Quote:
Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve
DoctorDick: Then how do you intend to predict? If T(a) > T(now), it's representative of the future or that implies the prediction does it not? I'm afraid that the mistake I'm making, have made and probably will continue to make... is to try and fit stuff into my world view.
|
Maybe so, maybe not. We will have to get into that later as it is difficult for me to unravel what is going on in your head. I will try to make the issue of predicting a little clearer down the road, at the moment I am headed out of town and really don't have the time to detail that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve
You implied that a was finite. It consists of all past presents. And as each moment passes, we add a new plane to the matrix, or am I missing something else here?
|
That is true; however, it is the explanation which does the predicting. At the moment, we are not discussing any specific explanation and the indices are no more than arbitrary labels. They will only cease to be arbitrary when referenced as specific: i.e., as in an explanation. The only order specified here is the increase in the information available to us (t is an index on our change in knowledge); it is not necessary that the information we learn be seen as being attached to the time we learn it. The explanation might very well interpret a certain set of information tagged with a given t index should be assigned to a totally different time. In fact, one of the important issues here is that our solution to the problem should be based on what we know, not necessarily on the order that we came to know it. In the final analysis, the explanation includes assigning specific values to all the indices mentioned in the argument so far.
I hope that clarifies the issue – Dick
PS I will be out of town for the next month and won't always have direct access to the web so I might not be too prompt with my responses.
