Back to Home

General Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Misc. Topics | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Modeling Troubles?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on December 20, 2004 03:35:59 UTC

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.

Sure he does. The explandum (set A) has many elements, some of those elements are immediately presentable to the explainee while other elements will be presentable later (i.e., once the explainee expands upon set B). In the case of the demon, the set A elements that are immediately presentable require the demon to lie about those elements first. So, the basis of the demon's lie is those elements of set A. However, they are not the correct meanings of those set A elements, they are lies and more lies. The demon is, of course, caught in his lies later once he discloses more false information (of his set 666), but the people of DU believe these lies because it matches their current expectations. Only later do they catch the demon in lies again, and then they stop believing those lies and only substitute their beliefs for new lies and on and on it goes - generation after generation. How is this being dense? It strikes me as all to familiar of what we see happening.

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.

Yes, absolutely. Because, the microscopic details in the DU universe are eventually tested with better instruments (etc), and that's when the explainee finds out they've been duped by the demon. Evidentally all the information from set 666 - no matter how microscopic - has been subtle lies that just met immediate expectations of a pervious generation. Once the measurements improved, the previous lies no longer met the expectations of the explainee.

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.

True, but the explainee has been lied to, so the demon doesn't care what you believe from the lied to information, all the demon cares is that you don't see or have any element from set A. The demon only wants you to explain elements from set 666 so that whatever elements of their set B, it is completely disjoint with set A. It is, however, not disjoint with set 666 since they have access to the set 666 which the demon is making available to the explainee.

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.

That's right. The demon, in order to provide believable lies, has to meet the expectations of the explainee which could include educated individuals. That's easy enough to do by simply making the lies believable to the extent that their measurement equipment and ability to catch the demon in a lie is limited.

The communicative mechanisms are the same as the GU universe, it's just that the demon is able to delude the explainee so that those available communicative mechanisms never have access to the original set A from which the demon is constructing set 666. The explainee in the DU universe only has set 666 from which to establish their 'known information'.

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 you are not considering is that the explainee in the DU universe doesn't have access to the elements of A - period. The demon makes sure that whatever elements of A the explainee could have access to - even in principle - are converted into lies. As you already agreed with your reference to Dante and "Little House on the Prairie", these lies make it impossible for the explainee in the DU universe to obtain any explanation. The demon is able to fool them at will in any way that he chooses. His only obstacle is meeting the expectations of the explainee, and he can do that easily enough by providing elements in set 666 which delude them into having expectations which the demon can easily meet. It's just one big game as far as the demon is concerned. One in which he's having a ball.

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.

Well, since the DU universe is not providing any basis for a true explanation of their world, there are no explanations to map.

What this shows is that even if we do not live in a DU universe, the point is that there is no means by which to establish set A nor is there any sure way to model an explanation since the set we are gathering information might be unpredictable (such as the DU universe's set 666 is misleading). The only thing we can do as human beings is access the 'set 666' of our universe and see where it goes. Anybody who thinks they are predicting or modeling the direction of set B is just fooling themselves since they cannot predict anything not yet in set B. If they could predict what set B is to become, then I could buy into your argument, but you cannot and won't even try - I might add. It's like the guys who develop the Bible Code who claim they have access to set A, they only try and show they have new elements of set B after the fact. Not good enough.

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?

And, the Bible Code might be right too Dick, but c'mon. At least the Bible Coder's keep up with new facts (e.g., Sept. 11, 2001), but your stuff is already 40+ years old and hasn't been updated since. I find that a very sufficient explanation that you've simply hit upon some fundamental features of modern physics, but not so much that we should take any special notice. Quite frankly, LANL is filled with such papers (look up quantum information, for example).

What I've noticed with the DU universe example is that you simply won't concede a point - no matter how small. Of course, you've had a very successful career and life, so nothing along those lines matters, I guess. But, if you want others to follow you simply because you utilize rhetoric to criticize those who won't believe you, then count me out.

As for the philosophical consequences "if you are right", the only thing I can say is that your view of the consequences are probably just as much set in stone as your refusal to even concede a simple point as a lying demon having demolished any attempt of coming up with an explanation in the DU universe.

Good luck! God's speed.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins