The Problem with Science

[Qfwfq]

I don't quite agree with:

In their early life, children are not as smart as a normal human, nor do they have what a reasonable person would term “human consciousness”. They lack the ability to associate cause and effect, or form memories, in a way adults typically take for granted

Children are born with a strong drive to eplore the environment (look at Bill's avatar) and they have a need to make sense of it as quickly as possible. This takes a lot, but the brain has an initial structure which has evolved to make this process feasible. They react very much according to instincts. Ever heard the best way to teach a baby to swim? Many people who wish their children to become good swimmers just throw them into the water, a baby of a few months will automatically swim.

 

They are certainly not applying Dick's model to form their expectations.

[Doctordick]

Pray tell...

Tell what?

No, I was saying that a newborn baby's brain is not a tabula rasa.

And you don't understand; that is a belief which requires the validity of your world view for support: i.e., you are presuming your world view cannot possibly be wrong.

Even now, you continue to fail to recognize the important differences between the two.

But the distinction is quite clear!

But follow that comment up with a statement which vividly points out that you never comprehended the differences I was speaking of.

An animal that has touched a burning hot object will avoid ...

Why superstition? :xparty:

No superstition was ever arrived at by analytical examination of the available information. They all arise through inductive rationalization. Only people who don't believe these things recognize them as superstition. Your problem is that you are totally incapable of seeing your own superstitions.

Step 1: list givens

• My only source of information about the outside world is a light which turns off and on
  
• My only contact with the outside world is a switch which I can turn on and off
  

Step 2: list assumptions

• The data I can receive and send is digital (binary). I can’t decode or encode information about the duration of the light/switch off/on intervals
  
• I have a practically unlimited and perfect memory. I can remember every sequence of light flashes and switch flips necessary to solve the problem

Not necessarily, it's possible you might forget some of them. What is significant is that you only have the information you remember to work with; if you don't recognize some of the information available you certainly can not use it to develop your interpretation.

• I’m as smart as an average adult human being. I have “human consciousness”.
  
• My objective is not to get out of the box
  
• As an immortal being, I have no survival needs. My objective is not to obtain a particular data necessary for survival

Just to be objective here, have you considered the possibility that you might interpret some of those flash sequences to be life threatening? But that's just an aside. Fundamentally you have the right idea.

• I have some desire/objective. Doing nothing is not an acceptable solution to the problem given
  
• Absent survival needs, my objective is to turn the switch off and on in a way that results in light turning off and on in way that is pleasant.

Again, this requires an interpretation of those flashes: i.e., how do you define "pleasant".

From the context of the problem (and of Doctordick’s posts in general), I further assume that this pleasure will come from having understanding.

How would you feel about "control"? Not that it's important as there isn't much else for that entity in the box to do, but it strikes me as very similar to the old adage concerning obtaining the wisdom to know what can and can not be changed.

I’d approach the problem iteratively – that is, try one thing, then another, until I’m pleased. I’d try this first, based on the assumption that someone like me is outside, receiving my switch flips and causing my light to flash.

• Observe the sequence (of light flashes). Find a subsequence that occurs more frequently than any other. Call this subsequence D (for delimiter)
  
• Send a subsequence beginning and ending in D
  
• Observe the result (sequence of light flashes)
  
• Repeat, until the result matches my sent subsequence A
  
• Send the subsequence that resulted when I send A, B
  
• Send A again, with a D-delimited subsequence replaced with one from another subsequence
  
• Repeat until B contains the replaced subsequence
  

and so on.

Here you are getting into details which are clearly outside our ability to discuss here as we are talking about something which might run on to ten^twenty flashes. Could I make the suggestion that our best goal would be to "explain" what is causing the flashes? If that is the case, then our first step should be to define exactly what we mean by an explanation.

 

With regard to your complaints, can you prove to me that you are not immortal? Or is that just a theory based on your opinions as to what is and what is not a valid explanation of reality? Could it be a superstition? And you say "nervous systems do not process data as a stream of discrete binary digits". Have you considered what part of that could be simply a consequence of what you think is a valid explanation of reality? I am afraid that all of your complaints arise from excess faith in the validity of your world view. That is to say, your subconscious has provided you with a solution and you cannot comprehend the possibility your subconscious has made an error. But I won't say you have a closed mind as Qfwfq seems to think suggesting we should "think outside the box" is an insult. :hihi:

The problem with this assumption (assuming I understand it correctly :) ) is that without duration to the light being on and off then there is no pattern. It is on, then it is off, then it is on, etc. You need intervals for there to be meaning.

