Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle
An explanation records qualified information.  |
It appears to me that you misunderstand the issue of definition itself. The purpose of a definition is to allow discrimination; given a definition, one may examine a particular incident and certify (via that definition alone) that the incident is or is not a member of the set of things so defined.
Thus you are asserting that, if I examine some information and decide that the information is “qualified” (whatever the meaning of qualified might be; notice that you are leaving that issue open) then the information “is” an explanation! My original thesis was that an explanation did something to or for information which implies it is something quite different from mere “information”. So I have two complaints with your “definition”; first, that it essentially moves the definition into that other word (and I am pretty sure your intended meaning was “it qualifies as an explanation” which actually skirts the whole issue) and, second, it denies my suggestion without giving any reason for that rejection.
Now I am very willing to accept that "an explanation" can be "recorded" but a great many things can be "recorded" so that is not a very definitive characteristic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemit
I am curious about the genesis of this thread. Since the quote above could be inserted into almost any page of the "Spacetime" thread without being out of place, I can't help wondering if this is a response to something said elsewhere.
|
Of course you are right; I never post anything without it being a response to “something”. Just as an aside, I think just about anything could have been posted to the “Spacetime” thread without being out of place as it seemed to have no “thread” to it at all.
This thread has to do with someone trying to understand my original proof of my fundamental equation and I suggested I would start a new thread in an attempt to clarify the presentation of the paper
“A Universal Analytical Model of Explanation Itself” which was originally composed some twenty years ago. I suggested we could go through that paper paragraph by paragraph to clarify exactly what I was trying to say. My opening post to this thread is essentially a paraphrase of the opening paragraph which seems to be unclear to many people.
You can add your comments to this thread if you wish.
Have fun – Dick
