Defining the nature of rational discussion!

[questor]

i think this particular nut has already been chewed.

[Doctordick]

I fully comprehend the self-referencing construction of the/A dictionary.

I had presumed you had and, for that exact reason, could not comprehend why you thought the issue had any relevance to the discussion at all.

Kome on dok; think outside the tetrahedron. Are we debating, or are we knot?

What do you mean by "think outside the tetrahedron"? From your comments, I don't even think the message is meant for me; I think you mean to persuade others who might be reading to "cease thinking about what Doctordick is presenting"? And no, I am not debating; I am presenting a logical argument which seems to be utterly over your head. I have already complained that you seldom make it clear that you understand what I am saying and I have gone on in spite of your thoughtless comments on the assumption that you were just joking. At this point I don't believe you have paid any attention at all to what I have said. :)

i have tried to follow and become interested in this conversation and i'm having trouble. once Doc has explained his thesis to Turtle, what will Turtle do with the information ?

Apparently nothing. I don't think turtle has any interest at all in what I am saying. His purpose is apparently to debate some strange issue he has fixated on in his warped mind. :)

if we must consult the dictionary every time we have a conversation, there will have to be hand trucks for all the Webster's Unabridged. in addition, everyone will have to follow Doc's demands for the proper phrasing and nuances of the word game. is there a great truth here that is unfolding ? or is this just semantic word games ?

Turtle may very well be playing word games but I am not. I have tried to make my position clear but have obviously totally failed with Turtle. His view of the pertinent issues is confused at the very best. I suspect his real interest is to deflect any interest in what I am talking about. :)

I followed all doc's argument right to the root, the kernel, the "nut" of it. Which is, each person has to answer the question "Do I exist" for themselves." He tried to disqualify that root, which is why when I asked if all of A is in C on a Venn diagram. In order to make his deduction work, you have to deny you exist. I didn't, I don't, I wont.

For example, examine the profound example of his logic presented above. I defined A to be "what is to be explained". That is, everything which could possibly be known by any possible means about whatever it is that is being explained (that makes A infinite by the very definition of infinity). And, since we are not all knowing and what we do know is finite, any explanation cannot possibly be based on A but rather must be based on what we actually know of A (clearly something derived from A but certainly not A in its entirety). From the fact that I claim A (what is possible to be known) is not contained in C (what is actually known) Turtle concludes I require you must "deny you exist" (which he proves with a Venn diagram). :hihi:

 

I can only guess that this is the confused machinations of a mind solely concerned with defending the intelligence of ignoring what I say. I never asked anyone to deny that they exist and certainly the fact that a Venn diagram is not applicable to the sets I set up can not be used as a basis to argue such a proposition. Anyone who would accept his logic as well developed must have the IQ of Gerbil. Since I do not believe anyone so intellectually deprived could learn to type, I can only presume his intentions are suspect. His response is much more understandable as a hysterical emotional attack designed to deflect interest from what I am doing than it is as a supposedly rational response. :)

 

Questor, you comment that you have tried to follow what I am saying. I obviously have lost turtle (or at least his interest in discoursing rationally) I would appreciate an open mind interested in what I have to say. What part of what I have said seems confusing to you? I am not really saying anything very difficult; the difficulty is to get people to look at issues they don't think are productive (particularly if it suggests the scientific community has made any errors). Please, tell me what part of what I have said confuses you and I will do my level best to clarify the issues (that is, if you do have any interest in understanding what I am talking about). Though he specifically agreed with my definition of "an explanation", Turtle apparently totally failed to comprehend why I postulated the three sets, A, B and C. If you can comprehend that need, you are intellectually leagues ahead of him already. :)

 

All that is left to get to the first step of my deduction (the differential of P vanishing) is understanding the freedom available in numerically labeling the elements of B and the "shift symmetry" it introduces into the problem. The word games are all Turtle's. My sole purpose in separating deduction and induction in the manner I did was to get rid of the garbage usually introduced by philosophers when I want to use mathematics. If you wish to deny the value of mathematics, that's your choice. Just let me know so I won't bother you any more. :)