You are absolutely correct; however, it is somewhat overstepping the bounds to presume continuity in time. Let us say, instead that we have three states: light #1, light #2 and light #3. Where light #1 constitutes an "on", light #2 constitutes an "off" and light #3 indicates a separation between bits (we would also require three switches for the same reason). What is important is that the system can convey information without defining what that information is. A sequence of undefined symbols would be sufficient and a binary system is about the simplest set of symbols available. Sorry about that. :(

They are certainly not applying Dick's model to form their expectations.

Qfwfq, I am at a loss as to why I even bother to answer your posts. You invariably put a spin on the issues which points out that you simply have utterly no comprehension at all of what I am doing. I am not presenting a theory nor am modeling how people obtain their expectations (which would be a theory if such a thing were presented). What I have done is "solve a problem"; a problem you simply refuse to admit exists or perhaps refuse to admit is soluable. :friday:

 

The simple fact that we have "world views" (explanations of what happens to us) implies that they can be developed from totally undefined information. That is the problem that every scientist I have ever spoken to denies can be solved analytically. Well whether or not you believe that the problem exists matters not, it does and I have discovered an analytical solution and the solution points out some very interesting internal relationships. And I say again, those relationships are not theoretical in any way. Sorry if it happens to be over your head. :)

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Qfwfq]

And you don't understand; that is a belief which requires the validity of your world view for support: i.e., you are presuming your world view cannot possibly be wrong.

If I can't persuade you of it, I'm not going to waste too much time trying.

 

But follow that comment up with a statement which vividly points out that you never comprehended the differences I was speaking of.

How does "An animal that has touched a burning hot object will avoid ..." show what you say it does?

 

No superstition was ever arrived at by analytical examination of the available information. They all arise through inductive rationalization. Only people who don't believe these things recognize them as superstition. Your problem is that you are totally incapable of seeing your own superstitions.

This appears to be a misapplication of modus tollens, unless your meaning of superstition is what Popper means in his most extreme anti-inductivist arguments.

 

With regard to your complaints, can you prove to me that you are not immortal? Or is that just a theory based on your opinions as to what is and what is not a valid explanation of reality? Could it be a superstition?

Sheesh Dick!

 

But I won't say you have a closed mind as Qfwfq seems to think suggesting we should "think outside the box" is an insult.

I seem to think what? I'd say you are failing to distingush between what is tactful and what isn't. There are many ways to "suggest how we should think" and here at Hypography we welcome the most respectful ones.

 

Qfwfq, I am at a loss as to why I even bother to answer your posts. You invariably put a spin on the issues which points out that you simply have utterly no comprehension at all of what I am doing. I am not presenting a theory nor am modeling how people obtain their expectations (which would be a theory if such a thing were presented). What I have done is "solve a problem"; a problem you simply refuse to admit exists or perhaps refuse to admit is soluable.

No, I had only replied to your words:

Fundamentally, this is the problem solved by the millions of children born every year. Roughly, they seem to manage to decode the signals they get into something that makes sense to them in around a year.

by saying that we aren't born without certain inherited abilities and instincts. Part of what a baby sees and hears already has some instinctive significance, experience does not start from zero. The sight of a face, and various facial expressions, already have more meaning to a baby than a cardboard box or a clock, even when it first starts to focus. The same goes for voices and other sounds. Smile or croon, it'll feel comforted, scowl or talk sternly and it'll feel scared.

 

What is important is that the system can convey information without defining what that information is. A sequence of undefined symbols would be sufficient and a binary system is about the simplest set of symbols available. Sorry about that.

The simple fact that we have "world views" (explanations of what happens to us) implies that they can be developed from totally undefined information. That is the problem that every scientist I have ever spoken to denies can be solved analytically. Well whether or not you believe that the problem exists matters not, it does and I have discovered an analytical solution and the solution points out some very interesting internal relationships. And I say again, those relationships are not theoretical in any way. Sorry if it happens to be over your head.

