Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctordick
First of all, in order to have an explanation, one needs something to explain. Whatever it is that is to be explained, it can be certainly be categorized as some kind of information. It thus follows that "an explanation" is something which is done to (or for) information. The central issue is then, if we are to define "an explanation" in general, we must lay down exactly what an explanation does to (or for) that information.
If anyone wants to discuss that issue, I will respond.
|
I agree with this paragraph and I'd be interested in discussing the issue.
You say that an explanation does something to (or for) information. I agree. I wonder if whatever definition we give "information", the explanation itself must also qualify as information under that definition. If that were the case then an explanation could be seen as additive. Let me explain,
I posit that an explanation transforms non-comprehensible and non-understandable information into comprehensible and understandable information. By this rational we could give qualities to unexplained information (were we to analyze it) such as not being able to predict a portion of the information from the remaining information or not being able to sort the information into patterns which exist within the information. The process of the explanation (whatever that is) would transform the information such that predictions about a portion of the information could be made given the remaining information and patterns within the information could be identified.
If the explanation is itself information then the transformation involves (but would not necessarily be limited to) adding information to the set of unexplained information. For example, here is some unexplained information:
1 1 2
2 2 4
3 3 6
4 4 8
To explain the information we add additional information:
1 + 1 = 2
2 + 2 = 4
3 + 3 = 6
4 + 4 = 8
Of course, this is not a complete explanation of arithmetic. It is only meant to represent a limited set of unexplained information vs. a set of partially explained information. My point being: one quality of an explanation is that it is additive. The set of unexplained information is necessarily smaller than an equivalent set of explained information.
I therefore propose that one thing which an explanation does to (or for) information is to expand its size.
Would you agree Doctordick, and what else would you propose the explanation does?
~modest
