your indulgence. B)

Now I have to try and understand the following: Do you mean remain as unknown even after all things were known to you? No you can't mean that. you use the word 'points' and I suspect that is different than 'things'? Point, as in 'point in time'? Also, you say 'remain' as though you were subtracting one from the other. The smaller set would be the map. Are you 'subtracting' the map from the terrain?

You are right, I did not mean "remain as unknown". Actually no emphasis was meant to be implied by the use of word "points". I was, in essence, jumping ahead (excitement I guess) as the "references to things" very quickly are going to become points in an abstract space; but, for the moment, I was thinking of B(t) as referring to specific places in the terrain of your metaphor. B)

 

I see your "map" of that terrain as your mental image of reality; thus the map is what you think reality is. When I said, "those portions of the terrain which would remain even after all things were known to you", what I meant was that B (and likewise, C) was to include no fictitious elements. When I used the word "remain" I was referring to removing D, the fictitious elements used to suport your explanation. The B(t) are the "real" information derived from reality which your explanation must explain; those components which must still be there (and be explained) no matter how much you learn about reality. B) (What really happened, not what you thought happened!) :eek_big:

This IS interesting. Reality is now. the map isn't.

I think you are very close to seeing this thing the way I am trying to present it. Reality is what we are trying to explain: i.e., trying to clearly enumerate a set of expectations which are consistent with the impact reality has so far had upon us and will yield rational expectations for the future. The map (our mental image of reality) is a fabricated tool which allows us to quickly and easily generate those expectations. :confused:

 

Have I done a little better? B)

 

I am trying -- Dick

[ldsoftwaresteve]

DoctorDick:

Have I done a little better?

Well, considering that you're trying to use words to explain what might be comprehended only with mathematics, I'd say pretty good because I'm having fun. In spite of your enthusiasm, I don't feel close to understanding it yet. I think the following will show why.

When I used the word "remain" I was referring to removing D, the fictitious elements used to suport your explanation. The B(t) are the "real" information derived from reality which your explanation must explain; those components which must still be there (and be explained) no matter how much you learn about reality

. Fictitious elements. Now I'm in no-man's land again. The map, by definition, is all fictitious. Unless you are talking about terms that specify relationships. Sorry Dick. One step forward, two steps back. And B(t) can be considered a prediction, right?

[Doctordick]

DoctorDick: Well, considering that you're trying to use words to explain what might be comprehended only with mathematics, I'd say pretty good because I'm having fun.

I am very happy that you recognize the problems with words; most people just can't seem to comprehend that problem. And I still think you are doing great because I find your questions very "a point". I think that the only reason you feel you are in "no-man's land" is because you want to understand exactly what I mean and you find yourself with doubts. As far as I am concerned, that is exactly what I want: i.e., I want you to understand exactly what the terms I use stand for and I can only know of your confusion through your questions. Who else who has read this thread has taken the trouble to ask any decent questions? In my opinion, misunderstanding is rampant and my ideas are most often being dismissed without any comprehension of what they are. :eek_big:

 

So, back to your latest question:

The map, by definition, is all fictitious. Unless you are talking about terms that specify relationships.

Under my understanding of your metaphor, I am going under the assumption that "the map" is, for all practical purposes, your world view (your personal impression of what reality seems to be). Thus the map has the status of "an explanation": a mechanism which yields your expectations (what will happen as you follow the map). On the other hand, the terrain (the abstract metaphor for your situation) is what the map is trying to describe. The map (your explanation) is based on what you think constitutes the terrain (what you think you know) not necessarily the real terrain. :naughty:

When I used the word "remain" I was referring to removing D, the fictitious elements used to support your explanation.

"support your explanation" => "the presumed terrain used to defend the correctness of that map". The presumed terrain actually consists of C plus D. C is defined to be real and D is defined to be fictitious. B)

 

I am sure you are aware of the running argument between the Solipsists and the Realists. Essentially, the Realists think the "terrain" we are talking about is "real" and the Solipsists think it is an illusion. My position is that we don't know so I divide it into two different components C which is real and D which is illusion. In my opinion both the Realists and the Solipsists are idiots. The Realists are idiots because they simply ignore the fact that our world view has always been plagued with illusions (or perhaps more apt, self delusions). Most scientists (who are, for the most part, dyed in the wool realists) usually make the totally unsupportable assumption that, unless they can prove something they perceive is an illusion, their perceptions are absolutely correct. And Solipsists are idiots because simply ignore the fact that there may actually be something real behind it all. Besides that, if there is really nothing beyond my imagination, what is wrong with defining "reality" to be that part of my imagination which I can't control? (At least it makes good use of the word "real"!) B)

And B(t) can be considered a prediction, right?

