Defining the nature of rational discussion!

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

What problem? The problem is that the entire body of squirrel conclusions underlying all our logic deductions constitutes, from an objective scientific position, a fundamentally insupportable hypothesis.

Now, there you sound just like Popper with his ferocuios anti-inductivism!

I quite agree with his black swan argument, actually I've always considered it obvious, but when he argues there is no ground at all for induction as a method of inquiry I find him mistaken and pointless.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

At the same time that same body of conclusions constitute the fundamental basis of any logical reasoning which can be developed.

Once you have the inference rules of logic, you choose your axioms, wich can also include extra inference rules, and your ready set to go!

Originally Posted by Doctordick

There is never "much you can do about it" if you make no attempt.

What do you propose to do about it?

Originally Posted by Doctordick

Now that is a rather sweeping statement isn't it?

Have you ever seen a point, or the number three, of a function such as log, or any of the far more complicated objects that can be constructed?

Originally Posted by Doctordick

Is physics concerned with reality?

Of course!!!!! Does that mean math must be?

Originally Posted by Doctordick

I am prepared to show you some very interesting facts.

Which facts?

[Doctordick]

Sorry, I have been in Biloxi helping with some problems created by Katrina (and FEMA's handling of it).

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Now, there you sound just like Popper with his ferocuios anti-inductivism!

Well, I guess I am quite adamant on the issue. I went into physics because I wanted to understand the world I found myself in and physicists seemed to at least be honest about what they knew and what was opinion. But, by the time I got to graduate school, my enthrallment with physicists began to pall. The further I got into it, the worse their defenses got. And it all has to do with the issue of induction.

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

I quite agree with his black swan argument, actually I've always considered it obvious, but when he argues there is no ground at all for induction as a method of inquiry I find him mistaken and pointless.

That is apparently the position of the entire physics community. Now I would say explaining what we think is going on is an extreamly important issue and, with regard to that issue, induction is a significant component as induction is little more than the logical presumption thatwhat we "think" we know is true; however, from a theoretical perspective, the fact that it is an unsupportable hypothesis is neither mistaken nor pointless. Ever since I got my Ph.D., I have been appalled by the total failure of the theoretical physics community to even admit the issue is serious. If no one never looks, how can one ever expect to resolve the problem.

I am personally of the opinion that the sole reason for their refusal to look is their overt concern with "success" in their profession; i.e., fear of ridicule by their comrades and/or superiors. True understanding was never unraveled by the faint of heart afraid to look at what others called ridiculous problems.

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

I don't quite understand exactly what you are saying "no" to.

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Once you have the inference rules of logic, you choose your axioms, wich can also include extra inference rules, and your ready set to go!

This is no more than a mechanism with little use beyond arguing against looking at the fundamental problem I am trying to bring up.

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

What do you propose to do about it?

Some very sophisticated things as a matter of fact. In essence, I solved the problem over forty years ago and the solution is fascinating in its own right as it points to some very subtle errors in the current scientific view.

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Have you ever seen a point, or the number three, of a function such as log, or any of the far more complicated objects that can be constructed?

Your question itself is based on a world view totally constructed from "squirrel conclusions" which, as I have already said, are logically undefendable from the word go.

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Of course!!!!! Does that mean math must be?

Of course??? Are you really going to assert that physics is concerned with reality without defining reality? Likewise, when it comes to math, without argument, all you are giving me here are opinions. Belief based on an undefendable opinion is called religion.

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Which facts?

Which facts??? Shouldn't that be what facts? Well nevertheless, the first fact is the fact that the problem does indeed have a solution. So long as you refuse to even consider that possibility I am certainly wasting my time. As I said,

Originally Posted by Doctordick

The solution is neither trivial nor easy to communicate and takes an attention span somewhat beyond what seems to be the average.

Consider the following conundrum: most rational scientists will admit that they could be wrong about most everything, including most importantly exactly what is real. Yet they work very hard at understanding reality. This implies they believe they can understand reality without knowing what is real. That statement raises logical hackles all over the world. But yet it turns out to be true and I can prove it: it is indeed possible to understand reality without knowing what reality is. The critical factor is recognition that one is speaking of a mapping problem here; the fact that one can prove reality can be mapped into a finite set of concepts without knowing what reality is.

Unfortunately, to date the only people I have found with an interest in considering my logic also lack the mathematical background to follow me. I have read a great number of your posts and they contain strong evidence that your understanding of both mathematics and physics is substantial. That is one of the major reasons I continue this discourse; I still have some hope of getting your interest.