Read the link Craig gave, it's a good source on what I had also mentioned, wondering if you have taken it into consideration in your musings. You might then reconsider your reply to my post. I wasn't talking ID there and you can be sure as hell that not many of us here are. How does a cell "know" how to decode DNA, and how does this get translated into phenotype? Are you quite sure that

The simple fact that we have "world views" (explanations of what happens to us) implies that they can be developed from totally undefined information.

?

 

What Craig and I have been wondering is along the lines of, is your fundamental equation useful regardless of the entropy of that flashing light signal? Supposing it had been put through an excellent data compression algorithm, how useful would your fundamental equation be in figuring out a meaning without knowledge of the coding?

[Southtown]

ughaibu is absolutely correct, my specification is no more than a binary representation of Plato's allegory. The issue is that a real problem exists there. The fact that I have discovered a logical solution to that problem is a significant fact.

Pray tell...

Tell what?

I asked for further comment toward your solution to the flashing light. You referred me to Plato, which seems to imply that the flashing light is only a shadow of the problem. Then you again said you had a solution. I was simply asking for that solution again.

[TheBigDog]

You are absolutely correct; however, it is somewhat overstepping the bounds to presume continuity in time. Let us say, instead that we have three states: light #1, light #2 and light #3. Where light #1 constitutes an "on", light #2 constitutes an "off" and light #3 indicates a separation between bits (we would also require three switches for the same reason). What is important is that the system can convey information without defining what that information is. A sequence of undefined symbols would be sufficient and a binary system is about the simplest set of symbols available. Sorry about that.

Again, to my point, 3 lights is no longer a simple binary system. You have a collection of inputs that when considered together begin to form the context of a message. A single binary stream of data is insufficient. And it is not representative of how the mind functions.

 

Dick, could you do us a favor and get past your presumptions of what we do not understand as a reason for not further clarifying what you have discovered? Perhaps if we saw the rest of what you are thinking we would see the light. :xx:

 

Bill

[Doctordick]

Again, to my point, 3 lights is no longer a simple binary system.

In essence it is. In order to represent a binary system you need three elements: something to represent the "1", something to represent the "0" and something to represent separation and order (without being able to represent separation and order, 10000 cannot be seen as different from 10). What is really at issue here is representing elements of information without defining that information.

You have a collection of inputs that when considered together begin to form the context of a message. A single binary stream of data is insufficient.

On this I am afraid we disagree but I don't think it is really important. A stream of referencable undefined input information can be forced into a reference stream of binary numbers. Computers do it every day.

And it is not representative of how the mind functions.

I never said it was. You are making exactly the same error as Qfwfq, you are making the presumption you understand what I am doing. I am not saying anything about how anyone comes up with their mental view of reality. All I am saying is that they have managed to construct a mental view given utterly nothing defined a-priori: i.e., constructing a mental view consistent with an undefined collection of inputs can be accomplished. I will say again, "I have discovered a method of constructing a mental view consistent with an undefined collection of inputs". I am making utterly no claim as to how this bears on what human beings do or what animals do. It is nothing but an analytical method of developing an explanation of undefined information which will be consistent with an arbitrary collection of reference-able inputs.

Dick, could you do us a favor and get past your presumptions of what we do not understand as a reason for not further clarifying what you have discovered? Perhaps if we saw the rest of what you are thinking we would see the light. :Guns:

What I am trying to clarify is the fact that the logic must begin with undefined information. All of you are simply trying to bring too much to bear on the issue. You are burying your mind in your current comprehension of reality and trying to apply it (i.e., what I am saying) to your current methods of finding answers.

 

From my perspective, the universe (and that includes everyone reading this and their hypothetical perspective) is a mental construct whose existence "explains" a lot of phenomena which go to make up my life experiences. Fundamentally, it's any explanation in a cold wind: i.e., I do not claim to have any superior knowledge of reality; I just go with my gut. However, my interests and what I want to understand is, what stands behind those explanations and what I can honestly depend upon. I really have very little interest in explaining anything; my subconscious does a fine job of coming up with explanations and, until specific flaws are detected within those superstitions (for that is what they really are) I won't worry about them being right or wrong; I just live by them.