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

By the way, for anybody who does choose to follow my thoughts, a deep truth does lie at the end of this discourse. A truth which no one on Earth has yet seen, save myself (and certainly not Turtle). :hyper:

[questor]

Doc, you said your are an older man. i also fit that description. although i am not a mathematician by trade, i am trained in the medical sciences with the didactic courses that are required. i think i understand human nature and i think i am good at cause and effect reasoning. i have been reading your posts

for a few weeks now and i am perplexed by your attack on Turtle, who has been trying to understand your progression of thoughts with patience and politeness. a personal attack will not engender interest or understanding, so you have probably lost Turtle as a foil. if you are the only person who understands the information you are trying to impart, you should understand it will be impossible for those less heavily endowed with gray matter to follow

your pronouncements. you have had time to form your thoughts over the years and yet you fault someone who may not pick them up on first aquaintance. for my self, i do not wish to converse with someone who has no patience or civility. if you had presented your conclusions first and then wanted to discuss the mental process to arive at that conclusion, i think you would have had more participants in the discussion. as it is now, this seems to be a long -winded discourse for a nebulous result.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

DoctorDick, I liked your initial post and it made sense to me.

 

I would liken squirel action/thought to my emotions and anything I have automated through repetition. That's how I've always looked at it anyway.

Two of my five children are squirels in the sense you've stated. Each plays a musical instrument and my son, uh, I've never heard him make a mistake. Well, once. He has rather long hair and a strand got between his bow and string. He laughed, cleared the hair away, and continued on as though nothing happened.

Myself, I play an instrument but make numerous mistakes. Always when I start to 'think' about what I'm doing.

Writing this response involves both squirel thought and logical thought.

The range of squirel thought would include any and all actions I can automate. Kind of like a software program. If I could freeze my capabilities and have them neither increase or decrease, then it is likely that I could have quite consistent results from my squirel activities. A software routine would be squirel thought because it is a frozen set of functions that theoretically don't change.

Using squirel thought I can say that something doesn't make sense. Using Rational thought I would try to show why.

Is that close to what you were getting at?

[Doctordick]

I am sorry about not responding more quickly to these comments but I was hoping to see some more rational responses. I was hoping someone out there had some comprehension of what I was talking about. Perhaps my view is just too alien. There was a very interesting article in Science News two weeks ago:

The cover story - "The Pirahã Challenge - 12/17/05

By 1980, the two outsiders spoke the native tongue well enough to field an intriguing proposal from villagers: to teach them to count and to read. So for the next few months, Daniel Everett—a linguist affiliated with the University of Manchester in England and the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany—and Keren Everett, a missionary with linguistic training, ran evening classes in math and literacy for the forest dwellers. However, although the Pirahã know volumes about hunting and jungle survival, the group flunked both courses. None of the roughly 30 people who regularly attended classes learned to count to 10. None learned to add 3+1, or even 1+1.

Reading lessons ended abruptly when, after weeks of painstaking work, the students managed to read a Pirahã word aloud and in unison. Everyone laughed. Daniel Everett asked what was so funny, and his students responded that what they had just said sounded like their word for sky. That's correct, Everett replied. The Pirahã immediately became agitated and asked to stop the lessons.

...

Cultural mandates to express only one's immediate experience and to shun outsiders' knowledge have kept the Pirahã population, which now amounts to around 200 people, from learning other languages despite more than 200 years of regular contact with Brazilians and various Amazonian groups, he adds. Yet despite the simplicity of its grammar, the Pirahã language matches other languages in complexity, Everett says.

Apparently they are not blocked by intelligence, but are instead culturally blocked from comprehending many abstract concepts common to, what we consider, modern civilization.

 

After having noticed the great impetus everyone has to change the subject every time I get close to communicating a significant fact, I am beginning to acquire the opinion that a cultural bias very similar to that of the Pirahã is effectively blocking what I have been trying to communicate here.

i have been reading your posts for a few weeks now and i am perplexed by your attack on Turtle, who has been trying to understand your progression of thoughts with patience and politeness. a personal attack will not engender interest or understanding, so you have probably lost Turtle as a foil.

Did you read what I wrote?

From the fact that I claim A (what is possible to be known) is not contained in C (what is actually known) Turtle concludes I require you must "deny you exist" (which he proves with a Venn diagram).