Have fun -- Dick

Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[Qfwfq]

I'm beginning to see that you're concerned with metaphysics, even more than epistemology, except where you talk about math as something to prove the reality of. Not surprising that you don't find many physicists interested in these issues.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

But yet it turns out to be true and I can prove it: it is indeed possible to understand reality without knowing what reality is. The critical factor is recognition that one is speaking of a mapping problem here; the fact that one can prove reality can be mapped into a finite set of concepts without knowing what reality is.

Do you mean, along the lines of mapping certain aspects of realiy (shapes and sizes) onto concepts such as points, lines and surfaces, lengths and areas?

Are squirrel decisions something like the way Kant used the term "intuition"?

Originally Posted by Doctordick

Unfortunately, to date the only people I have found with an interest in considering my logic also lack the mathematical background to follow me. I have read a great number of your posts and they contain strong evidence that your understanding of both mathematics and physics is substantial. That is one of the major reasons I continue this discourse; I still have some hope of getting your interest.

Exactly what mathematical background do you mean, that is necessary? I might be interested if I could understand more about where your aiming to get to.

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

I'm beginning to see that you're concerned with metaphysics, even more than epistemology, except where you talk about math as something to prove the reality of.

Seriously, I have been trained in physics and my interest is physics (at least as I understood it when I was young). As a graduate student, I found much of what was being put forward as physics to be based on undefendable hypotheses. Every theoretical physicist I ever met was a total believer in the correctness of physics theory and none even seriously considered the possibility they could be in error. It seemed (at least when I was involved) that the consensus was that the job of a theoretical physicist was to figure out ways to create valid approximations to what was known to be valid representations of reality. Everybody was doing what we used to call "number crunching". And it was all being done on machines which were wholly inadequate to the job. No one was considering the basis of their beliefs.

I had utterly no interest in pursuing a career of that nature. As a consequence, after I received my degree, I pretty well dropped out of the field and earned my living outside physics. However, I continued to think about those issues which had bothered me and, some ten years later, I had a breakthrough which I considered significant. I attempted to publish and was rejected. I don't think a referee ever saw it because the rejection was "this isn't physics, it's philosophy". I showed it to some philosophers and they said, "this isn't philosophy, it's mathematics" and the mathematicians said, "this isn't mathematics, it's physics". So they all refused to look.

So I guess metaphysics is as good a title as any other as I believe it means "beyond physics" though I would rather think of it as being "beneath physics" as it forms a foundation upon which physics can be built. I just call it logical deduction.

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Not surprising that you don't find many physicists interested in these issues.

It was surprising to me forty years ago but I am not surprised by it much any more. In 1971, there was an editorial in "Physics Today" where physicists were being urged to make physics more relevant (so that they would get more public financial support). It was at that time that I realized that becoming relevant is about the worst thing that can happen to a science. If it's relevant, peoples incomes depend upon their being correct and they will fight tooth and nail not to face the possibility that their beliefs are wrong. It is only when people have no financial investment in the answer that they will be objective in their examinations. That's just human nature.

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Do you mean, along the lines of mapping certain aspects of realiy (shapes and sizes) onto concepts such as points, lines and surfaces, lengths and areas?

No; as soon as you think of "shapes and sizes" you have already overstepped the bounds I am talking about. The concepts "shapes and sizes" are squirrel concepts themselves and cannot be logically deduced. And I don't know how Kant used the term "intuition" but I do use the term as a common usage reference to the same thing am talking about. I also see it as quite analogous to what is commonly called "zen". However, I don't think either term exhausts the range of phenomena I include in the adjective "squirrel". From my perspective, if it isn't logical deduction, its source is a "squirrel" conclusion and is subject to doubt.

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Exactly what mathematical background do you mean, that is necessary? I might be interested if I could understand more about where your aiming to get to.

My aim was to understand the universe without making any assumptions. I am sure you understand the severe constraints imposed by disallowing induction as it is exactly that constraint which induces everyone to confidently state that success along those lines can not possibly be achieved. In fact that is the central reason everyone with any scientific education refuses to waste their time even thinking about my approach. (I will admit that I am often quite put off by their refusal to consider anything unconventional and seldom make much of an effort to relieve them of their ignorance. )

However, as you well know, those ignorant of science will consider almost anything. As a consequence, most everyone who has disdained to consider my thoughts tends to lack a comprehension of "exact" analysis; in particular, they tend to disregard mathematics as a tool useful to abstract thought. Exact statements in English are not easy to make. As a language, mathematics is the most exact language available; it is widely understood with minimal probability of misinterpretation. All one has to do is think about it a little.

