Science Forums 2

[Rade]

In reading the first post on this thread, I find that it is false to suggest that first is needed 'something' to have an explanation. It is also possible to explain 'nothing'. Given that no definition of this 'something' is provided in OP statement, logically it must be assumed it is an existent, some 'thing' that exists. Explanation however is possible not only to the 'being' but also the 'nothingness'.

To begin a study of explanation itself, one must begin with a 'process' via communication. One does not begin with a 'something', the 'something' is after the fact of the process. Let me provide an example. Suppose you are asked to 'explain' to a child for the first time (for them and you) how to put together the pieces of a 10 piece puzzle. You do not begin your explanation with a 'something' (either the whole puzzle or any specific piece), you begin with communication of a process, in this example a process of a becoming. The explanation is not of some past information, but of the future process. It thus is false to claim that ...the past is defined as information to be explained...what needs to be explained is the process of how the present (the 10 puzzle pieces) evolve to the future (the puzzle as whole). The past requires no explanation, it requires understanding, which is a completely different concept.

For 'something', to have 'information', there must be constraint on variety, but, many 'something'(s) that I or he or she can categorize have absolutely no 'kind of information', thus it is false to claim that an explanation need do anything to (or for) information, as is claimed in the first post on this thread.

The study of explanation itself, after identification of a process, is to categorize the process. It thus follows that "an explanation" is communication that puts constraint on variety of different categories of process. The human mind (i.e., thought) does not DO ANYTHING TO (or for) INFORMATION, it is information (the constraint on the variety) that does something to the human mind (think of how the red-green-yellow information of the traffic light does something to your mind as you drive the auto).

Now, there are three types of processes (1) those of a becoming (2) those of a doing away with (3) those of staying the same. Thus it follows that there are three types of explanation: (1) those concerning the process of 'something' becoming in the future as relates to the present (2) those that involve the process of 'something' being taken apart (3) those that involve the process of staying the same. Thus, explanation itself is the sum over the history of all such possibilities of process.