...

Anyone who would accept his logic as well developed must have the IQ of Gerbil.

That is not a personal attack on Turtle. I certainly do not believe Turtle has put his argument forward as a rational logical response (he could not possibly believe such an argument holds any water at all). He has made it quite obvious that he has no interest at all in what I am saying and would rather "chew the nut" for the delight of it. It seems to me that his real desire is to get off this subject as quickly as is possible. Call it the Pirahã reaction.

if you are the only person who understands the information you are trying to impart, you should understand it will be impossible for those less heavily endowed with gray matter to follow your pronouncements.

I think you must be joking! What part of what I say can't you understand? I don't believe it has anything to do with inability to understand; rather it is no more than simple refusal to even think about what I say. I think the problem is that you simply don't want to think about the things I am talking about.

i do not wish to converse with someone who has no patience or civility.

The lack of patience and civility is not a problem I have. I sometimes think I have the patience of Job himself. And calling a spade a spade is not lack of civility, it's called honesty.

if you had presented your conclusions first and then wanted to discuss the mental process to arive at that conclusion, i think you would have had more participants in the discussion.

My experience over the last fifty years is exactly the opposite. Absolutely nothing will turn away attention from competent people quicker than telling them where this leads. The uniform reaction is invariably, "that cannot possibly be true!" Once I disclose where this leads, my audience is immediately reduced to the "quacks are us" collection of pseudo intellects. And I have utterly no interest in talking to people who cannot even comprehend common logical arguments. (Nevertheless, it seems I manage to attract them anyway!)

as it is now, this seems to be a long -winded discourse for a nebulous result.

I personally think this is a rather overt misuse of the word "nebulous". In my mind, the fault in most of the posts on the hypography site is "nebulous" assertions with negligible support. I have just proved that the total derivative of the mathematical function which yields your rational expectations with regard to any explanation conceivable must vanish for any internally consistent explanation (whether the explanation is right or wrong). And you assert that is a "nebulous" result. It seems more reasonable that you just put that title on it because you don't want to face the possibility that it's a true statement.

 

I personally think it is a very definite statement with far reaching consequences. I can also show a few other very basic truths about that function (the one which yields your rational expectations with regard to any explanation conceivable). Put together, those truths suggest a very simple way of seeing the universe (a way of looking at the universe which guarantees you will not make the mistake of violating those particular truths). There is nothing "nebulous" about my presentation at all. I suspect that is the real problem; I think the people here prefer arguing about "nebulous" ideas as they are not very intellectually challenging.

DoctorDick, I liked your initial post and it made sense to me.

I presume you are talking about my assertion concerning the importance of recognizing the two distinctly different mechanisms for coming to conclusions

I believe that it is very important that these two different phenomena should be carefully identified and kept in mind whenever rational discussion is attempted.

However, from reading your comment, I feel you have slightly misinterpreted the division I proposed. The central issue of my division is to separate abstract exact logic (which always includes the concept of "proof") from the inductive mechanisms behind all the rest of what is often referred to as intelligent (or rational) action. The central requirement of the classification as "squirrel action/thought" is not exactly repetition but rather, the failure to be the direct result of abstract logical deduction. That is to say, activities based on abstract logical deduction can be repeated as easily as can any other activity.

Writing this response involves both squirel thought and logical thought.

The only evidence that any logical thought is involved would be a direct statement of the exact logical steps which were required. I believe your view is considerably askew of what I was trying to communicate. I will try once more to clarify my view.

 

Having failed with every other presentation, I will try a visual metaphor although I suspect this will be as hard to communicate to the crowd here as mathematics was to the Pirahã. Try to picture all we know and believe as a mountain range of information. Seen as a whole, it constitutes the vast span of a mountain range but examined in detail it is a massive collection of specific knowledge and beliefs; each and every aspect of it is a defined concept or relationship. This is the world we find ourselves in. Every living thing finds itself in such a world; it is the basis from which all actions of any kind stem. Certainly human intelligence is not required in order to have such a construct. Many animals live quite complex lives without any ability to objectively understand the basis of their actions. It should be clear that they nonetheless possess some sort of such a basis for those actions (I think one could say a squirrel believes a branch is there when he jumps for it).

