Quote:
Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve
I'll continue on with the rest later.
|
Am I to presume that you have already expressed your problems with my post twelve to this thread? That would be that you understand and agree with the rationality of the remainder of that post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctordick
The absolute first step in that analysis is to recognize that, under my definition of an explanation, there exists only one explanation which requires no epistemological construct at all. That is what I call the ”what is”, is “what is” explanation. That explanation amounts to nothing more than a table of ontological elements available at a specific time. It is a table of the x indices associated with each t index which constitute the past (what is known). A flaw free ”what is”, is “what is” explanation is one which is consistent with the known past. (A valid ”what is”, is “what is” explanation would be one which was a table of valid ontological elements available at each specific t.)
One problem with the ”what is”, is “what is” explanation is that it gives us not a hint as to what to expect; but that does not mean that it yields no expectations. The expectations yielded by the ”what is”, is “what is” explanation are: exactly what was seen so long as the index t refers to the past and exactly equal probability for all possibilities when the index t refers to the future.
If one's expectations are to be seen as given by a mathematical function of those points defined by the indices in that (x,t) plane then the abrupt change in the nature of that function at the boundary of the past (i.e., the function changes abruptly in what has been defined as the present) is a very interesting phenomena. It is essentially equivalent to the phenomena often referred to as “the collapse of the wave function: our expectations go from zero everywhere (from a mathematical perspective, the (x,t) space is continuous so equal probability for every point is exactly zero) to one for every entry in our ”what is”, is “what is” table of indices and zero for every point not in that table.
Note that the above analysis is valid for all pasts within the referenced data. Prior to any specific present becoming part of “the past” the expectations are exactly as describe in the previous paragraph (there is no prediction) and immediately after that present becomes part of the past the entries in the table become fixed (and the actual indices in no way contradict the expectations as they could have been anything).
What makes that explanation “flaw free” is that it yields exactly the ontological elements upon which it is built (including the temporal relations). What makes it worthless is that it makes utterly no usable prediction. What makes it interesting is that it defines exactly what kind of conditions any “flaw free” explanation must fulfill: it must match the ”what is”, is “what is” table exactly. The only difference between a valuable explanation and our ”what is”, is “what is” explanation is that the “valuable” explanation yields non uniform expectations outside that defined ”what is”, is “what is” table: i.e., it establishes some kind expectations above and beyond “anything goes” and gives non zero expectations outside the established past (it is capable of making predictions).
If you have arguments with what I have said, I am ready and willing to defend them further. If you feel my deductions so far are rational and acceptable, I will precede further.
|
I actually find it somewhat difficult to believe that you see the above as a totally uncontentious presentation. Qfwfq, if you are still reading this, do you find the above clear and reasonable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
But it's very interesting, so I thought I would add my thoughts to it.
|
Snoopy, I am very happy to see you find the discussion interesting; however, if you carefully review your post, I think you will find it to be a list of things you think are true. The central theme of this presentation is that thinking something is true is of no consequence (outside of mathematics which is being used as a language here under the presumption that the definitions and operations defined under mathematics are the most agreed upon collection of concepts available to us). The construct I am designing is to be applicable to any set of beliefs; sort of like the Dewy Decimal System for enumerating library volumes is designed to be applicable to any publication. If that goal is not clear to you, let me know and I will try to clarify my meanings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve
Why don't we just say that we'll deal with causality later.
|
Speaking of causality, it is also possible to conceive of an explanation which would require some established future to be drawing us towards a fixed outcome. Not that I am proposing such a thing but rather that, unless we can prove such a thing is not possible, our representation must be capable of accommodating such an explanation. The central point being that “causality” is a component of one’s epistemological constructs and not a phenomena required of an underlying valid ontological reference.
Have fun -- Dick