 

Solving the problem of making successful decisions is not at all what I am about nor what my presentation is about. The only way any of you will ever understand what I am trying to communicate is to take my presentation "A Universal Analytical Model of Explanation Itself" one line at a time. Understand what is being said in each sentence of that deduction and you will eventually understand the final conclusion. You all seem to want to jump across the hard work of thinking about what I am saying and interpret it in terms of your current world view (your current superstitions).

 

Your positions strike me as being very analogous to wanting to be given the solution to a Sudoku puzzle. Having the solution to a Sudoku puzzle is almost worthless in terms of learning to solve one. All the solution does is prove that the problem can be solved. No method as to how a particular puzzle can solved can be deduced from the solution; in fact, having the solution is, in a way, an impediment to figuring out how to solve it.

 

I will be out of town and out of reach of the internet until the end of the month so this will be my last post for a while. Please read that presentation and stop at the first sentence which is not one hundred percent clear. When I get back, maybe you can have a question I can answer. If not, I can only presume you understand what I said and how I obtained my conclusions.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Qfwfq]

The only way any of you will ever understand what I am trying to communicate is to take my presentation "A Universal Analytical Model of Explanation Itself" one line at a time. Understand what is being said in each sentence of that deduction and you will eventually understand the final conclusion.

I've tried more than once.

 

Please read that presentation and stop at the first sentence which is not one hundred percent clear. When I get back, maybe you can have a question I can answer.

When I have asked you, I never get better clarification.

 

The trouble isn't really "the first sentence which is not one hundred percent clear" it's just that you don't define things clearly. The Sudoku-solving lies first in trying to piece your definitions into something that makes sense. By the time I get to sets C and D it just isn't clear and doesn't become clearer reading the appendices.

 

I get the impression anyway that it's something like a general model of pattern-spotting, it would be applicable so long as the ratio of actual distinct information to possible combinations isn't to high.

[Southtown]

Please read that presentation and stop at the first sentence which is not one hundred percent clear. When I get back, maybe you can have a question I can answer.

I think I lose it here first. What characterizes a subset of information?

"

I will suggest that what an explanation does for information is that it provides expectations of subsets of that information.

" --

A Universal Analytical Model of Explanation Itself

A grammar tip from a minimalist: 'I will suggest that an explanation provides expectations of subsets of information.'

[Qfwfq]

Well that sure is minimal!

 

Basically Dick means a subset, any subset, but an example of what his model is meant to handle is data samples. Each subset could for instance be the outcome of a run of an experiment. It could be a single observation.

 

Some of Dick's arguments are along the lines of Popper, such as arguing against the logical validity of induction, viewing physical "laws" as no more than a knack of predicting or expecting to observe a given outcome.

[clapstyx]

I couldnt tell what the hypothesis was as to "what is the problem with science" So far as I can tell it just doesent seem to be arriving at a position of absolute truth often enough, so that suggests that scientific method may be flawed in some way or its not pursuing the right objectives. Sure there may be money in perpetually researching the cosmos but whats the point to that. Couldnt you at least come up with a solution to balancing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere or something like that and when youve done your job on that worry about some galaxy far far away that realistically makes no difference whether it was created by a big bang caused by nothing in particular or a higher force of imaginative manifestation.

[perplexity]

I couldnt tell what the hypothesis was as to "what is the problem with science" So far as I can tell it just doesent seem to be arriving at a position of absolute truth often enough, so that suggests that scientific method may be flawed in some way or its not pursuing the right objectives.

 

The problem with science is not so much that it fails to arrive at a postion of absolute truth, but rather that it started from a position of presuming to know the absolute truth, i.e. the scientific axioms.

 

Given that a logical statement is never more valid than a premise it relies upon, if the belief in the axiom happens to be mistaken it would not then be so much of a surprise to fail to arrive at the ultimate truth, with a virtually endless number of cumulative conclusions which all depended in turn upon the same false premise.

 

-- RH.

[Doctordick]

Well folks, I am back. Seems to be not a lot of action while I was gone. And, while I was gone, I spent some time trying to understand Qfwfq’s confusion. I suspect it may be that he is totally misinterpreting what I am doing. On reviewing his comments, they seem to be consistent with the assumption that I am concerned with developing “an explanation or explanations” from my analytic definition of “an explanation”: i.e., he is attempting to understand how he is to apply my work to the problem of explaining things. The issue he seems to want clarified is, “how is one to use this material”. He is very perturbed by the lack of definitions because, without definitions, he doesn’t know how to apply what I say. :evil:

The trouble isn't really "the first sentence which is not one hundred percent clear" it's just that you don't define things clearly.

You are totally refusing to face the problem that any explanation of anything, at the fundamental level, must begin with complete lack of definition. :doh: Perplexity has touched upon this difficulty with his statement:

The problem with science is not so much that it fails to arrive at a postion of absolute truth, but rather that it started from a position of presuming to know the absolute truth, i.e. the scientific axioms.

 

Given that a logical statement is never more valid than a premise it relies upon, if the belief in the axiom happens to be mistaken it would not then be so much of a surprise to fail to arrive at the ultimate truth, with a virtually endless number of cumulative conclusions which all depended in turn upon the same false premise.

He is absolutely correct, proper science must begin with absolute ignorance. So long as we, “take these truths to be self evident”, we are discussing the consequences of belief in a religion, not the logical constraints on the true possibilities. To paraphrase Qfwfq:

[Puzzle]-solving lies first in trying to piece your definitions into something that makes sense.

From the fundamental level you are somewhat “putting the horse on the wrong side of the cart”. The first step is to establish “usable” definitions. This step is clearly achieved by induction and, as such, could very well be in error (the very essence of perplexity’s complaint). The serious question then is, exactly what can one say about “an explanation” without defining any properties of “what is to be explained”. As perpelexity has said, when it actually comes down to a functioning explanation, we clearly have “a virtually endless number of cumulative conclusions which all depended in turn upon the same false premise” (or something like that). :D

 

What I have discovered is that absolutely any explanation of anything must, if it is to be internally self consistent, be based upon fundamental entities (i.e., when one gets down to an irreducible level) which obey my fundamental equation. That is a fact, directly deduce able from my definition of an explanation. A rather uninteresting and seemingly useless piece of information.. Because, for Qfwfq’s information, nothing (except a rather trivial set of internal relationships) in the equation is defined! :circle:

 

However, when one begins to unravel the solutions to that equation (which, since the equation is a many body equation, is far from trivial), one discovers a rather astounding fact: all of the confirmed relationships held as the “laws of physics” turn out to be exactly the easily obtained approximations to those solutions. This carries with it a rather astounding conclusion: it makes no difference which of those infinite number of conceivable explanations one arrives at, when that explanation (whatever it happens to be) gets down to an irreducible level, it will be based on elements which will obey my equation (or it will be internally inconsistent with itself) Thus the correct laws of physics are very probably no more than the set of valid solutions to that equation. And that, is a rather profound discovery. :smart:

I get the impression anyway that it's something like a general model of pattern-spotting, it would be applicable so long as the ratio of actual distinct information to possible combinations isn't to high.

The relationships I discuss are applicable so long as C is finite. The set D, since it is a figment of your imagination (thus part of the explanation and not actually part of what is to be explained), can proceed on to infinity. :cool:

I think I lose it here first. What characterizes a subset of information?

Any information which is not “all of the information”. Elsewhere, you have considered the “digits of pi”. The “digits of pi” could be considered “information”. The first digit of pi is “3” is a subset of that information; 3.141592…is another “subset” of that information. :friday:

Basically Dick means a subset, any subset, but an example of what his model is meant to handle is data samples. Each subset could for instance be the outcome of a run of an experiment. It could be a single observation.

What my model is designed to handle is “explanations” not data samples. What the data samples are is defined by the explanation itself. And, what you must keep in mind, is that explaining your explanation is itself an explanation. As such it also is constructed from known elements C and presumed elements D (I am not in your head and I have to guess at your intentions even when it comes to the issue of meanings of words). All explanations are based on undefined and incomplete information and thus must be presumed to include assumptions. :confused:

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Buffy]

Oh my.

You are totally refusing to face the problem that any explanation of anything, at the fundamental level, must begin with complete lack of definition. ... proper science must begin with absolute ignorance.

...and lickety split you say:

The first step is to establish “usable” definitions.

