Quote:
Originally Posted by Boerseun
How about the following:
|
My problem with what you say is that it is essentially “an approach by example”: i.e., it is not a definition (which I see as a prescription for determining membership to a category) but rather an approach which presumes one will eventually develop a definition on their own. It isn't a basis for deduction but is essentially a problem identical to the problem under discussion; the problem of understanding.
So, to get back to the issue under discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
Good. That makes sense.
So, how do we model this explanation?
|
It is very important that no possibility be eliminated: i.e., the model must be without any presumptions so there is a need to be careful. The first issue to be handled is the fact that we must allow for a change in the information being explained; no matter what is being explained, it is possible that we might obtain additional information and our model must accommodate that fact. That is where I develop my definition of time, a definition which is applicable to the analysis of any problem even if the conventional idea of “time” has no bearing on the problem.
I define time through the following procedure: I define “the past” to be the information to be explained, “the future” to be information not available and “the present” to be a change in the information available to be explained. (The concept “information” has not yet been defined; remember, we want to make no presumptions.) Under my definition of “the past”, the past can be seen as a collection of presents: i.e., we can start with no information and proceed to build the past from a collection of presents.
This definition seems to me to be the only way of encompassing the possibility of an explanation changing. The definition is applicable to examination of any information conceivable, even in a circumstance where the common idea of “time” is not considered pertinent, and yet the definition is perfectly in accordance with the common everyday concept of time: the idea of time being a sequence of “presents”; the idea that the past cannot be changed and, finally, the fact that the future is “unknown”. The last may seem to be a violation of the common everyday concept but, in actual fact, it is not. Anytime a “prediction” is made (under the presumption that the future can be predicted), a test of that prediction requires the circumstance to become part of the past before such a test can be checked. What I am getting at is the fact that the idea that the future can be predicted is an illusion; such an idea can never be tested as all tests merely certify that the past is consistent with the explanation, the test then being part of the past.
That last fact leads me to the idea of a “flaw-free” explanation: i.e., an explanation which is perfectly consistent with all available information. I am not asserting that any given explanation “is” flaw-free but rather that we need not concern ourselves with explanations which are not “flaw-free”. Discovery that an explanation is flawed (inconsistent with the past as defined) is sufficient to discount that explanation.
If you have any complaints with the above let me know and (assuming for the moment that they are misunderstandings) I will try clarify my intentions.
Have fun -- Dick