Yes, B(t) would be a prediction if t is in the future. But, as the C is the collection of all B's you have to work with, B(t) where t was in the past would be a moment of the past that was part of "the information you have to work with". As such, when examining your explanation, B(t) for t in the past must be consistent with your expectations given that the relevent information consisted of the collection of B's prior to that particular t: which for the most part would be the events leading up to that moment. In fact, this is the very first test given to any explanation: we compare the explanations predictions with what was observed in the past in relevent circumstances. :confused:

 

And I don't think you are taking any steps backwards; every step is in the direction of improved understanding. B)

 

Have fun -- Dick

[ldsoftwaresteve]

DoctorDick:

And I still think you are doing great because I find your questions very "a point".

That would normally be finished with 'to the point', 'perceptive', so if I say my map is made up of things, those things are perceptions. Or at least a part of the map is. 'meaningful' too would work. Pyrotex! Turtle! CraigD! HELP, he's killing me!!!

:confused:

Under my understanding of your metaphor, I am going under the assumption that "the map" is, for all practical purposes, your world view (your personal impression of what reality seems to be). Thus the map has the status of "an explanation": a mechanism which yields your expectations (what will happen as you follow the map). On the other hand, the terrain (the abstract metaphor for your situation) is what the map is trying to describe. The map (your explanation) is based on what you think constitutes the terrain (what you think you know) not necessarily the real terrain.

I think we're congruent here. I like the following:

Thus the map has the status of "an explanation": a mechanism which yields your expectations

I also like

the terrain (the abstract metaphor for your situation)

because the map is situational and depends on one's location in existence and hence one's exposure to it. That's important for some wierd reason. I think it's because your theory will have to operate in any situation (that's survivable).

"support your explanation" => "the presumed terrain used to defend the correctness of that map". The presumed terrain actually consists of C plus D. C is defined to be real and D is defined to be fictitious.

ok. If I understand existence then my head would be filled with C and no D, correct?

Unless we aren't just talking about fallacies here in D.

In order to parallel A in B, perhaps I need to have constructs that don't exist in A but only in B. Constructs that simulate causes of A but are only representations of how I think actual causes work. As long as they function the same way, that's ok.

Understanding just means I can predict accurately B(t future) and describe B(t past). As long as that works even if my model (:naughty: is not exactly correct, I can still say I understand existence. Is that correct? In other words, if I'm right for the wrong reasons, it doesn't matter. As long as those Ds don't make wrong any predictions or descriptions and if that were the case, I would not be aware of it.

[Doctordick]

That's important for some wierd reason. I think it's because your theory will have to operate in any situation (that's survivable).

Shades of the Pirahã Batman! B) Somehow you have decided to adopt the same perspective which seems to have drawn turtle away: an overwhelming impulse to think I am suggesting a mechanism for finding explanations. There is no theory here which "operates". I have no idea how many times I have said, "I am looking at constraints on explanations imposed by my definition alone". The interest is examining the limitations on explanations so imposed, not on producing explanations. B)

ok. If I understand existence then my head would be filled with C and no D, correct?

C is that part of reality which is available to you: the collection of B(t), the pieces of true reality from which your experiences were drawn! And now it's something in your head??? :( That sounds like the very definition of Solipsism. It was your metaphor. You brought up the terrain and the map of the terrain, and now it seems you want to confuse the two. I get a very strong impression that you are getting nervous about what you see and would rather change the subject even if it means wiping your mind clear of things which have already been discussed. B)

Unless we aren't just talking about fallacies here in D.

Unless???? Did you read what I wrote?

The final aspect of the model" near the end of my paper (you can use "Find on this page" to locate it), which I call set D. This set is introduced in order to create that terrain map which you are thinking of as residing in your brain. It constitutes the information "assumed" to be true and is very much a part of the "explanation" itself. In fact, in my model D is entirely fictitious: i.e., it would totally vanish if all things were known to you.

In order to parallel A in B, perhaps I need to have constructs that don't exist in A but only in B.

???? B is defined to be a finite collection of elements of A. How can it have constructs that don't exist in A. B)

Constructs that simulate causes of A but are only representations of how I think actual causes work. As long as they function the same way, that's ok.

And what the devil do you think D is all about? B)

... even if my model (:) is not exactly correct ...

How did B get to be a model??? The model is the explanation! The B's are the true things the model must agree exist and must predict. :)

... As long as those Ds don't make wrong any predictions ...