:confused: :evil:

 

Yo, Dick! Did you catch that? "Usable definitions" ARE "axioms" and they are

... clearly achieved by induction and, as such, could very well be in error...

So when ya say:

What I have discovered is that absolutely any explanation of anything must...be based upon fundamental entities (i.e., when one gets down to an irreducible level) which obey my fundamental equation.

...it sounds just as circular as what you're claiming Q's argument is. Although it takes some mental gymnastics--similar to understanding quantum mechanics--there's *nothing wrong* with Axioms being unprovable, in fact they are by definition as you so eloquently go on to say. BUT...

 

Its seems to me that the problem here is not one of physics but of math (which I think you agree with): you're basically saying that Kurt Goedel is wrong, which would indeed be the discovery of the century. Please do tell us more about how

That is a fact, directly deduceable from my definition of an explanation.

I'd argue that you're just playing with words here as I don't think Q or I would disagree that:

when that explanation ... gets down to an irreducible level, it will be based on elements... it will be internally inconsistent with itself

(admitedly taken out of context on purpose)... and I argue that it is these "irreducible elements" that *must* be axioms. Moreover, depending on the subject matter, "irreducible" today may no longer be irreducible tomorrow, which allows those axioms to become provable *consequences* that no longer constitute axioms: that's fundamental to the Scientific Method! If this really is a "rather profound discovery," I'll argue that Incompleteness says your equation is bunk.

 

And notice I'm really agreeing with you:

I am not in your head and I have to guess at your intentions even when it comes to the issue of meanings of words...All explanations are based on undefined and incomplete information and thus must be presumed to include assumptions.

Eggsactly my dear Dick! No definitions, no agreement on how to interpret "explanations." In fact I'll argue that "explanations without definitions" is simply the process of manufacturing tautologies, which is no more interesting than debates about how many angels dance on the head of a pin. Now, maybe that appears illogical--it sure would be nice if the meaning of life the universe and everything were completely self-consistent and describable with its own model--but unfortunately, unless you can prove Kurt wrong, we have to deal with living in an illogical and incomplete reality.

 

Incompleteness is good,

Buffy

[Doctordick]

Hi Buffy,

 

It’s nice to hear from you again after such a long time. I think you are making some of the same errors as Qfwfq. Your juxtaposition of those two quotes with the comment

Yo, Dick! Did you catch that? "Usable definitions" ARE "axioms" and they are

... clearly achieved by induction and, as such, could very well be in error...

imply that you think I am proposing a method of achieving an explanation. I tried to make it clear that I am not. I am designing a model of an explanation; quite a different thing. The statements you quote are the exact reason that I must leave the sets A, B, C and D undefined (defining only the relationships between the sets; which is, once again, and analytic truth). Your and Qfwfq’s imperturbable impulse to see my work as a method of obtaining explanations is a very serious problem in communications here. :friday:

 

This is also exactly the reason I keep referring to mathematics as a language. In order to communicate, we need some common understanding. The advantage of mathematics is not that it is entirely a logical construct but rather that it is a language with the smallest possibility of misinterpretation: i.e., for thousands of years great minds have spent their lives trying to eliminate internal inconsistencies. Plus that it is the most universally understood language (at least by educated people). :xparty:

 

The point being that I need not worry about the possibility that the meanings you put on the symbols used for communication and the meanings I put on them might be different. I can be quite confident that a mapping exists such that you and I will agree with the outcome of procedures defined within the field, thus the “true” meanings are not really relevant. The fact that mathematics is also achieved through inductance is not near the problem in mathematical communications as it is in other “more common” language communications. It is also the reason complex social problems are difficult to express in mathematics. Most people would hold the difficulty as beyond solution; however, anyone who thinks AI is possible certainly does not. :shrug:

 

But, back to your complaints.

you're basically saying that Kurt Goedel is wrong, which would indeed be the discovery of the century.

No, I am not. Kurt Goedel said that true statements can exist within a mathematical system which can not be proved from the axioms of that system. In no way does that imply that nothing can be proved within the system. I have simply put forth a rather simple proof with far reaching consequences. :smart:

... and I argue that it is these "irreducible elements" that *must* be axioms. Moreover, depending on the subject matter, "irreducible" today may no longer be irreducible tomorrow, which allows those axioms to become provable *consequences* that no longer constitute axioms: that's fundamental to the Scientific Method! If this really is a "rather profound discovery," I'll argue that Incompleteness says your equation is bunk.