 

Human beings are unique in their ability to examine that mountain range and think about what they find. The issue here is exactly what do they find? The great majority of what they find are the gray rocks of intuitive knowledge; the well established foundation on which everything they think and do is based. (It is reasonable to presume the animals also find themselves in a similar circumstance.) Most of which they are so sure of that there is absolutely no doubt as to its veracity. I suspect animals in general lack doubt entirely, (as do some humans by the way). But it should be clear that this terrain is not reality, it is actually no more than what we think reality is. It is a mental construct; something quite different from reality itself. It is different from reality in that it can be wrong whereas "reality" cannot possibility be wrong (note that animals too can be wrong; in fact, we use their proclivity for certain errors to trap and kill them).

 

But the world view of human beings (that vast realm of knowledge and belief under discussion) differs in a unique way from those other animals (at least it appears that the view of some humans is different). Within our world views there exists, occasionally, small deposits of gold in among those gray rocks of intuitive knowledge. What I am talking about are the pieces of information in that world view which are connected by formal deductive logic. These nuggets connect two pieces of otherwise unrelated knowledge (or beliefs). If one is true (the axioms), then so must the other be true (the logical consequences).

 

So, our world view is constructed of two very different components, one of which certainly does not exist in the absence of a facility for abstract logic. In any case, both components arise through the phenomena commonly referred to as rational thought. I have put forth an adjective "squirrel" to denote that vast construct of gray rock which goes to make up our world view (a world view in the absence of those golden nuggets of abstract logic. I did that because I believe squirrels lack that component in their concept of the world. I put things the way I did because I am trying to bring forth the great disparity between these two, very different, components of our understanding of the universe.

 

Most scientists concern themselves with expanding and extending those nuggets of formal logic. They often see their constructs as massive structures covering vast realms of knowledge. In actual fact, formal logic explains only a very small part of the knowledge and beliefs essential to everyday survival. I was trying to express that notion in my opening post to this thread:

What I am getting at is the fact that logical thought is actually a rather worthless endeavor when it comes to life and death decisions. It is often much better to "go with your gut"; let it be a squirrel decision. In fact, in the absence of mathematics, logical decisions are so limited as to be almost entirely inapplicable to any day to day activities. This is why many students can not understand a purpose to learning mathematics. Actually they are quite right, neither math nor logic serve much of a purpose to important problems. I have known very successful people who have never made a logical decision in their entire life.

If you look at history, you will see mankind penduluming back and forth between "scientific or logical" explanations and "superstitious or intuitive" explanations over and over again. This occurs because both sides claim to be the "true" path to enlightenment and neither can fulfill that promise. Each is as dependent upon the other as is the reverse circumstance.

 

All I am trying to do is focus attention on the fact that "squirrel" thought and "logical" thought (as I have defined them) constitute a very important division of thought for very important reasons which I thought were decently expressed in my opening post.

Using squirel thought I can say that something doesn't make sense. Using Rational thought I would try to show why.

Is that close to what you were getting at?

Not quite. First, I called both of them "rational" thought (go read my opening post again) and secondly, I believe you are equating "thinking about things" with the "non-squirrel" component. I am classifying everything as "squirrel" construct unless it can be proved absolutely correct via exact abstract logic. In fact, the same fact, even if it can be "proved" to be the consequence of an exact abstract logical relationship, is a squirrel construct in the mind of a person who cannot personally lay out that proof himself. Faith in the veracity of a scientific field is still "faith".

 

What I am saying is not subtle at all and I can not comprehend why no one manages to pick up on the issue. If anyone who reads this comprehends what I am saying, please let me know. What I am saying is actually quite simple.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

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

by Anonymous

[C1ay]

I am sorry about not responding more quickly to these comments but I was hoping to see some more rational responses. I was hoping someone out there had some comprehension of what I was talking about. Perhaps my view is just too alien....

 

What I am saying is not subtle at all and I can not comprehend why no one manages to pick up on the issue. If anyone who reads this comprehends what I am saying, please let me know. What I am saying is actually quite simple

I understand your thoughts but haven't really had time to jump into the discussion. A few thoughts though.