D's don't make predictions; "Psi" is the method of making predictions. The D's are fabrications your explanation requires to exist; things your explanation predicts which are not really derived from A. You can regard them as "self delusions you can't catch"; or you can think of them as memory aids essential to your explanation: simple conveniences allowing easy generation of "Psi", your expectations. B)

 

But, whatever you do, if you are to understand what I am saying, you must keep my abstract definitions I have laid out clearly in mind. This is an exact construct, not some vague collection of allusions as to what is going on. :naughty:

 

Sorry if I have been a little hard on you -- Dick

[ldsoftwaresteve]

DoctorDick:

The interest is examining the limitations on explanations so imposed, not on producing explanations.

Ok.

C is that part of reality which is available to you: the collection of B(t), the pieces of true reality from which your experiences were drawn! And now it's something in your head?

Hmmm. Well, here's my disconnect, Dick. If B(t) represents the pieces of true reality from which my experiences were drawn, by definition they don't exist anymore except as memories in my head and they are past events.

C, the part of reality which is available to me only exists now and has to be a subset of A, right? One moment from now it will be part of B, right?

I am operating from the position of time not existing as a separate entity or thing that can hold events like an event container. That's a mental construct. No such things exists other than in my head.

[Doctordick]

Well, here's my disconnect, Dick. If B(t) represents the pieces of true reality from which my experiences were drawn, by definition they don't exist anymore except as memories in my head and they are past events.

This is about the clearest evidence I have seen that you don't comprehend what I am doing at all. It is your attempt to twist my terms into what you think I am doing which is forcing the definitions into internal inconsistency. As I have said a great number of times, "the interest is examining the limitations on explanations so imposed, not on producing explanations". Clearly you are viewing my presentation from the perspective of how it produces explanations, which of course, it does not. :rainbow:

 

What you think exists or doesn't exist is of no issue here at all. The only issue is, "what are your explanations based upon". How that is done is an explanation. You give me an explanation, and I will show you how to map that explanation into my model. When I do that, I know your explanation will be based on what you know, C (or actually, what you think you knowC+D). How you come to know these things or remember them is utterly of no interest to me at all (all of that is part of your personal explanation of how the universe you find yourself in works). However, I do know that what you know (or what you think you know) often changes and the explanations have to be consistent with these changes or those explanations are blatantly wrong. This is why I introduce B(t) to represent these changes (which you seem to like to call "Now"). :rain:

C, the part of reality which is available to me only exists now

???? So you are saying that there is nothing out there which plays any role in your model of the universe except the information available to you right now ????? The past is gone and so it plays utterly no role in your explanation of reality? That seems like a rather extreme position. Nothing that ever happened to you in the past had any impact on your beliefs??? That makes me wonder how you define time! :Guns:

and has to be a subset of A, right? One moment from now it will be part of B, right?

Please go read the definitions of these sets again; you seem to have forgotten them. :angel:

I am operating from the position of time not existing as a separate entity or thing that can hold events like an event container. That's a mental construct. No such things exists other than in my head.

As I said, you seem to be concerned with how one creates an explanation. My interest is purely in the limitations imposed on "an explanation" by its definition and nothing else. Somehow you just cannot comprehend that as something worth thinking about. :rainbow:

 

Sorry I can not seem reach you -- Dick

[ldsoftwaresteve]

DoctorDick:

This is about the clearest evidence I have seen that you don't comprehend what I am doing at all.

Yup. That's a fact. And we've arrived at that based upon what I have said. Such, I would hope, is the nature of a rational discussion. I told you I didn't understand it. :angel:

I am assuming I have a blindspot here Dick and that you do not and if you will not give up on me, I won't either. On the other hand, if I can discover that you have your head buried in your hinder, trust me, I'll be glad to point that out. :rainbow:

Please define explanation for me if you don't mind spending some more of your nows on it. I think my mistake is related to that.

So you are saying that there is nothing out there which plays any role in your model of the universe except the information available to you right now ????? The past is gone and so it plays utterly no role in your explanation of reality? That seems like a rather extreme position. Nothing that ever happened to you in the past had any impact on your beliefs??? That makes me wonder how you define time!

lol. No, I'm not saying that at all. And yes, you should wonder how I define time. I'm just saying that the past exists only in my mind. Outside of me is only now. My understanding of existence definitely includes the concept of time but that is a mental construct into which I place prior events. Events that I have witnessed and events that I have inferred based upon my understanding of existence as well as events others have explained to me. In the continuum of time from the perspective of my conscious mind, the only congruence with reality that time has is at the point of 'now'. The future doesn't exist yet, the past is gone. As fascinating as that is, I think it constitutes a change of subject. And I don't want you to accuse me of changing the subject. :rainbow:

As strange as it sounds, now I think I'm closing in on what you are talking about. Don't give up on me yet. :rain: