And furthermore, with regard to preventing you from establishing a rational explanation of A, the demon does indeed begin to confront a major difficulty as the volume of information becomes large. If his purpose is to prevent you from establishing an explanation of his information, he cannot ever pass any collection of information similar to a collection previously passed. If he does, you could name the collection and discover that collection appearing more than once. Your explanation begins with the "fact" that the thing you named exists! Get enough information and you are apt to see more examples of the same thing.

I'm not following you here. Let's say that we have access to set 666, from which we uncover Newton's laws of motion. Later, we discover that Newton's laws are an approximation, or in strict terminology: false or a lie (since they were extracted from set 666). Why is the demon in for any kind of dilemma? The people who believed Newton's laws of motion are long since gone, and they are replaced by people who now use some other portion of set B to explain set 666. These new folks have no problem at looking at their predecessors as duped, it's just that they don't think they are duped themselves. The demon keeps providing scrambled content from set A, but the clever demon deludes the explainee decade after decade, never having to expose set A. The explainees in the DU universe only have access to set 666 from which they create phoney explanations of given information that is entirely a lie.

The demon cannot create a set A which cannot be explained. And, if you use my model for creating your explanation, the demon cannot even create an A which is inconsistent with your explanation.

Sure he can. He just keeps enough of the given information of set A and substitutes it with lies, and just when the explainee thinks they have made a consistent explanation of set 666 (the demon's given information) the demon gets a good laugh when those explanations are made inconsistent by disclosing more lies, further foiling the hopes of the explainees in that universe.

Nothing you've said prevents such a universe from existing. In fact, so far it looks like we live in the demon universe since all explanations to date suffer from this phenomena of looking like we've been lied to. This is one of the fundamental problems I have seen in your model and have tried to explain to you over and over.

• Sorry, I'm right and you're wrong? - doctordick - December 20, 2004 - 02:18 UTC
  • Modeling troubles? - harvey1 - December 20, 2004 - 03:35 UTC
    • You simply do not understand the model! - doctordick - December 21, 2004 - 12:32 UTC
      • The statements which are false - harvey1 - December 21, 2004 - 14:16 UTC
        • Complete misrepresentation Harv! - doctordick - December 21, 2004 - 19:51 UTC
          • Round and round we go - harvey1 - December 27, 2004 - 05:15 UTC
            • First, you are certainly confused! - doctordick - December 28, 2004 - 02:30 UTC