I really have no expectation of reaching anyone; I think I understand a lot more than you think I do.
Aurino: I think the whole problem is that you are trying to say something logical while Harv expects to hear something meaningful. I understand you are trying to postpone the issue of meaning as it can't possibly be dealt with at this point. What I think you fail to understand is that you just can't do it.
No, I understand quite well that I can actually do practically nothing. Anyone who ever might come to understand what I have discovered must arrive at that realization on their own. All I can do is place a few sign posts. Paul Martin put the issue quite clearly in an e-mail a few days ago. Paul, I hope you don't mind me quoting you.
Paul Martin: I think we each have our mental model of reality that we have developed over the course of our lives (Harv's famous epistemology) and it is uncomfortable to have to change it. So, I think that when we are presented with an new idea, we try to force-fit it into our model. If we can do that, we say that we agree with and accept the idea. If we can't force-fit it, we reject it for whatever convenient reason we can come up with. But, in the first case, the fact that the idea was force-fit means that it was probably distorted enough that it no longer resembles the original idea. In this way, I think we have a population who think they agree on some basic ideas, but in reality, those ideas are very different indeed. I don't think Harv's unique in this respect. He just takes longer than most to decide whether he accepts or rejects an idea.
My answer to Paul consisted essentially of the following:
Regarding the issue of new ideas, your analysis of the situation seems to me to hit the mark beautifully: essentially what you are saying is that no one's personal model of reality is subject to examination. That is exactly why my presentation reaches no one: i.e., it is a completely original view of reality. The view of "reality" I present consists of a random presentation of random information (in essence, no rules what-so-ever). In such a picture, consistency doesn't even have meaning. The consistency is in the explanation of the information, not in the information. This picture cannot be force fit into anyone's model; not so long as they believe that reality has "rules". No one, save myself, has ever attempted to examine the consequences of such a reality (as to do so is to invite ridicule). Chapter one is an attempt to show that such a picture is not ridiculous. The rest of the paper is an opening attempt to predict the consequences of such a picture of reality. Thus, unless they can follow the math, the rest of the paper is totally beside the point.
For the most part, I have no hope of ever really reaching anyone. My thoughts are far to alien to even be considered by others. But it's fun to talk about it anyway and peoples reactions clarify my own thoughts.
Have fun -- Dick