(The only change I might make in that comment is to replace “axioms” with “axiomatic”.) Clearly as errors are found in an explanation, the explanation must be changed, what I am talking about are invariant aspects of those explanations. So, let’s see your argument then. ;)

In fact I'll argue that "explanations without definitions" is simply the process of manufacturing tautologies, which is no more interesting than debates about how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

And I would agree with you one hundred percent. Again, it seems to me that the entire source of your problem is that you think I am presenting a method of obtaining explanations which I am not. :naughty:

 

And, secondly, what I have presented is indeed a tautology and I personally, as a trained physicist, was quite surprised to find that it reproduces all the experimental results verified by modern physics. That can certainly be taken to imply that modern physics is nothing more than a very complex tautology and what would suggest more uncertainty in the universe than that? It is the fact that we must deal with an illogical and incomplete reality which is the very basis of my deduction. As I have been trying to communicate to all of you, the sets A, B, C and D are undefined. The sum, C+D, are indeed axiomatic to your explanation and my deduction does not depend upon what they are. It depends only on the fact that they can be referred to. How can you have an explanation with axiomatic elements you cannot refer to? :confused:

 

If you want to argue with my equation, you need to find an error in the deduction not just reject it because it is not consistent with your beliefs. That’s a religious position. If you have any real logical arguments, I would certainly like to hear them. ;)

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge.

 

Daniel Boorstin

[HydrogenBond]

I am a scientist and I like science. Science tries to back up its claims with data and logic. This approach creates a meeting of the minds, since others can run experiments, independantly, and reach the same results. This is often not an option with subjective areas of knowledge.

 

On the negative side, science gets dogmatic and beaurocratic. In other words, if what we currently know is the final truth, science should retire and go to Disney World. But every scientist knows there is a lot more to learn. But inspite of that, many cling to current thinking like it is the final truth, i.e, dogmatic.

 

This has a psychological impact on science. If one treats a stepping stone as the final truth, one lives in the world of half truth. This creates dogma and beaurocracy. With the repressed irrationality making science less than open to progressive thinking.

 

If science was truly objective, instead of defending stepping stones like final truth, it would be anxious to know new ways of looking at things so science can proceed forward faster. This is not how science works.

[Buffy]

...you think I am proposing a method of achieving an explanation. I tried to make it clear that I am not. I am designing a model of an explanation; quite a different thing.

Well, maybe you need to "explain" yourself here. I *think* I understand that you're proposing a "model" of explanations, and I'd agree that a "method for constructing an instance of that model" is a different thing. Having such a method is not necessary to formulating a valid model, however having a well defined model is a necessary prerequisite to constructing a method that creates an instance! If you're not interested in the method, that's fine. Newton wasn't interested in a method for implementing gravity but his model worked pretty darned good for a long time. No problem here.

 

I'd disagree though that I'm arguing about a method to implement your model. I don't see that you've proposed one. Moreover, Incompleteness is specifically relevant to your desire to construct a model.

 

Your key claim is that your model of explanations requires no axioms whatsoever. Except for trivial systems, Incompleteness says that axioms are always required in order to prove at least *some* true instances. That is, for your model, either there is at least one instance that cannot be proven within the model, or the model is inconsistent. You are claiming that the model is complete yet has no unprovable instances. Notice I've said nothing about any methods for constructing such instances. Notice also that I really don't have to even understand your model to argue this, unless a corollary of your theory is that it disproves Incompleteness.

Your and Qfwfq’s imperturbable impulse to see my work as a method of obtaining explanations is a very serious problem in communications here. :wave:

Indubitably. I'd say Q and I are not the only guilty parties! :)

The advantage of mathematics is not that it is entirely a logical construct but rather that it is a language with the smallest possibility of misinterpretation:... I need not worry about the possibility that the meanings you put on the symbols used for communication and the meanings I put on them might be different. I can be quite confident that a mapping exists such that you and I will agree with the outcome of procedures defined within the field, thus the “true” meanings are not really relevant.