 

I think intuitive reasoning is a learned, conditioned manner of reasoning as is logical reasoning. They are learned in different ways though. The latter is a disciplined, rigorous, instructional type of learned reasoning where intuitive reasoning is more of a learning through experience.

 

The squirrel doesn't just decide to leap from one faint branch to another in it's first leap of life. It has made many smaller leaps before. It has walked many different size branches before. It has effectively built a set of memories from experience that help it to make the intuitive decisions it makes. In a way it is a calculated decision based on a database of memories. I think there is a lot to this neural processing we have yet to understand but I think it is just that, neural calculations based on memory values we have stored from past experiences.

[Pyrotex]

Sorry for the length of my posts. It is no more than an attempt to be clear. I can see so many ways my comments can be misinterpreted I try to cover all the bases. In the end, the readers usually misinterpret me anyway. I guess I am just not a decent writer. But I try! :)

No, you are not a bad writer. Not in the sense that you are unclear, anyway. However, trying to "cover all the bases" when your audience contains a variety of readers who span the spectrum between educated scientist and "squirrel" makes the effort somewhat futile. And no offense intended toward the squirrels. It is also possible (he said with caution) that there may be readers whose singular and only purpose may be to misinterpret and muddy the water. IMHO. :)

[ldsoftwaresteve]

DoctorDick:

The issue I am trying to get attention to is the fact that any internally self consistent explanation of anything can be seen as mathematics. It is that primary requirement that all explanations must be internally self consistent which I felt needed examination. I have done that examination and found some very interesting consequences which are apparently of little interest to anyone.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Software is, by definition, an internally self consistent language. The squirrel part of the language is the subroutines, functions, etc. that have been created to deal with specific events and situations. They respond automatically because of the nature of the machines on which they run. The built-in functionality of the machine also being squirrel logic.

There are groups of folks attempting to define the characteristics of the perfect language and they might be very interested in your thoughts.

None of it has ever been published as the professional physicists contend my work is philosophy and simply refuse to look at it (they assert it has no application to their field). The professional philosophers contend my work is mathematics and it should be turned over to mathematicians as it is outside their field of expertise. The mathematicians contend there is no new mathematics in my work and the only issue is one of physics which is outside their field of expertise.

Beautifully put. The term, 'falling through the cracks' I have been told, is the result of issues that get lost in a company when departments have no overlap of functionality. In other words, when a domain becomes too rigid, some things will apply to no domain. They'll simply disappear. It's a form of self induced blindness.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

DoctorDick:

I went into physics because I wanted to understand the universe and not because I wanted to "do physics". By the way, "the universe" is, by definition, everything – think about that for a while.

lol. That would include this discussion then, right? So all 'subjects' would be branches on the physics tree. 'Subjects' being the universe seen through the eyes of a thing in the universe and part of the nature of that thing which happens to be something that thing is looking at....boink. I just flew up my own arse. (I know. At least it's familiar territory.)

[questor]

at last! after almost a hundred posts, we have finally gotten to the nugget

of this thread:

'' The issue I am trying to get attention to is the fact that any internally self consistent explanation of anything can be seen as mathematics. It is that primary requirement that all explanations must be internally self consistent which I felt needed examination. I have done that examination and found some very interesting consequences which are apparently of little interest to anyone. ''

 

i think most people would agree that most physical events can be best described by mathematics if we thoroughly understand the event and the necessary math. it would be tedious in general conversation to speak in math formulae or to even think along those lines. there may be some things we don't have the math for. e.g. human thought itself, consciousness, instinct.

if one agrees with DR.'s principle, then what? how will this knowledge help mankind? of what use is this information and how can it be used?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Questor:

how will this knowledge help mankind? of what use is this information and how can it be used?

If our purpose is to understand existence, then if what he refers to actually exists... even if it is part of the way we do business or communicate - with others or with ourselves, then by definition it is meaningful.

George Boole invented boolean algebra and I believe that most people thought it was esoteric, well, at least for a while. Check out InfiniteNow's thread about 'Now'. Absolutely fascinating and so 'taken for granted' that few contemplate it. But it's the root of all roots. :)

I find inklings of something very important here too. I'm trying, that's all I can say. I suspect something because DD uses his words very carefully.

