What I believe an explanation is!

[arkain101]

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'.

I read through your whole post, but I had difficulty understanding some of your original thoughts.

Can you provide such an example?

Lastly, this topic is DD's effort to communicate fully what "he" thinks an explanation is. I assume he expects our contradictory thoughts to patiently wait until DD's effort is complete, or possibly be directed to another topic all together.

You supply information worth discussing in my opinions, however, as I have been reading through this topic, the main purpose is to follow DD's process of step by step confirmation and understanding untill he has fully explained this belief he has in an successful process of communition.

[Doctordick]

Hi modest, I am sorry to be so slow in responding but I wanted first to be confident that I had done the best of my abiltiy to be clear. I have just changed the opening entry on the WikipediA page, UniversalExplanation, to the following:

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.

Many people have put forth the idea that an explanation makes information understandable. This idea requires one clarify exactly how the existence of understanding is to be determined. This is a problem faced by every teacher in the history of the world. They attempt to discover the answer to that question by testing their students. The tests can easily be seen as an interaction where the teacher provides some information and then examines the students response to that information. If the student's response is consistent with the possible responses the teacher would give to the same information, then the teacher will presume the student understands the information. So the central issue of understanding anything is obtaining results in “agreement with expectations”.

In accordance with that observation, I will define “what an explanation must do for information” as “it must provide expectations of subsets of that information”. That is, it seems to me that if all the information is known, then any questions about the information can be answered (in fact, that could be regarded as the definition of "knowing"). On the other hand, if the information is understood (explainable), then questions about the information can be answered given only limited or incomplete knowledge of the underlying information: i.e., limited subsets of the information. What I am saying is that understanding implies it is possible to predict expectations for information which is not known and that an explanation of that information constitutes a method which provides one with those rational expectations for unknown information consistent with what is known.

Thus I define "An explanation" to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information.

It follows that a model of an explanation must posses two fundamental components: the information to be explained and the mechanism used to generate expectations for possible additional information. The first fundamental component is, "what is to be explained"; thus our first problem is to find an abstract way of representing any body of information. One very important characteristic of the “information to be explained” is that our general model of an explanation needs to be able to accommodate to changing information for two reasons. First, if our explanation cannot accommodate to changing information, it can not explain anything which is not already known and, second, any explanation which does not allow a change in information presumes we are all knowing, a rather extreme constraint for a general model.

Thus I define three concepts; the first I call “the past” which consists of the known information, the second I call “the future” which consists of what is not known and finally, “the present” which consists of a change in what is known. Under these definitions, the past can be seen as a collection of presents. Since the information available to be explained must be finite, it can be ordered and I will define the ordering index to be “time” which I will represent with the letter “t”.

which I hope is a clearer expression than what I had before. If anyone has any suggestion which they think would make what I am saying clearer, I would appreciate it.

Except for Rade that is, as I am really not interested in “explaining nothing” as it seems to me to be a rather worthless effort; I have always been told that an explanation which explains nothing is called BS. Besides that, without possessing at least the knowledge of these seven letters, “N-O-T-H-I-N-G”, I can not comprehend how Rade would begin an attempt to explain “nothing”.

Originally Posted by modest

I can certainly agree that modeling change (any kind of change) requires an index (some kind of ordering).

This comment raises one important issue which is worth talking about. Given an arbitrary set of things, the idea of “ordering” them (essentially the concept embedded in an “index”) can not be accomplished if the number of things in the set is infinite. One should remember that the original definition of “infinite” (and the one I use) is that, no matter how many you have examined, there are more which you have not examined (such an examination can not finish). Thus it is that suggesting that the “presents” going to make up “the past” can be indexed implies that the number known is finite. The same issue goes for the number of “valid” elements making up any specific present. The information upon which any explanation is based must be finite; however, since one must always include the fact that, no matter how much information we have to work with, the possibility of new information must be included implies that the information we are trying to explain is actually infinite (considerably more than “nothing”). Seriously, I don't think Rade has any comprehension of what Anssi and I are talking about.

Originally Posted by modest

So... what's next...

To begin with, I am now operating under the presumption that you have no real arguments with what I have said in the opening of this post. (Having no real arguments is not equivalent to agreeing that what I have said is clear; if you, or anyone else, have any comments on that issue I am interested.) Meanwhile, the central issue is still to “find an abstract way of representing absolutely any body of information”.

In order to open that issue, I would like to begin with what I think is the simplest explanation conceivable: that would be the ”what is”, is “what is” explanation. (By the way Rade, as explanations go, I think that one covers explaining “nothing” pretty well. ) My approach will be to generate a general explanation by means of a subtle string of modifications of that explanation. The issue of interest in starting with that explanation is that the whole problem is exactly, “finding a way of representing the body of information”.

Philosophers long ago established an important conceptual dichotomy, ontology vs epistemology. Ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist and epistemology deals with the means of production of knowledge: i.e., the explanations based upon that ontology. Essentially the fundamental information consists of ontological elements. All epistemologies are constructed from such ontological elements of some kind or another. In the ”what is”, is “what is” explanation, there are no epistemological constructs; if we know the ontological elements, we know the explanation. So all we need is a language to label those ontological elements. In order to keep that language simple and absolutely general, I propose using numerical labels as the method of referring to those ontological elements.

At this point, “the past” (that which is to be explained or the collection of presents) is a labeled set of ontological elements and the explanation itself is that self same set of labels. The first thing I want to bring forth is the fact that the labels of the ontological elements are themselves a fundamental part of any explanation. If you have no way of referring to those ontological elements (or whatever title you wish to place on the known information) then you cannot build a epistemological construct based upon them. In effect, once you tell me we are discussing a specific explanation, you are confirming the existence of a set of specific labels you have placed upon these elements. In a ”what is”, is “what is” explanation, that same specific set of labels constitutes your explanation. Using numerical labels is no more than a convenience and constitutes no assumption concerning the character of those elements.

A very important subtle problem appears to exists in that set up. The problem arises from the fact that we are using exactly the same list for two different purposes. We need to maintain the actual conceptual difference between the two roles. The best way to do that is to think of the “explanation list” as a different thing from the “information list”. From that perspective, we can conceive of “having the explanation list” (no mention of how that result was achieved) without actually having the “information list”. If that is the case then it is possible to conceive of a information list which consists of less than the explanation list. This allows the ”what is”, is “what is” explanation to fulfill the single most important role required of an explanation: it provides a method of obtaining expectations from given known information. All we need do is look at our list.

Let me know exactly what problems you find with this assertion.

Originally Posted by arkain101

Lastly, this topic is DD's effort to communicate fully what "he" thinks an explanation is. I assume he expects our contradictory thoughts to patiently wait until DD's effort is complete, or possibly be directed to another topic all together.

If you delay confirmation of your understanding until I finish, I am afraid my arguments are lost. I need your complaints as I present what I present. The chain of logic is not exactly "short".

Logic is the only connection between “what is” and “what can be!”

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

Originally Posted by arkain101

I read through your whole post, but I had difficulty understanding some of your original thoughts.Can you provide such an example?

Sure--nothing new about philosophic explanation of 'nothingness'--see this link to thinking of Sartre.
SparkNotes: Jean-Paul Sartre: Being and Nothingness

And of course, DD has no idea any of this type of philosophic thinking by Sartre, and the fact that it completely negates his attempt to define 'explanation', as we see from his comments below, posted here:

Originally Posted by Doctordick

...Except for Rade that is, as I am really not interested in “explaining nothing” as it seems to me to be a rather worthless effort; I have always been told that an explanation which explains nothing is called BS. Besides that, without possessing at least the knowledge of these seven letters, “N-O-T-H-I-N-G”, I can not comprehend how Rade would begin an attempt to explain “nothing”.

Well, about all I can say is, while DD may find Sartre thinking about explaining 'nothing' to be a "rather worthless effort", Sartre most certainly would find the many errors in logic presented here by DD to be so. Which then explains why I find it rather silly to suggest that no one that reads this thread should not identify BS when it is so presented, which is clearly also a goal of DD.