The math necessary to follow me depends on how far you want to go. Unless you have at least some familiarity with setting up and finding solutions to partial differential equations there is little I can communicate to you. If you want to follow me all the way through general relativity, some knowledge of Euler-Lagrange relationships would be quite valuable. The logical path I take is somewhat devious as it goes through some unexplored abstract conceptual morass; however, it eventually leads to a clearing where much that you currently know can be seen confidently with some rather extreme clarity.

The starting point is a careful definition of exactly where one wants to go. One needs to comprehend that the desire to understand something is fulfilled by the ability to explain it. This requires an exact completely general abstract definition of an explanation. Asking the right question is the crux of solving any problem.

Have fun -- Dick

Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[Kriminal99]

You would be better off studying philosophy rather than science to get an understanding of the universe (If thats really what you want even). One of the first things you study in philosophy is that the only thing towards an explanation of the universe science is capable of discovering is more links in an infinite regress...

Anyways IMO "squirrel thought" doesn't take into account so many factors as it is based on pure induction... Like the subconsious of the basketball player doesn't secretly know the laws of physics and calculate how to move to get the ball where he wants as much as it processes past experience and how the ball reacts to certain actions to determine how to manipulate it easily.

I agree all rational thought is based on "squirrel thought". I think it is in the sense that, in order to say even talk you are using past experience of how to manipulate your vocal cords in order to form words in the same automatic fashion that the athlete knows what to do. I think every thought you have is using automatic processing of ideas you have already formed and seen the truth/relevance of, and you are simply concentrating your consiousness on the experiences which you still do not understand (come up with knowledge of factors which when consider completely explain the outcome) and have not accepted to be controlled by too many high variance factors to "understand" (random).

Anotherwords I think pure induction underlies all thought, including logical thought. The premises in any deduction have inductive values (or have values based on the inductive values of the premises involved in their deduction), and even deduction itself has an inductive value (although it might be 100%, ie the number of times we have experienced that A is A)

Of course then you simply have to look at the generality and other problems of induction to realize why people are so inept when it comes to reason. If you control every factor when deciding how to group experiences to use them as a history to predict the future, then you can't have more than one experience per category and induction is rendered useless. If you ignore certain factors you never know when you are going to ignore something that is signifigantly correlated with the outcome. You can only use induction to determine if an ignored factor is signifigant towards the outcome, but then you have a circular argument. And yet this is how we think.

And far too often it seems like people while using "squirrel thought" apply past experience to situations which obviously are extremely different than the situation at hand. Of course this is an entirely necessary part of the thinking process... Like when the person who plowed corn fields got the idea of how to make a television by looking at the way he plowed his field, we can draw from all of our past experiences in order to suggest ways of dealing with new situations. But at the same time we often find ourselves reasoning in this way when we have no way of knowing that there is any connection between the two situations we are comparing and many belief sets are founded on such poorly reasoned comparisons. And sometimes those belief sets are not things that can be confirmed or denied and so nothing challenges our poor reasoning.

Your story about your book greatly sickens me. However there are people who will publish books which challenge the foundations of current theories in fields like mathematics etc. I remember taking a class specifically on the foundations of mathematics, and although everyone that we read lived around the 20's there were people alive now who were still doing this type of thing and being published. For the most part I think the people being published on this type of thing are already known and were well known at prestigous schools before that, most likely because thats what it takes to overcome the droves of sheep minded fools contained within the intellectual community and get your ideas recognized for what they are. For instance the professor who taught that class (a phd in mathematics) would be met with blatant hostility at his lectures by other mathematicians. If I were you first I would make sure your communication skills are up to the standards of books written by people like these (communicating complex ideas is really difficult) and then perhaps try to get into contact with them, share ideas for fun, and get information from them about where you might find publishers etc.

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

You would be better off studying philosophy rather than science to get an understanding of the universe (If thats really what you want even).

I am sorry but I have yet to be very impressed by the accomplishments of philosophy.

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

Anyways IMO "squirrel thought" doesn't take into account so many factors as it is based on pure induction...

I defined the adjective "squirrel" to mean it was not deductive logic. That makes it everything else. The only issue of significance is that it's conclusions should be open to doubt. I sincerely doubt you even have an inkling of what I was talking about when I introduced the concept of squirrel conclusions. I think you have made up your own idea quite askew of what I am asking people to consider.

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

One of the first things you study in philosophy is that the only thing towards an explanation of the universe science is capable of discovering is more links in an infinite regress...

