Science Forums 2

[Doctordick]

God it was nice to hear from you again Annsi; your mind is so clear and open you are a wonder to behold. And both my wife and I loved that “Verizon Wireless Has Trouble With Math video. Although my work is admittedly much more complex than that fellows problem, I have, on many occasions, run into exactly the same kind of difficulty he had. Whenever I have actually gone to show the solutions to my equations, everyone (so far) uses distorted interpretations of my definitions (distortions expressed in their personal picture of reality: i.e., very akin to that .02 cents is the same as .02 dollars thing) to bring all discussion back to those definitions or simply contend that I am wrong. I distinctly have the impression that their true purpose was to find a way in their own head to ignore what I was saying so they wouldn't actually have to question their beliefs. That is exactly the kind of interactions I was referring to when I made the following comment to Buffy:

Originally Posted by Doctordick

So long as it is held to be a frivolous hypothesis, I have no intention of going forward. I have been there many times and I won't go there again.

Or when I refer to that “extra baggage”: i.e., trying to attach meanings to my representations when there are none. You seem to easily understand that issue. Thank you; I appreciate it very much.

Kriminal99, in case you have been wondering,I haven't been ignoring you; I simply find it quite obvious that you don't understand the issue of interest in this thread “What can we know of reality”. There is a problem here which everyone (save Anssi) seems determined to ignore. For example,

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

If I define honesty as "what people aren't when they knowingly fail to provide correct and useful information that someone needs to act upon".

You cannot so define honesty without first defining the words, "what”, “people”, “aren't”, “when”, “they”, “knowingly”, “fail”, “to”, “provide”, “correct”, “and”, “useful”, “information”, “that”, “someone”, “needs”, “to”, “act” and “ upon". Until I understand what you mean by those words, your definition is simply: honesty is “word #1”+ “word #2”+ “word #3”+ “word #4”+ “word #5”+ “word #6”+ “word #7”+ “word #8”+ “word #9”+ “word #10”+ “word #11”+ “word #12”+ “word #13”+ “word #14”+ “word #15”+ “word #16”+ “word #17”+ “word #18” + “word #19”.

The actual numbers I attach to those words is of utterly no significance. I could just as well have said: honesty is “word #25”+ “word #3303”+ “word #4399”+ “word #24”+ “word #7867”+ “word #2124”+ “word #675”+ “word #2”+ “word #345”+ “word #215”+ “word #2739”+ “word #2237”+ “word #10233”+ “word #2”+ “word #754”+ “word #390”+ “word #287”+ “word #5672” + “word #3490”. And, since I wouldn't know what you meant by the word “honesty” until after I understood your definition, I could simply express the information you intended to express in the above sentence as “word #8675” equals “word #25”+ “word #3303”+ “word #4399”+ “word #24”+ “word #7867”+ “word #2124”+ “word #675”+ “word #2”+ “word #345”+ “word #215”+ “word #2739”+ “word #2237”+ “word #10233”+ “word #2”+ “word #754”+ “word #390”+ “word #287”+ “word #5672” + “word #3490”.

In order to understand what you meant I would have to interpret a great number of very similar expressions (a sufficient number to understand the English language). Every year, millions upon millions of children manage to decipher that kind of information in only a period of a few short years (apparently coming up with very similar conclusions). That means the problem is solvable! And, the creation of AI will depend very seriously on being able to solve that exact problem. I am discussing inherent constraints on that problem expressed in a manner which does not presume your current answer (at time t) is correct but demanding that your current answer (at any given time t) is “flaw-free” (a rather different constraint). I use mathematics because it is the most unambiguous language available to me and we need a language to communicate. To quote Richard Feynman, “mathematics is the distilled essence of logic.” It is very nice that we possess such a language, limited as it may be.

That brings up another issue which I call “the power of ambiguity”. (See my post to saviourmachine February first 2005.)

Originally Posted by Doctordick

Yes, in the interactions of human beings, it has a very significant function. It allows them a great range of ambiguity in their dealings with one another. Without it many institutions essential to civilization might not even exist. Now, we could spend our entire lives discussing the "good" and "bad" aspects of that. Some people enjoy the freedom to quibble (it seems to me it drives most of the posts on this forum). In fact, that's why I thought you might be Harv. One very significant aspect of that ambiguity is that it prevents communication.

One of the excellent consequences of preventing communication is the fact that it is impossible to communicate beliefs from one generation to another. Misunderstandings will invariably occur and, in an attempt to make sense of what they think the previous generation is saying, new unique perspectives will arise. Without that ambiguity I suspect intellectual advancement would soon cease.

As Anssi says,

Originally Posted by AnssiH

Relevant as this may be, it is leading us away from the core of the topic...

Perhaps someone would like to start another thread devoted to the issue.

Originally Posted by AnssiH

The formulas are there just to extend our logical abilities. A mere tool. Like the formula for quadratic equation.

This is the very crux of my presentation; I am presenting a very small set of definitions (things which can be defined within any information set without saying word one about what that information expresses) and, from that set of definitions coming up with a mathematical tool capable of extending some rather simple logic to an almost infinite set of references. That's it, there is no more and there is nothing to “understand” except the problem itself.

Originally Posted by AnssiH

All it gives you is a way to express some constraints that need to be met by any internally coherent worldview you could ever make about reality (when that worldview is expressed in the form of the x, tau, t-plane).

Again, Anssi has hit the veritable nail on the head! He is a very bright fellow; how about giving him a little help with the mathematics.

And, Buffy, I can't give you any examples because I don't know how to solve the problem of understanding reality. Nevertheless, that equation imposes some very interesting constraints on the possible relationships which can exist; but we can't talk about them until we can solve the equation and I am not going to start down that road until I at least feel that you understand the difference between an undefined and a defined structure and the constraints being imposed by that equation. The concept is actually no more complex than the difference between .0002 dollars and .0002 cents.

Have fun -- Dick