[Doctordick]

What I am getting at is the fact that logical thought is actually a rather worthless endeavor when it comes to life and death decisions. It is often much better to "go with your gut"; let it be a squirrel decision. In fact, in the absence of mathematics, logical decisions are so limited as to be almost entirely inapplicable to any day to day activities. This is why many students can not understand a purpose to learning mathematics. Actually they are quite right, neither math nor logic serve much of a purpose to important problems. I have known very successful people who have never made a logical decision in their entire life.

But I also was swayed by the power and authority of the scientists (I'm no brighter than anyone else!) That is exactly why I ended up with a Ph.D. in physics and exactly why I found myself questioning the foundations of Physics. Those questions together with my training in physics and mathematics led me to the discovery I am trying to bring to your attention. This "squirrel"/"logic" thing is nothing except a mechanism for recognizing exactly what we are presuming (in case you haven't picked up on it, we are presuming those "squirrel" decisions are correct) without requiring the information itself be ignored.

I understand your thoughts but haven't really had time to jump into the discussion.

Perhaps you do but your comments amount to a change in subject. When I said that I felt that it was important to be aware of these two violently different components, I was thinking of the characteristics and constraints on the two different elements, not on how they came to be. To paraphrase questor, the issue you bring up is an interesting subject which could possibly be the foundation of an extensive discussion; however, it seems to me that, in the end, the discussion could only be seen as nebulous since you are bringing up issues with little if any probability of being settled.

 

What I am trying to get across is quite easily settled: either my logic is erroneous or my conclusions are valid. I will try to put it another way. You can find a lot of fluff about TOE (Theory of Everything) all over the web. (A really nebulous subject as discussed by "the experts".) There are a number of problems with such an idea which keeps the concept nebulous. The scientists approach is to extend the range and impact of those golden nuggets of logic I mentioned. They lose sight of the fact that the great majority of their beliefs are based on a foundation defendable only via "squirrel" support (which is to say, "undefendable"). I am fully accepting the undefendability of that "squirrel" support and, for that reason, reduced it to the absolute minimum: the definition of an explanation and the essential ground support of that great vein of gold called mathematics.

No, you are not a bad writer. Not in the sense that you are unclear, anyway. However, trying to "cover all the bases" when your audience contains a variety of readers who span the spectrum between educated scientist and "squirrel" makes the effort somewhat futile.

Thank you; I guess. :)

It is also possible (he said with caution) that there may be readers whose singular and only purpose may be to misinterpret and muddy the water. IMHO. :)

Perhaps; but I strongly suspect some kind of Pirahãic phenomena is behind it.

DoctorDick:I'm not sure I agree with this.

I think your disagreement stems from your misunderstanding of what I mean by my categories "squirrel" and "logical". Perhaps my discourse above will do something to clarify that. And, yes, I think 'falling through the cracks' exactly defines my predicament. Years ago I used to tell people that I had discovered a new science. I even made up a name for it, "analytical philosophy"; but some philosophers have since staked out a claim to that designation.

 

Lastly, from my perspective computer programs are pure constructs of "logic" gold. That is why AI has proved to be so difficult; they omit the problem of creating that "squirrel" construct so fundamental to any "logic" construct. And "self induced blindness" is exactly the problem displayed by the Pirahã.

...boink. I just flew up my own arse. (I know. At least it's familiar territory.)

:) Seriously, what you have just pointed out is the essential need for that "squirrel" construct; for local navigation if nothing else. :)

at last! after almost a hundred posts, we have finally gotten to the nugget of this thread:

'' The issue I am trying to get attention to is the fact that any internally self consistent explanation of anything can be seen as mathematics. It is that primary requirement that all explanations must be internally self consistent which I felt needed examination. I have done that examination and found some very interesting consequences which are apparently of little interest to anyone. ''

Not really, you have just jumped right across the most important issue in your quote: "All explanations must be internally self consistent!" That fact has far reaching logical consequences which need to be seriously examined and everyone seems to make tremendous efforts to avoid doing so. Instead of asking how such an examination could help, why not ask why it seems to hurt so much?