Say, I would love to see the proof of that. It seems to me it must be along the same lines as the proof that "man will never fly". Or perhaps it is more alone the lines of "nature arbores a vacuum". There are more ways to skin a cat than conceived of in your philosophy ... but not in mine; because I have found a way to leave the issue open and still explain the universe! Which, of course, any intellectual knows is impossible.

Have fun -- Dick

Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[Qfwfq]

Have you read Lewis Carroll's very amusing spoof of modus ponens? It is quite well known.

As for "nature abhors a vacuum", Aristotle was quite right, as long as you understand what he meant. One must realize that ancient philosophers weren't speaking the same language as we do and I don't mean because he wrote in Greek. Even philosophers such as Galileo and Newton expressed concepts in a way different from 20th century lingo and this has even caused misconceptions about what exactly they meant to say.

You depict a sadly true picture of research, yeah, they care mostly about their careers. Blame them! It's understandable. However, I don't think it's impossible to get your book published, it's more a matter of how much interest it would strike up. There are a few people that are interested in the whole thing, as long as they find it worthy.

So, how is your way of explaining the universe? Differential equations are something I understand, Lagrange and Hamilton don't terrify me. Although I chose not to go on for a PhD, my GR course was a course shared with the PhD ones. All I'm short on is time, especially online, and I'm a bit rusty at calculations, actually integration never was my greates knack, so don't ask me to do formal calculations that you've already done yourself! I'm sure however that you've got those down well enough that it's mainly a matter of following your arguments.

[Doctordick]

No, I hadn't read the spoof; so I googled it to see what you were talking about. I believe the issue is "acceptance" itself: i.e., if you have accepted it then it follows that you will accept it; which is an inductive argument. That is to say, logic itself is an inductive creation and I won't disagree with that. But we are getting into things which are quite subtle and considerable time can be wasted in that "unexplored abstract conceptual morass" I mentioned earlier. In order to save time, I would like to concentrate on the most direct path through it in order to reach that clearing I referred to before I exhaust your span of attention. It is only after you begin to see the view from there that you will take what I say seriously.

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

I might be interested if I could understand more about where your aiming to get to.

If you could see where I want you to go, I wouldn't have to lead you.

As I said, the starting point is a careful definition of exactly what your destination is to be. We all accept that we want to understand but I don't think anyone seriously considers exactly what that requires. As I said, I believe that the desire to understand is fulfilled by the ability to explain it (whatever "it" happens to be). That is why my first interest is in establishing what I believe to be a totally general abstract definition of an explanation. (By establishing, I mean that you and I can agree as to what is to be meant by the term throughout my arguments).

In order to clarify my thoughts, I will begin by pointing out that all "explanations" require something which is to be explained. Whatever it is that is to be explained, it can be thought of as information (or labeled as such). It thus follows that "an explanation" is something which is done to (or for) information. The next obvious issue is then, exactly what does an explanation do to (or for) information?

I suggest that what an explanation does for information is that it provides 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 (that could be regarded as the definition of "knowing"). On the other hand, if the information is understood, 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 that one has predictable expectations concerning information not known. It follows that "an explanation" constitutes a method which provides one with those expectations for that unknown information.

Thus it is that I define "an explanation", from the abstract perspective, to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information. It follows that any model of an explanation must posses two fundamental components: the information to be explained and a mechanism which will generate expectations for possible additional information. Just as an aside, it should also be clear that the very first requirement of a "valid" explanation is that those expectations be completely consistent with what is known.

If you refuse to accept that as a definition of "an explanation" consistent with the common understanding of "an explanation" then you need to give me either an example of an explanation which provides no "expectations" or a mechanism which provides "expectations" which cannot be considered to be an explanation.

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

I don't think it's impossible to get your book published

Honestly, at this point, I have very little interest in getting it published. Considering my experiences, I doubt very much that anyone could understand it without my help anyway; not because of any brilliance on my part but rather that my thought processes are somewhat strange and things that seem obvious to me don't seem to even occur to them. I have noticed that those who do read it seem to pay very little attention to what I say, making what seems to me, rather astounding misinterpretations (reading between the lines what they think I am trying say). So my goal would be to drag someone competent through the arguments, correcting their course when they misunderstand so that, after I die, at least someone exists who has some idea of what I have discovered. What happens after that is certainly not important to me personally.

I think you are fully capable of following my arguments if you care to.

Have fun -- Dick

Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[Qfwfq]

I'm more and more curious to know whether you have tried reading any of Popper's work and what your opinion is, or would be. Specifically, "Conjectures and Refutations", especially in the latter parts where he really gets into falsificationism and discusses expectations and probabilities. I think you would find many of the things he says there interesting.

