Understanding Reality

[Doctordick]

Dick kinda makes it sound like, if only you could put every sentence, whatever the language, ever written in the entire history of mankind into one big computational machine, you would emerge with "truth."  Well, if you assigned numbers and probabilities to each atomistic symbol, anyway.  You wouldn't have to assume anything, just be a good scrivener, that's all.  The machine would figure it all out.

 

Maybe that's not what he means.  I really don't know.

 

Apparently you have no comprehension of what I am talking about at all. Suppose you had every publication, every document and every thought ever conceived by any entity which ever existed (clearly a finite collection of finite entities) but printed in a representation which is totally undefined. (That would be my representation (x1,x2,...xn), a totally undefined collection of numbers each designating a specific concept represented in that collection of documents.) 

 

Now that collection would include every issue necessary to represent reality as it has been presented to us (including every perception possessed by any individual). Now add to that one additional "unknown" fact; the belief of the original creator of that thought as to the truth of that "assertion".

 

At that point you have a collection of expressions represented by T(x1,x2,...xn);  "a totally undefined collection of numbers". 

 

How would you propose figuring out what that collection could represent?   

 

Are you at all interested in the constraints existing on that representation? Can you conceive of any???  Or is the circumstance totally beyond your comprehension?

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Thanks for your comment Buffy. I had thought you had simply presumed my approach was a waste of time.

[Moronium]

At that point you have a collection of expressions represented by T(x1,x2,...xn);  "a totally undefined collection of numbers". 

 

How would you propose figuring out what that collection could represent?   

 

Are you at all interested in the constraints existing on that representation? Can you conceive of any???  Or is the circumstance totally beyond your comprehension?

 

 

Frankly, no.  It's all beyond my comprehension, I'm afraid--at least as far as understanding any practical value to be gained from such an endeavor, which would itself take decades, it seems. I don't even agree that the contents of everything ever written would be "finite" is terms of meanings and concepts.

 

How would you propose figuring out what that collection could represent?   Are you at all interested in the constraints existing on that representation?

 

 

What practical good would it do me to know the "constraints?"  Would that give me some meaning?

 

Can you give even a single concrete example of what you're getting at, or do you confine yourself exclusively to undefined abstractions?

Edited June 10, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Now add to that one additional "unknown" fact; the belief of the original creator of that thought as to the truth of that "assertion."

 

 

 

What would that add?  There has, no doubt, been a whole lot of gibberish uttered by insane, deluded subjects who "believed" what they were saying.

 

I don't think I'd need to analyze every statement ever made by anyone, any place, any time, to weed those out as unlikely candidates for '"truth."

 

For that matter, God only knows how many utterances have been created by people who didn't believe a word they were saying.  Is it essential to your theory that they believe their own bullshit?  Whether the answer is yes or no, it seems that your scheme carries some assumptions with it--which I thought were all going be eliminated, somehow.

 

What is it you're seeking?  Meaning?  Truth? Practice doing math?

Edited June 11, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I'll say this, Doc...we see eye to eye on some things.  Reading one of your blog posts here, and I agree with every bit of this:

 

Unfortunately most people have a rather naive perspective towards Relativity, more revolving around ontological beliefs of space-time constructions, rather than the actual logical relationships that the theory is composed of....In my opinion, one of the best sources of information on Special Relativity is still Einstein's original paper from 1905. Because unlike most modern representation, that paper was still reasonably neutral in terms of any speculative ontologies....

 

Relativistic space-time is not mentioned anywhere, because that idea arose later, as Herman Minkowski's interpretation of the paper. Later, space-time became effectively synonymous to Relativity.  The space-time construction is just a specific interpretation of Special Relativity....

 

[The] one-way speed of light cannot possibly be measured. In order to measure the speed, you need two clocks that are synchronized. Which is the same thing as making sure the clocks started timing simultaneously.  That is to say, you cannot synchronize the clocks without knowing the one-way speed of light, and you can't know the one-way speed of light, without synchronizing the clocks...

 

As simple as this problem is, it does not exist in the consciousness of most people today, because they keep hearing about all kinds of accurate values for speed of light. It is almost never mentioned that these measurements are actually referring either to average two-way measurements (use a single clock), or to Einstein convention of clock synchronization (the convention established in his paper; assume C to be isotropic in all inertial frames, and synchronize the clocks under that assumption)....

 

The significance of this development is that the transformation rules Lorentz came up with survive to this day as the central components of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity; that is why the relativistic transformation is called Lorentz transformation.  In terms of pure logic, Lorentz' theory and Special Relativity were effectively both valid. The difference was philosophical....

