"what my model must do in order to "explain C". First, it must provide a set of labels for the elements of A making up B (so that we may refer to them) and second, it must provide an algorithm to yield my expectations as a function of those B's"

I get this>

"The next question then is, can Joe's explanation be modeled by this model. "

Why is this necessary?

"All we have to do is find an algorithm which yields exactly the same expectations yielded by Joe's explanation. "

There is no way why everyone's expectations need to be the same. Perhaps what you are modeling are the expectations of nature which are expected to be constant.

"Since I have made no constraints on A, B and C (other than those internal relationships which I presume you understand) it follows that my model can represent any explanation of anything. "

My god, your constraint is fantastic. No way will everybody have the same explanation for most anything. Here is the edge for you.

My opinion is that whaT YOU HAVE FOUND APPLIES TO ALL SITUATIONS WHERE EXPECTATIONS ARE ALWAYS THE SAME. That goes for nature and things like quantum mechanics. Humans have free will to use any old explanation they want.

Rowanda


PS Thankyou very mauch for the insight.

• Harv???? - doctordick - January 8, 2005 - 17:24 UTC
  • Someone else came to the same conclusion? - wandaqueen - January 8, 2005 - 18:47 UTC
    • Are you serious? - doctordick - January 8, 2005 - 21:35 UTC
      • You said it yourself - wandaqueen - January 9, 2005 - 03:49 UTC
        • That is a worthless post! - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 17:53 UTC
          • "phenomena to be modeled" has to be specific explanation" - wandaqueen - January 10, 2005 - 18:48 UTC
            • You haven't got the slightest idea what I am modeling! - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 22:04 UTC
              • You do not know me - wandaqueen - January 11, 2005 - 21:15 UTC
  • Dick???? - harvey1 - January 8, 2005 - 20:38 UTC
    • I already answered it! - doctordick - January 8, 2005 - 22:20 UTC