 

I just read InfiniteNow's thread and have many things to say about it that would really be a waste of time here. If anyone is interested, they might read something I wrote a number of years ago. Take a look at "Resolution of the Relativity/Quantum Mechanics Conflict" and/or a defense of some of my statements on time to "Hurkyl" on physicsforums.

 

Meanwhile, I note that no one has made comment #1 on my proof that the total derivative of the mathematical function which yields your rational expectations with regard to any explanation conceivable must vanish for any internally consistent explanation. What purpose is there to going on so long as I have no evidence at all as to whether or not the statement was even understood? Until some response occurs, I can only conclude I am talking to myself. :)

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

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

by Anonymous

[Doctordick]

There may be a bug in the software here! My last post is in the system everywhere but does not show up as the last post in the thread reference. ????

 

But this one popped up when I entered it. Maybe the software has trouble with long posts ????

 

Strange -- Dick

[ldsoftwaresteve]

DD, I am in awe of your expertise with words, with the gold nuggets. I might be starting to understand what you're talking about but I have to make sure that I'm using my nuggets the same way you're using yours.

Existence and Universe are synonymous to me. The mountain range to which you refer is that part of existence we have been exposed to and takes shape via our fundamental capabilities, sight, hearing, etc. Direct perception is the landscaper of the mountain range. We assume it to be correct.

Now I need feedback.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

DoctorDick:

Not really, you have just jumped right across the most important issue in your quote: "All explanations must be internally self consistent!" That fact has far reaching logical consequences which need to be seriously examined and everyone seems to make tremendous efforts to avoid doing so. Instead of asking how such an examination could help, why not ask why it seems to hurt so much?

Funny you should say that. I did ask myself that question. It was like pressing down on a soap bubble. (couldn't quite put my finger on it. :xparty: )

It felt like a case of self induced blindness. Yes, and the consequences are that we have to go back and purify the gold, clarify the sight, expand the range of perception. This is the fundamental problem you are trying to address: Our self induced blindness.

[questor]

DD, your quotes:

'' This is why many students can not understand a purpose to learning mathematics. Actually they are quite right, neither math nor logic serve much of a purpose to important problems. I have known very successful people who have never made a logical decision in their entire life.''

 

and the second quote:

'' the definition of an explanation and the essential ground support of that great vein of gold called mathematics.''

 

why do i think these statements are contradictory? where in your rating of incontrovertible truths would you place mathematics?

[Doctordick]

DD, I am in awe of your expertise with words, with the gold nuggets.

And flattery is a powerful tool. I am pretty lucky in that I am pretty immune to it. :eek:

I might be starting to understand what you're talking about but I have to make sure that I'm using my nuggets the same way you're using yours.

The same way? Or for the same purpose? Those nuggets are nuggets and can be used for many reasons; but always in the same way. :xparty:

Existence and Universe are synonymous to me. The mountain range to which you refer is that part of existence we have been exposed to and takes shape via our fundamental capabilities, sight, hearing, etc. Direct perception is the landscaper of the mountain range. We assume it to be correct.

Yes, and it is that very assumption which I want to examine with you.

Now I need feedback.

I read all of your posts in order to get a decent picture of your thoughts and am disappointed in only one component: that would be your knowledge of mathematics and physics. In reading your posts, I was delighted by many of your comments. I have selected a dozen for comment (I could have commented on a lot more but it would make this post excessively long).

"Taught" is not the correct term, I suppose.

I would agree. Educational institutions are mere opportunities to learn; experiences with phenomena not found in ordinary day to day life. As you said, the most noticeable effect is to douse that spark of interest. Their real purpose in society is to hone skills important to that society; to create those complex mental machines we need to manage our creations. Their most significant benefit to society is that people with those skills are needed and supported and thus pose little danger to society: i.e., "idle hands are the devils plaything". Their major flaw is that, due to the fact that testing intelligence (what one can do with what one knows) is almost impossible, thus they are reduced to testing memorization of information. For this reason, a lot of people in the high offices of "intellectual authority" turn out to be idiot savants. Why do you think most scientific breakthroughs are made by youngsters barely familiar with the current state of science and not by those seeped in "knowledge". :)

Our goal is to bring that model in line with the natural world.

Or, more to the purpose, make our "expectations" (that terrain of gray rock we believe in) more consistent with what actually happens. (See my definition of "an explanation".) :lol:

we're talking about a snowflake in a blizzard.

Exactly, that is why our expectations of "exact logic" should be somewhat muted. By the way, belief is not really necessary to success at anything; that is, you need not believe your gut instinct is correct to follow its instructions. I certainly never did.

It doesn't matter if I am totally wrong some of the time, I still must attempt to seek the truth.

I wish everyone felt that way. I have noticed that most humans cannot operate from the perspective of being wrong. It is an emotionally difficult constraint to accommodate one's life to. It is much easier to just ignore the issue; i.e., not really worry about knowing the "truth".

removing the filters of belief

They cannot be entirely removed or we have nothing. We need those golden nuggets and just enough gray rock to support them. It is interesting to note that there is one and only one basic truth which can be considered absolute: that which is true by definition is absolutely true. The issue of truth by definition rests on two very straight forward points: (1.) we either agree on our definitions or communication is impossible and (2.) no acceptable definition can contain internal contradictions. If we agree, a definition must be regarded as true. (Definition of agreement???? :D)

we can still - all of us - be wrong.

We "can be" a lot of things! For the moment, what can we do to avoid being wrong? We should first step outside of belief itself. Beyond that, I have some very rational suggestions but it all involves understanding mathematics (right or wrong). :xparty:

I suppose if he's correct we could just ignore him.

That seems to be the most common reaction to new ideas of any kind.

Because to build an entire structure, an entire life and career on a foundation of straw would be rather discomfiting.

And that is exactly why most everyone seems to avoid thinking about that possibility; they would rather just assume they are right. Their big difficulty is not thinking they can function if they are in error; actually it is quite simple and, actually, they seldom have any real problems with it. :lol:

both parties in a disagreement can be wrong.

That is the impression I get from most all the threads I have looked at on every forum I have taken the trouble to examine. For the most part, the only ones which violate that "rule of thumb" are cases where the solid science behind the winning side is well known: i.e., absurd ignorance plays a big role here.

The only thing I know for sure is that I don't know the exact nature of anything and neither does any of you.

I agree 100%. Which brings up a serious observation about human explanations: it is not necessary to know the nature of a thing to explain it. And that comment is really worth thinking about.

Someday we might stand eye to eye with God and say, "I see. You were lonely."

There is a perspective that we are all Gods in our own way and are all indeed quite lonely. :lol:

Contradictions don't exist in nature (I'm assuming this to be true), only in our models of it.

And this is the very essence of my attack. That is, does there exist a way of representing all of our experiences which is capable of representing absolutely any possibility and, at the same time, guaranteed not to contradict itself? The answer is "Yes" and I have discovered one. I am sorry but it is not possible to comprehend it without a minimum understanding of mathematics and a little facility with abstract logic. :(

 

After reading your posts, I think you are certainly capable of a basic understanding my work though some of the mathematics might be outside your current knowledge; however, 35 is not really old at all and none of the math I use is really that far astray of what you could easily become familiar with. Meanwhile, if you are really interested, you might take a look at "An Analytical Model of Explanation Itself". If you are interested in going through that paper, we should go through it line by line, making sure you understand exactly what is being said in each line and why that line is necessary. :eek:

 

Yes, and the consequences are that we have to go back and purify the gold, clarify the sight, expand the range of perception. This is the fundamental problem you are trying to address: Our self induced blindness.

Ah, the gold itself is actually rather pure already. The problem with a lot of self proclaimed intellectuals is that they lack the abstract logic to actually see the gold but instead see logic as nothing than more ordinary gray rock to be learned and memorized. :)

 

The real trick here is to judicially pick the pieces of gray rock absolutely required to frame that gold. The mathematicians have already done quite a good job at supporting their share of the problem and I am asserting that "explanation" itself is the rock upon which understanding of the universe is to be built. :phones:

 

I hope you find my paper interesting.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

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

by Anonymous