 

So getting to Special Relativity from that junction is literally just a matter of defining C to be isotropic, not because you must, but because you can. Setting C as isotropic across inertial frames is exactly what the entire paper about Special Relativity is about. Note that the language used in the paper is very much about how things are measured by observers, when their measurements are interpreted under the convention defined in the paper.

 

A typical knee-jerk reaction at this point is to argue that relativistic space-time is a necessary component by the time we get to general relativity, but that is actually not true.....Another reaction is to point out that different ontological interpretations of Relativity do not fall under the category of physics at all. This is true; but it is also true when it comes to relativistic space-time.

 

 

 

http://foundationsofphysics.blogspot.com/

Edited June 11, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

What's amazing to me is the number of people who seem to believe that there are no "assumptions" involved in SR.  Just "facts," ya know?

 

The convenient thing about that is that, when you are convinced you are making no assumptions, then there's no assumptions that you need to analyze or scrutinize.  Pretty simple, actually.

 

Mention some of the assumptions underlying SR, as you do in that post, Doc, and chances are that several ill-informed people will reflexively call you a "crank."   They feel fully justified in doing so, notwithstanding their lack of knowledge about the fundamental aspects of the theory, because they know many others will "high five" them and pile on.  As you say:

 

Unfortunately most people have a rather naive perspective towards Relativity, more revolving around ontological beliefs of space-time constructions, rather than the actual logical relationships that the theory is composed of

 

..

That is one reason I am immediately skeptical of anyone who claims they are making no assumptions.  It invariably turns out that they are not even aware of the assumptions underlying their beliefs.  If made aware, they will generally claim that the issues in question are indisputable, empirically-proven "facts," not assumptions.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Moronium

[Doctordick]

Clearly you just like to type things out and have no interest whatsoever in thinking. I had hoped you had more brains than that.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[OceanBreeze]

You guys simply cannot comprehend the actual problem your intellect is faced with solving. Every attack you bring up involves presuming you understand the information available to you. Consider an attack which presumes no beliefs whatsoever.

 

Yeah, I fully comprehend that starting from that position is totally incomprehensible to you. You all want to start with some set of beliefs you feel are valid. 

 

Suppose, for the sake of interest, a description of every publication which has ever existed (and every experience you have ever had) is available to you to examine; however the meaning of the expressions used to represent those experiences you have available to study is totally unavailable!  Exactly how would you attack that problem?

 

Yeah, I know; you haven't the slightest idea as to how to attack such a problem. What you need to comprehend is the fact that this is exactly the problem faced by every fetus upon their existence.

 

Think about that a little -- Dick 

 

The ignorance of humanity is utterly beyond belief!

 

"What you need to comprehend is the fact that this is exactly the problem faced by every fetus upon their existence"

 

May I assume then that  you subscribe to the view expressed by John Locke?

 

At birth the (human) mind is a "blank slate" without rules for processing data, and that data is added and rules for processing are formed solely by one's sensory experiences. (John Locke)

 

I find it difficult to agree with that viewpoint. It seems to me that there must be some framework that is innate to all fetuses, whether human or animal, that allows for some basic processing of thoughts, just as there is a boot program in all computers to get it up and running, without which it would just be an expensive brick.

 

My own sense is that billions of years of evolution has genetically pre-programmed all creatures with at least the basic abilities to learn the rest from nurture.

 

There is in fact an ongoing scientific debate on this exact subject, that is “Do newborns come pre-programmed, or are they blank slates? "We know that the adult brain is divided into separate functions, with different regions for different things. But there is still a controversy about how this happens,"

 

Scientists remain split between those who think that our brains develop this over time, through experience, and those who think our brains arrive into the world this way.

[OceanBreeze]

Clearly you just like to type things out and have no interest whatsoever in thinking. I had hoped you had more brains than that.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

That seems a bit harsh especially since the question you are asking may well be unanswerable.

 

Do you have an answer?

[Moronium]

Clearly you just like to type things out and have no interest whatsoever in thinking. I had hoped you had more brains than that.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

 

As always, Doc, you don't respond to a single question or make any attempt whatsoever to engage in any kind of discussion or exchange of ideas.

 

In effect you just say (as always):  "Looky here, Buster, I'm an utter genius and everyone here is a complete dumbass."

 

I'm sure that's a comforting thought to you.  Well, maybe I shouldn't use the term "thought," because it doesn't require any thinking.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

Clearly you just like to type things out and have no interest whatsoever in thinking. I had hoped you had more brains than that.

 

Have fun -- Dick

He doesn't. He's far more guilty than those he accuses of making assumptions and then working backwards from those misguided beliefs. He's fully convinced that his inability to understand certain aspects of reality is evidence of holes in the models rather than in his capacity to fully grasp them so he then deliberately and dishonestly quotes sources out of context in order to try to support his backward assumptions, over and over again again spamming multiple topics with literally the exact same bullshit. Nasty piece of work.