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

I'm more and more curious to know whether you have tried reading any of Popper's work and what your opinion is, or would be. Specifically, "Conjectures and Refutations", especially in the latter parts where he really gets into falsificationism and discusses expectations and probabilities. I think you would find many of the things he says there interesting.

No, I have not read anything of Popper's though I might be persuaded to do so just to be familiar with it. From the references I have seen, I get the impression it is very concerned with issues embedded in that great "unexplored abstract conceptual morass" I mentioned earlier. I sort of side step the entire morass with a little subtle slight of hand. That is, in fact, the purpose of my division between "squirrel" constructs and "logical" constructs. I can admit I need and use those squirrel constructs without admitting they are valid by keeping my references to them abstract and open. (I think you will understand that better as we get further along.)

I presume you are willing to accept my definition of "an explanation" as you made no complaints. If I am in error, I would appreciate your letting me know. Metaphorically speaking, it is a boat constructed to carry us across that swamp of definition where no secure footing can be found. That boat needs to be tight enough to avoid sinking into the morass.

The definition was: "an explanation" is a method of obtaining expectations from given known 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. Let "A" be what is to be explained and proceed with the following primitive definitions: define A to be a set; define B to be a set consisting of an unordered finite collection of elements of A and finally, define C to be a set consisting of a finite collection of sets B.

We can then refer to the "given known information" as C. A little thought should make it clear why the definition of those three sets was required. We needed two very specific things: first the "given known information" cannot consist of "what is to be explained" as, if we knew the entirety of A we would need no method of obtaining expectations (we would know exactly what elements A consisted of); and second, we need some way of referring to a change in C as, if C cannot change we once again know all that can be known and no method is required. Please note that the representation has made utterly no constraints on what A, B and C are other than the finiteness of B and C.

The finiteness of B and C is an important issue. A lot of people think of infinity as a number which it is not. Infinity means that "no matter how many you have, you haven't finished", a rather different concept. If either B or C were infinite, it would not be possible to "know" the "known information" and the definition of "an explanation" fails as the concept has internal problems .

The second fundamental component is the definition of the explanation itself: we need an abstract way of expressing the method referred to. It seems fairly clear that we need two significant things in order to express an actual method of obtaining expectations from that known information. First, we need a set of reference labels for the elements of A (so that we may know and discuss what we are dealing with). Given that, we need an abstract way to express our "expectations" such that there exists no circumstance which can not be dealt with. The simplest approach is to use the element reference labels to specify all the elements in a hypothetical B and then ask if such a B is a possibility. The answer for all B making up C is either yes or no (the hypothetical B is either part of the known information or it is not). Our explanation must yield an estimate of our "expectation" that the hypothetical B could be a member of C as more information is obtained. Defining "yes" to be one and "No" to be zero, that "expectation" may be represented by a number greater than or equal to zero and less than or equal to one.

If you examine the above carefully, you should see that the "expectations" (that they are represented by numbers is not really a significant issue) are a "function" of B in the common sense that the answer depends directly upon what B is chosen. I am pointing out two common misunderstandings with regard to the definition of "a functional relationship". In the first place, the concept, "a functional relationship" extends far beyond "mathematical" functions and secondly the definition of a function (even a mathematical function) does not require that the relationship be expressible in terms of known mathematical relationships. All that is required to define a function is that a procedure exists which will yield the result of the function once a specific argument is known. If that result is known for every possible argument, then a table can be made and the required procedure can be the simple process of looking up the answer. The point of this discourse is to defend the assertion that the existence of an explanation implies the existence of a function which will yield one's expectations.

One cavil which can be brought up here is that the above argument seems to require exact specification of expectations for the unknown B's. With regard to that issue (which I believe turns out to be moot anyway) all the definition of the function requires is that some answer be placed in that table and the answer actually need not be a number. If the possessor of that explanation cannot provide us with any comments for a specific entry, then I think one could say that their explanation falls short of what is desired: i.e., they haven't actually managed to explain A.

To summarize: A is what is to be explained, C is what is known, B is a change in what is known, label-i is a reference to the ith element of B (if the number of elements in B is finite they may be ordered as part of the explanation) and P(B) is a function which yields one's expectations for a specific B if the explanation is to be taken to be valid. Note that I am proposing no "truth" here. What I am proposing is a mechanism for referring to the significant aspects of "an explanation" so that we can talk about that explanation without knowing what it is (to us it is an unknown; that is the central issue of "working in the abstract").

I hope you find what I have said at least acceptable as a defined basis for an abstract discussion. If not, please give me a careful description of issues you feel uncomfortable with.

Have fun -- Dick

Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity