Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctordick
I am afraid that you have misinterpreted what is meant by “the past is the information available”.
|
Perhaps. Seeing the past defined as "information to be explained" along with the qualifier that additional information could be added and then the deduction "This definition seems to me to be the only way of encompassing the possibility of an explanation changing."... threw up a bit of a red flag in that I could conceive of a slightly different way of encompassing the possibility of change—or at least a different way of defining it.
But, it was only your definition of past, present, and future which I was questioning as assumptive. That may be completely beside the point, as I find this very agreeable:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctordick
Change in information is change in information; the actual “t” index assigned to that change in information is an open issue. I have not defined that assignment. The actual assignment is to be provided by the explanation. The definitions, as I have given them, are still open.
|
This sounds good. I can certainly agree that modeling change (any kind of change) requires an index (some kind of ordering).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctordick
Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
Without advocating a definition of time, I’ll just point out (as you well know) this lowering of entropy amounts to an arrow of time opposite what physicists normally attribute our universe.
|
Yes, I am quite aware of this issue and I actually find it to be a distraction from the central issue. I hope you can recognize the problem embedded in the attitude expressed here. |
A bit perplexing. My use of "entropy" and "arrow of time" were an attempt to explain an example of what I meant by "loss of information" and "pastward" which themselves were presented only as a counterexample. If I was raising an issue or expressing an attitude with that example then I am unaware of it and I do not recognize the 'embedded problem'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctordick
Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
I'd really like to know you understand what I mean before moving on.
|
Of course I think I do; however, it is your opinion which of interest here. Do you think I understand what you mean? |
Yes, and I consider this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctordick
Change in information is change in information; the actual “t” index assigned to that change in information is an open issue. I have not defined that assignment. The actual assignment is to be provided by the explanation. The definitions, as I have given them, are still open.
|
to have set the issue straight. So... what's next...
~modest