[modest]

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.

Many people have put forth the idea that an explanation makes information understandable. This idea requires one clarify exactly how the existence of understanding is to be determined. This is a problem faced by every teacher in the history of the world. They attempt to discover the answer to that question by testing their students. The tests can easily be seen as an interaction where the teacher provides some information and then examines the students response to that information. If the student's response is consistent with the possible responses the teacher would give to the same information, then the teacher will presume the student understands the information. So the central issue of understanding anything is obtaining results in “agreement with expectations”.

In accordance with that observation, I will define “what an explanation must do for information” as “it must provide expectations of subsets of that information”. That is, it seems to me that if all the information is known, then any questions about the information can be answered (in fact, that could be regarded as the definition of "knowing"). On the other hand, if the information is understood (explainable), then questions about the information can be answered given only limited or incomplete knowledge of the underlying information: i.e., limited subsets of the information. What I am saying is that understanding implies it is possible to predict expectations for information which is not known and that an explanation of that information constitutes a method which provides one with those rational expectations for unknown information consistent with what is known.

Thus I define "An explanation" to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information.

It follows that a model of an explanation must posses two fundamental components: the information to be explained and the mechanism used to generate expectations for possible additional information. The first fundamental component is, "what is to be explained"; thus our first problem is to find an abstract way of representing any body of information. One very important characteristic of the “information to be explained” is that our general model of an explanation needs to be able to accommodate to changing information for two reasons. First, if our explanation cannot accommodate to changing information, it can not explain anything which is not already known and, second, any explanation which does not allow a change in information presumes we are all knowing, a rather extreme constraint for a general model.

Thus I define three concepts; the first I call “the past” which consists of the known information, the second I call “the future” which consists of what is not known and finally, “the present” which consists of a change in what is known. Under these definitions, the past can be seen as a collection of presents. Since the information available to be explained must be finite, it can be ordered and I will define the ordering index to be “time” which I will represent with the letter “t”.

Hello Dr. Dick. I see now more clearly where you're coming from with this. I was thinking of the set of information to be explained comprising the present—but, you're saying it is the past. Setting that straight in my mind puts other things in perspective.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

In order to open that issue, I would like to begin with what I think is the simplest explanation conceivable: that would be the ”what is”, is “what is” explanation.

The past, then, is the information to be explained. It is the "knowledge list".

A kind of explanation (the "what is, is what is" explanation) is the 'copy' of this set which can be thought of as a set of ontological elements comprising the "explanation list". This would, by extension, make the past somewhat equivalent to the explanation (in this case). I believe you indicate this here:

Originally Posted by Doctordick

At this point, “the past” (that which is to be explained or the collection of presents) is a labeled set of ontological elements and the explanation itself is that self same set of labels.

So... I think I pretty-well understand, and all my questions involve what happens to that equivalence between the past and the explanation and what happens to the explanation itself when it is more than just a list of ontological elements—when an epistemology is 'present'. But, you haven't gotten into that yet. So, I await the thread's continuation and please assume I understand and have no objection to your description.

I'm also going to look at your wiki page this weekend. I'm curious, are you intending to present the math of your model in this thread?

~modest

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by modest

Hello Dr. Dick. I see now more clearly where you're coming from with this. I was thinking of the set of information to be explained comprising the present—but, you're saying it is the past. Setting that straight in my mind puts other things in perspective.

I knew you would pick up on it if I managed to put it right. Actually, I think I am the one learning things here.

Originally Posted by modest

I await the thread's continuation and please assume I understand and have no objection to your description.

That is exactly what I am after; so please don't hesitate to let me know the moment something I say seems unclear to you.

Originally Posted by modest

So... I think I pretty-well understand, and all my questions involve what happens to that equivalence between the past and the explanation and what happens to the explanation itself when it is more than just a list of ontological elements—when an epistemology is 'present'. But, you haven't gotten into that yet.