Except that your affirmative data appears to be your mapping of this model onto theories in Physics, and as I'm sure you'll agree, that's a transition into *applied* mathematics, which opens the very Pandora's box you are claiming to avoid. There's nothing wrong with this approach--in fact I'd argue its the only way to really show the validity or weaknesses of your model. But you must recognize that this *still* does not constitute finding "methods for constructing explanations."

...what I have presented is indeed a tautology and I personally, as a trained physicist, was quite surprised to find that it reproduces all the experimental results verified by modern physics. That can certainly be taken to imply that modern physics is nothing more than a very complex tautology and what would suggest more uncertainty in the universe than that?

And there you have it: a tautological model is always true no matter what the inputs are. I don't actually need to even refer to a specific instance let alone a method for constructing it to "explain" that this implication is entirely fallacious. A tautology is always true! How could it possibly imply anything!

 

The bottom line here is that you appear to have constructed a model that is entirely content-free: sure its always true, its always true by design. Kurt would dismiss it as an wholly incomplete model and entirely trivial to boot. So why should anything of importance be ascribed to it?

 

It seems to me that Q's shown you a bunch of places where your use of terminology is vague not because its not refering to an instance but simply because its *meaningless* on its own as a part of the description of your model! Your insistence on making either false accusations (e.g. the "you're just talking about methods"), ignoring arguments completely, or dismissing us all as too simple-minded to get what you're talking about, really doesn't help your case. And I'll assure all of you that at least I am not a member of the vast dogma-wedded conspiracy to stifle and impurify new theories! If you would like to find examples of imperious, dogmatic presentation, you don't have to go past your own firewall to find them! :)

 

Now you're obviously a smart guy, and while I've known smart guys who are completely incoherent (tenured profs at major universities!), I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Engage us as the simpletons that you think we are: if you're really smart, you'll figure out a way to explain it so that even we can figure it out. :)

 

I can understand why this might be a problem though, because as you say:

All explanations are based on undefined and incomplete information and thus must be presumed to include assumptions.

and as one wag who PM'd me about this thread said "I'm really looking forward to Dr. Dick explaining how to explain an explanation." I hope your explanation of your model of explanations is not inconsistent or incomplete! :)

 

Completely curious,

Buffy

[Doctordick]

Actually, I find it very difficult to interpret your intentions here. Exactly what is moving you to make this post seems to be beyond my comprehension. :wave:

I am a scientist and I like science. Science tries to back up its claims with data and logic.

That’s nice but I don’t know if I believe you. I have found that most scientists discard logic when it serves their purposes. Most people (and that includes scientists) tend to prefer avoiding thought when it goes against their beliefs; particularly if their income depends upon their conviction. That is why most scientific advances are made with regard to issues of no concern to the public. The concern always comes later; after the discovery has yielded saleable products. :)

This approach creates a meeting of the minds, since others can run experiments, independently, and reach the same results.

The flaw here is that people tend to presume that the paradigm which lead to those results is “truth” and cease looking for alternate explanations. This is how science degenerates into religion. After all, do you really believe all those scholars of the dark ages really comprehended they were creating tautologies? They believed their basic world view was valid exactly as do the typical modern scientists. :)

This is often not an option with subjective areas of knowledge.

Yes, and “organized science” tends to become decidedly subjective when their income begins to depend upon their beliefs. :lol:

On the negative side, science gets dogmatic and bureaucratic. In other words, if what we currently know is the final truth, science should retire and go to Disney World. But every scientist knows there is a lot more to learn. But in spite of that, many cling to current thinking like it is the final truth, i.e., dogmatic.

I think that is exactly what I have just said. :)

This has a psychological impact on science. If one treats a stepping stone as the final truth, one lives in the world of half truth. This creates dogma and bureaucracy. With the repressed irrationality making science less than open to progressive thinking.

And I find nothing there to argue with. :)

If science was truly objective, instead of defending stepping stones like final truth, it would be anxious to know new ways of looking at things so science can proceed forward faster.

And I am certainly providing a new way of looking at things and find the fight with “dogma” and “bureaucracy” rather unyielding; even when it comes to supposedly open minded individuals. Apparently education is an extremely mind numbing phenomena. :D

This is not how science works.

And this is where you totally lose me. I have absolutely no idea as to what the word “this” refers to here. :doh:

 

Have fun -- Dick