Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctordick
Hi modest, you seem to be awfully close to understanding what I am saying.
|
Thank you. I have understood fine everything you've said in this thread. Moreover, I've not yet disagreed with any of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctordick
That is why I suggest turning the proposed solution around. Instead of allowing only one specific answer, allow all possible answers and require the explanation to tell us if the obtained response were acceptable or not.
|
That's fine. If information is explained then the explanation provides a means of relating a subset of information (A) to another subset of information (B). With the explanation in hand a person could predict the contents of B given A and given some arbitrarily predicted B the explanation would say if it is indeed a valid prediction of A.
You seem to open up the possibility that there is more than one possible B given A and the explanation and I'd agree with that. I can certainly think of examples... so, yeah, I'm OK with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctordick
Your case, allowing only one specific response...
|
I really didn't mean to imply that, but given there are multiple valid predictions that can be generated with some information and an explanation, I'd agree the most concise way to express what we're saying would be: "given an arbitrary prediction, an acceptable explanation could tell us if that prediction were acceptable or not".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctordick
Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
So, I'd say it's true that "given an arbitrary prediction, an acceptable explanation could tell us if that prediction were acceptable or not", but that would not necessary mean the prediction would be correct.
|
Nowhere have Anssi or I suggested that any explanation under consideration was “correct”. What we said was that it was flaw-free, a very different matter. |
Good. Then we agree. I don't mean as a criticism that "given an arbitrary prediction, an acceptable explanation could tell us if that prediction were acceptable or not" does not
make the explanation correct [edit:does not mean the prediction is "correct"]. It's simply true, and you agree. So, there's no need for you to get along with your "you don't understand what I'm doing" thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctordick
This whole presentation has to do with designing a flaw-free explanation of arbitrary given information.
|
Good. That makes sense.
So, how do we model this explanation?
~modest
