What I believe an explanation is!

[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.

If anyone wants to discuss that issue, I will respond.

Have fun -- Dick

[watcher]

a distinction must be made, first and foremost. imo

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by watcher

a distinction must be made, first and foremost. imo

And what distinction are you referring to?

[Turtle]

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.
If anyone wants to discuss that issue, I will respond.

Have fun -- Dick

An explanation records information.

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by Turtle

An explanation records information.

Nah; I wouldn't buy that! That would make the library of congress an explanation and I am afraid that isn't what most people would accept.

Have fun -- Dick

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

Nah; I wouldn't buy that! That would make the library of congress an explanation and I am afraid that isn't what most people would accept.

Have fun -- Dick

Levity and brevity! Nice. Seems quite an unqualified leap you made there to say that just because all explanations constitute records of information that all records of information must then constitute explanations. Nonetheless, your point taken, let me add a word of qualification.

An explanation records qualified information.

[lemit]

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.

I am curious about the genesis of this thread. Since the quote above could be inserted into almost any page of the "Spacetime" thread without being out of place, I can't help wondering if this is a response to something said elsewhere.

Am I right?

--lemit

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by Turtle

An explanation records qualified information.

It appears to me that you misunderstand the issue of definition itself. The purpose of a definition is to allow discrimination; given a definition, one may examine a particular incident and certify (via that definition alone) that the incident is or is not a member of the set of things so defined.

Thus you are asserting that, if I examine some information and decide that the information is “qualified” (whatever the meaning of qualified might be; notice that you are leaving that issue open) then the information “is” an explanation! My original thesis was that an explanation did something to or for information which implies it is something quite different from mere “information”. So I have two complaints with your “definition”; first, that it essentially moves the definition into that other word (and I am pretty sure your intended meaning was “it qualifies as an explanation” which actually skirts the whole issue) and, second, it denies my suggestion without giving any reason for that rejection.

Now I am very willing to accept that "an explanation" can be "recorded" but a great many things can be "recorded" so that is not a very definitive characteristic.

Originally Posted by lemit

I am curious about the genesis of this thread. Since the quote above could be inserted into almost any page of the "Spacetime" thread without being out of place, I can't help wondering if this is a response to something said elsewhere.

Of course you are right; I never post anything without it being a response to “something”. Just as an aside, I think just about anything could have been posted to the “Spacetime” thread without being out of place as it seemed to have no “thread” to it at all.

This thread has to do with someone trying to understand my original proof of my fundamental equation and I suggested I would start a new thread in an attempt to clarify the presentation of the paper “A Universal Analytical Model of Explanation Itself” which was originally composed some twenty years ago. I suggested we could go through that paper paragraph by paragraph to clarify exactly what I was trying to say. My opening post to this thread is essentially a paraphrase of the opening paragraph which seems to be unclear to many people.

You can add your comments to this thread if you wish.

Have fun – Dick

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

It appears to me that you misunderstand the issue of definition itself. The purpose of a definition is to allow discrimination; given a definition, one may examine a particular incident and certify (via that definition alone) that the incident is or is not a member of the set of things so defined.

No; I understand it as you say. I started small & intend to build my definition around your objections as we go.

Originally Posted by Doc

Thus you are asserting that, if I examine some information and decide that the information is “qualified” (whatever the meaning of qualified might be; notice that you are leaving that issue open) then the information “is” an explanation!

I did not leave the meaning of "qualified" open; in my original post it is linked to a dictionary definition. I expected, and expect, that if you et al find that definition defficient you will interpose your objection(s). Note that I also linked "record" to a dictionary definition for similar effect so we don't have to go all out first principles here.

Originally Posted by Doc

My original thesis was that an explanation did something to or for information which implies it is something quite different from mere “information”. So I have two complaints with your “definition”; first, that it essentially moves the definition into that other word (and I am pretty sure your intended meaning was “it qualifies as an explanation” which actually skirts the whole issue) and, second, it denies my suggestion without giving any reason for that rejection.

Yes; I think I understood your original thesis. As a foundation of constructing a definition of "explanation", an explanation must "record" information (the act of recording is doing "something" to and/or for information), regardless of any further "qualifiers" we may wish or need to add to the definition. I did look at writing "An explanation qualifies recorded information" rather than "An explanation records qualified information.", however it seems to me the qualification of information precedes the recording.

Originally Posted by DD

Now I am very willing to accept that "an explanation" can be "recorded" but a great many things can be "recorded" so that is not a very definitive characteristic.

I think any explanation must needs be a record, not simply can be a record.

You finish here by restating my objection to you objecting to my first definition, i.e.

Originally Posted by Tribble

Seems quite an unqualified leap you [Doctor Dick] made there to say that just because all explanations constitute records of information that all records of information must then constitute explanations.

So I was pointing out your non sequitor I think they call it.


An explanation records qualified information.
So we have a start on a definition that you dislike for its exclusions rather than inclusions, oui/no? That is to say, you think it is "wrong" because of what it does not say about the specifics of qualifiers?

That's all I got I guess 'til I get some more objections to work on.

[watcher]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

And what distinction are you referring to?

distinction to the info (the thing that needs to be explained).
distinction, differentiation, discrimination, they meant the same thing.

we rely or base on our cognizant ability to tell us what is real and unreal or what can be known. so whether we use an electron microscope or the Hubble telescope, perceiving must be the basis of access to these information.

all explanation is a self referencing system. as cognizing entity, we set a point of reference to discriminate from all other points. this self referencing system can now recognize pattern, order, hierarchies, relationships of the reference point against the rest of the points., then we can go on to identify, categorize these patterns. with this principle, all things can be generated, explained, conceptualized.