 

Having said that, I fully agree that scientific models are far too often presented as factual and fully supported by observation when a lot of the time that isn't really the case and the presumptions underpinning them are taken as a given rather as the assumptions they really are. When there's completing models in science, one has to come out on top and then that model is presented as fact with all the shortfalls glossed over and then it becomes almost impossible for a competing model that may well now be supported by far more evidence to displace the one that's already been accepted.

[Moronium]

I find it difficult to agree with that viewpoint. It seems to me that there must be some framework that is innate to all fetuses, whether human or animal, that allows for some basic processing of thoughts, just as there is a boot program in all computers to get it up and running, without which it would just be an expensive brick.

 

 

I fully agree with you about this, Popeye.  

 

Scientists remain split between those who think that our brains develop this over time, through experience, and those who think our brains arrive into the world this way.

 

 

Here again, this is not really a factual question.  It is a philosophical one which is generally "answered" by one choosing to believe whatever he is predisposed to believe.  From my viewpoint the attempt to implement the assumption that all problems can be solved by applying a mechanistic, deterministic, materialistic, reductionistic  methodology has been repeatedly shown to fail, whatever the subject matter.

 

But a reductionistic determinist can't see it any other way.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

From my viewpoint the attempt to implement the assumption that all problems can be solved by applying a mechanical, deterministic, materialistic, reductionistic  methodology has been repeatedly shown to fail, whatever the subject matter.

 

But a reductionistic determinist can't see it any other way.

Stop saying stuff I fully agree with! It's unsettling. :)

Edited June 11, 2018 by A-wal

[engcat]

DrDick is not attempting a deterministic solution but a probabilistic one.  

[Moronium]

Here's a quote from David Hume which I find both entertaining and insightful:

 

“Disputes between men pertinaciously obstinate in their principles are the most irksome.  The same blind adherence to their own arguments is to be expected in both; the same contempt of their antagonists; and the same passionate vehemence in enforcing sophistry and falsehood and, as reasoning is not the source from whence either disputant derives his tenets, it is in vain to expect that any logic, which speaks not to the affections, will ever engage him to embrace sounder principles.”  

 

 

I have often thought that one's "philosophical" beliefs depend far more on his personality, characteristics, emotional needs, etc., than it does on iron-clad logic.  For example, those who are extremely adverse to risk, individual responsibilty, and uncertainty will gravitate toward the adoption of a mechanistic, deterministic metaphysical ontology.  I won't try to apply this to Doc's case, but I imagine there is come connection nonetheless.

 

Here's another quote from Hume, worth reflecting on, I figure:

 

“Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.”

 

 

 

I especially like the 'and ought only to be," part.  Of course this sentiment seems to undercut the complaint he had in the first quote, but that (a lack of consistency) is nothing new with philosophers.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

DrDick is not attempting a deterministic solution but a probabilistic one.  

 

 

Could well be. My difficulty is that I can't figure out what "problem" it is that he's supplying a "solution" to.  But I have a feeling that, if I did, I wouldn't see it as a very significant "problem."  Either that, or else I would probably not agree that he had "solved" it.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Moronium

[engcat]

Could well be. My difficulty is that I can't figure out what "problem" it is that he's supplying a "solution" to.  But I have a feeling that, if I did, I wouldn't see it as a very significant "problem."  Either that, or else I would probably not agree that he had "solved" it.

 

It is probabilistic.  He said it explicitly in first post.

Scientific field has many problems, inconsistencies, in numbers theory, P/NP issues, unified theory, etc.  We are basically at the level of Pythagorean theorem, everything is based on that. He seeks to find a general equation from a different perspective, with no prior assumptions.  Even if the solution fails, the inquiry is valuable.

[Moronium]

 He seeks to find a general equation from a different perspective, with no prior assumptions.  Even if the solution fails, the inquiry is valuable.

 

 

Well, OK:

 

1.  As far as probability goes, how could we ever propose that the odds of a coin coming up "heads" is 50% without first making any number of assumptions about coins, chance, etc.  How could you assign a "probability" to anything without first making some assumptions about what it is and what things affect it?

 

2.  I'm sure my attitude pertaining to the connection between math and "fact" is somewhat different than Doc's.  For that reason alone, I would have far less interest in searching for some "general equation."

 

3.  I still don't know what problem he is trying to solve.  To the extent that he is purporting to eliminate all assumptions, it seems to me that he has, by proposing (however vague the form) a "theory" to solve the purported problem, already failed in that attempt.

 

To me, "eliminating" all assumptions does not mean:  "Just grant me and, accept, assumptions 1, 2, and 3 from me and everything else will following logically.  You won't have to make any "more" assumptions after that."

Edited June 11, 2018 by Moronium