|
Harv, you are just being dense! The demon cannot lie! For him to lie, the correct meanings (the meanings in the demons mind) must be communicated. Without that, the concept of the information being a lie has not been communicated. If the demons "picture" of the universe has not been communicated, he has no basis on which produce these new lies.
The model provides a mechanism which yields expectations for specific elements of A which are 100% consistent with information already available. And then proceeds to provide adjustment to those expectations in a way which continues that consistency to include all new information. Your entire picture of the process is so unbelievably microscopic that you seem to believe that extremely complex ideas (such as lies) can be communicated with microscopic quantities of information.
Now your position on the demons powers requires the volume of new information brought into consideration to be sufficient to overwhelm the importance of all information already available. Can't you comprehend that one minor event against a million years of established information cannot possibly have much influence on your expectations. Your ability to process information simply does not allow such an circumstance to occur!
Follow the procedure of my model and you will see that there is no point where the meanings of the elements need be the meanings intended by the demon. The explainee must come up with meanings.
All you seem to consider is some small set of concepts somewhere. In order for the demon to communicate such a mundane thing, he must first provide sufficient information to provide an explanation equivalent to the existence of a universe as we know it with educated individuals together with communicative mechanisms to present those "lies" (a rational explanation for all the information so far obtained) to you.
All the explainee can do is generate an explanation for the information he has received. And the model provides a rational explanation even if the elements of A have utterly no meaning and are provided entirely at random.
What I have discovered is that absolutely all explanations can be mapped into my model. And my model requires the fundamental elements to obey a very simple equation. Lastly, the solutions of those equations require the fundamental elements of any explanation to obey what is essentially modern physics. That is to say "what is essentially modern physics" exists as a set of required relationships beneath any explanation of anything.
The problem is that you simply do not believe that can be done! Don't feel bad, everyone agrees with you. Why do you think no one will look at the details of my presentation? They all know full well (without thinking about it at all by the way) that I cannot possibly be right.
So what I have been saying to you is, forget about whether or not I am right. Let's just discus the consequences if I am right. Or is that just totally beyond your mentality?
Dick
|