You are right, I haven't; but now is the time to begin. As I said, “my approach will be to generate a general explanation by means of a subtle string of modifications of the ”what is”, is “what is” explanation”.

The first thing I want to do is to make sure you understand the anyalytical dichotomy I proposed for this ”what is”, is “what is” explanation.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

We need to maintain the actual conceptual difference between the two roles. The best way to do that is to think of the “explanation list” as a different thing from the “knowledge list”. From that perspective, we can conceive of “having the explanation list” (no mention of how that result was achieved) without actually having the “knowledge list”. If that is the case then it is possible to conceive of a knowledge list which consists of less than the explanation list. This allows the ”what is”, is “what is” explanation to fulfill the single most important role required of an explanation: it provides a method of obtaining expectations from given known information. All we need do is look at our list.

This presents us with a problem worth solving. The list consists of a collection of indexed “presents”, each of which consists of a collection of numbers (which stand for a specific set of ontological elements). Suppose we are given a set of numbers (a supposed “present”) and are asked, “what is the correct t index assigned to that set?” All we have to do is look at our explanation (our list). The answer is quite simple: we look at our “explanation”, find that particular list, recover the t index on that entry and we have the correct index. Unless that specific collection is not in our list; then our answer is “that is an invalid set!”

But that same problem brings up another interesting possibility. That possibility lies in the character of the list. (We are starting down that subtle string I spoke of.) As I said, having an explanation means that we have a specific set of numbers which express that explanation. This brings up the possibility of “persistence”. (And I thank Anssi for pointing out the issue; it was actually in my original construct but not decently presented.) Persistence (the idea that the same ontological element exists at more than one specific “present”) is a very important aspect of almost every explanation. In my attempt to fabricate a general model, persistence yields a very real difficulty. The difficulty arises because a specific explanation may make the assumption of persistence for some elements. The fact that any persistence is actually an assumption means that, to be general, the model must possess a mechanism to include that persistence while maintaining the fact that there may be another explanation which lacks that specific persistence.

Essentially that means that every ontological element in the ”what is”, is “what is” “explanation” requires two indices: one which is consistent with the explanation under examination and another which maintains the generality of the model. Clearly the “past” must actually consist of only the general index (so that all possible explanations are still included) but, for the moment, we are concerned with analysis of the specific “explanation”. I will denote the general index with the number “x” and the "explanation" index (possible presumptive persistence) with the number “i”. Thus it is that every element in the current ”what is”, is “what is” explanation will be represented by the number x_i and each present in that explanation will be represented by a specific collection of numbers. As an example,

I would like to point out that one must include the possibility that the past might actually include real persistence and we don't want to eliminate that possibility from our model: i.e., the same x index might appear at different times. That issue will come up later. Meanwhile, this new indexing procedure has highlighted another subtle issue (it was actually embedded in the circumstance already brought up but was not very obvious). Let us go back to that original question, suppose we are given a set of numbers (a supposed “present”) and are asked, “what is the correct t index assigned to that set?” The possibility certainly exists that there are multiple presents with exactly the same set of reference numbers associated with different “t” indices. In that case, our ”what is”, is “what is” explanation (as currently defined) will fail to provide us with an answer.

I will stop here in order to assure you comprehend the exact nature of what I have presented at this point.

Originally Posted by modest

I'm also going to look at your wiki page this weekend. I'm curious, are you intending to present the math of your model in this thread?

You can look at if you wish but keep in mind that it is a rather confusing presentation. What I am trying to do here is get confirmation that my new presentation is more understandable. If you have looked at my wiki page before, you will know that I am currently rewriting it in conformance with this thread as I comprehend what is and what is not clear. Qfwfq had major problems with that presentation and I would like to provide an easy map to the path around his problems.

To me the issues are so clear that I simply cannot comprehend why people find what I say to be so confusing. But obvious to one certainly is not obvious to another. I need all the help I can get.

Have fun -- Dick

[arkain101]

If you delay confirmation of your understanding until I finish, I am afraid my arguments are lost. I need your complaints as I present what I present. The chain of logic is not exactly "short".

Logic is the only connection between “what is” and “what can be!”

Have fun -- Dick

Well sure. But if we just say, your wrong, and "this is whats right", that isn't being very fair, for your part and purpose.

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by arkain101

Well sure. But if we just say, your wrong, and "this is whats right", that isn't being very fair, for your part and purpose.

How about you say, "what you are saying makes no sense to me" or "why didn't you say _____" (insert what you think makes more sense). I have just edited my previous post because it became clear to me that something I had said made no sense.

I really can use any help I can get here. What I am trying to say is actually quite simple but not easy to express clearly. If anything is not obvious to you please let me know.

I appreciate any comments at all because they make me think and I need to do that.

Have fun -- Dick

[arkain101]

How about you say, "what you are saying makes no sense to me" or "why didn't you say _____" (insert what you think makes more sense). I have just edited my previous post because it became clear to me that something I had said made no sense.

But of course!


I don't want to take this off track; but you seem to keep misinterpreting what I am talking about. I was originally,and have been, and still am referring to the type of post rade made.

We are on the same page you and I! This is good things!

Oh and by the way, I've been reading through your posts bit by bit, and so far I don't seem to have very many problems understanding what your getting at, what your purpose is, and what you have done about it.

I lack some understanding of the math used, as well as a lot of the physics(math); However, I believe I have a decent grasp on where the whole picture is going based on your posts, in so far as it does not seem at all difficult to follow; your doing an exceptional job communicating your work (I say this not for the sake of being polite, but for the purpose of confirming [for you] that your efforts are coming across loud and clear [in my case]. I know how frustrating it can be to try and communicate such an expanse of work and ideas to a relatively unknown audience in a way that will be easily understood [ie:am using the right words, tools, methods"????]). You bet.

I will be sure to post my understandings, where you can then evaluate and let me know if I am up to par on this whole matter.

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by arkain101

I lack some understanding of the math used, as well as a lot of the physics(math)

Just let me know what you don't understand and I will try and at least give a common example. In fact, after my mother-in-law's house burned, I have been cleaning out our attic. I have already disposed of almost a dumpster full of shtuff including thirty years worth of various science magazines and boxes of papers and computer parts that go back to the 1970's. Anyway, I ran across a letter I wrote to a niece some thirty years ago (when she was in high school) that I think I ought to post on this forum. You might find it interesting.

As it can be seen as a statement about how physics should be taught, I will post it in the “Philosophy of Science” forum this afternoon. That is, if I manage to set aside the time; I have just discovered a minor leak in our roof (some wet paperwork!)

Originally Posted by arkain101

I will be sure to post my understandings, where you can then evaluate and let me know if I am up to par on this whole matter.

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Have fun -- Dick

[modest]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

The first thing I want to do is to make sure you understand the anyalytical dichotomy I proposed for this ”what is”, is “what is” explanation.


This presents us with a problem worth solving. The list consists of a collection of indexed “presents”, each of which consists of a collection of numbers (which stand for a specific set of ontological elements).

Seeing if we have our t's crossed and i's dotted: we now have an "explanation list" which I'm now thinking is more like a model for any explanation rather than "an explanation". The "explanation list" contains different sets denoted "t" which we seem to be semantically interchanging with the terms "instant", "a supposed present" or "different times". Each set of "t" contains an index of X. At each X is an element (or ontological element). X then is a label which locates an element and is not itself an element. In other words "X=12" does NOT mean X is element 12, but rather at X₁₂ we might have ontological element "18", so that X₁₂=18. Is this correct? This is the only way I can interpret what you're saying because there must be more than one X in t.

Each element then has another label i which allows it to change from one t to the next (or to persist). Let me just stop here and see if you can unravel any confusion that I'm showing.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

You can look at if you wish but keep in mind that it is a rather confusing presentation. What I am trying to do here is get confirmation that my new presentation is more understandable.

That's good, because I didn't study it as I intended. I had to take an unexpected road trip which has kept me offline.

~modest