Science Forums 2

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

Your comment is that all I know of reality is “three pairs of numbers” or, if one includes post #90 you could add three more pairs. That means the information consists of twelve valid ontological elements. Since you have apparently decided that the order of the pairs and the order of the exchange is known (i.e., the information on which to build your model has increased), there exists but one element in each plane. The only rational conclusion is that there will probably be another down the road. My analysis needs to be working with “all of the information” available and the problem you have presented contains such a dearth of information that practically no conclusions of value can be arrived at. There isn't even enough information there to conclude those ontological elements are numbers. This is exactly what I was talking about when I said, “Your example is chock full of assumptions (presumed valid ontological concepts) which you take no trouble to explicitly list (because the size of such a list would probably be beyond accomplishment)”.

It took me a while to find this useful paragraph in the plethora. What I wanted was for you to DO it, for the numbers and forget about the rest of the spy's universe. You can add anything that's in the story that you consider essential and specify anything else that would be needed, but I wasn't asking you to do what you're making out. It's of no use to me if you tell me to build the planes, I need to know HOW you build them and then how you get the constraints, in the latest form you put them into, which I'm not yet able to justify. There's no point in asking people to believe the validity of these constraints and accusing them of denial and of fighting you tooth and nail to deny the possibility that “there always exists an interpretation of any flaw-free explanation of reality which will obey your equation" if you don't help us get through the arguments.

I'm not asking you to provide more links to a sequence of long past posts that I have no time to go through. Try to say the essential and don't accuse me of misunderstanding, just try to help me get the details straight. The problem is that we always run into semantic troubles and you don't earnestly throw the bridge, which would be up to you. In the above quote for example I see the discrepancy in what you meant about assumptions and what I understood it to mean, in the English language. You did not mean what you said: “Your example is chock full of assumptions...” but instead that I didn't describe all the spy knows about his entire universe. It's also a semantic discrepancy when you say the model can't be applied to "specific examples" when instead you meant the same as above. When you say:

Originally Posted by Doctordick

You actually mentioned, “a spy”, “is sent”, “to gather”, “intelligence”, “for”, “planners”, “attack”, “against”, “a castle”, “they”, “need”, “to know”, “how”, “fake”, “patrol” “guard”, a “patrol commander”...

and the further thing you said to Krim:

Originally Posted by Doctordick

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”.

I know exactly what you mean and I've been aware of it for a long time, so have other people; I found an amusing example in one of Hofstadter's books where he illustrates the idea with the word "love". He takes a dictionary definition of the word and then replaces even only the most essential words of it with their definitions in the same dictionary and maybe even the next recursion of this process. This results in an entire paragraph, about which he remarks "How romantic!". Obviously there's no point in continuing with further replacements.

When babies are being brought up properly, words are repeated to them while they are being shown simple things, until they start to make associations. I can remember when I was already old enough to speak fairly well but had difficulty understanding the difference between cat and dog when being shown some real live ones running around a yard. I remember figuring that it seemed like cats have rounder heads while dogs have a snout and the dog was maybe a bit larger, then they pointed out to me that dogs bark while cats meow, I was also told about how they differ in when they wave their tails. It was still somewhat confusing to me.

However, when I posted the story, and said all that I said about it, I was using a well known language called English, expecting it to be understood by members of this forum including DoctorDick. I wasn't "making assumptions" I was using words that we all already know the meaning of. I took this great humongous liberty only to make it a humanly possible feat, it wasn't a matter of arrogance on my part. I was only attempting to accomplish the possible, instead of the impossible. My humble apologies.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

This whole exchange is nothing if not tiresome. You all seem to think that I am saying something that I am not saying; you are all looking for applications of my ideas within your personal paradigm. All I ask is that you admit that it appears to be a true representation of reality under my definitions: i.e., there exists a paradigm where my equation is a valid representation of certain specific constraints on reality.

Yes it is tiresome and I can't waste too much time either, try to throw the bridge instead of expecting it from everyone else, and accusing them of things.

The story with the spy isn't my personal paradigm, it is a fictional story, it may be regarded as existing in a fictitious universe which may even be similar to yours in many respects, compatibly with what the story specifies. Anything the story doesn't specify is a degree of freedom for you. I did not ask you to build the complete "what is, is what is" table for that universe, only one that includes the specified pairs of numbers and whatever you will, that can either be made out from what I (the story's author) posted or compatibly chosen and, if you should so deem, suggest anything specific that should be added (like, perhaps, we would need to know what kind of tubs they bath their feet in). Surely you can do it with some information, as if it were all the available information. Specify what the arbitrary labels are and how the mapping may be chosen. Show me what is consequential, I need to catch up with Anssi before his math skills improve enough to get him even further ahead.

I would further like to clear up a misconception to avoid it adding confusion to the discussion:

Logic does not depend on reality. Mathematics is a type of constructing on logic and certain definitions, in essence choices, and therefore does not depend on reality. Logic and mathematics are not a belief about reality. Whether or not the definitions are chosen to describe some aspect of (a given) reality (in a given universe) is of no whatsoever concern to a mathematician. Reality is of no influence on the validity of mathematics; any valid mathematical construct is valid "in" any reality or universe.