|
Hi Dick,
*** In your comment to Aurino, "You Raise a Valid Point", you say "Dick is saying that there is no other choice but for his model to be correct." That statement is not accurate! From my perspective, "correct" is not a valid classification for any model. The fact that a model yields useful results makes that model valuable. For all I know there may be millions of possible models which yield extremely useful results. What I say, is that my model is valuable in the sense that any model may be transformed into my model. Thus, any relationships predicted by my model must exist in any model (if you set the mapping correctly). At no point do I ever say that there exist no valid relationships which are not predicted by my model. That would be the converse and the first issue does not imply the second in any way. All I am saying is that my definition of reality provides a foundation of relationships which can be relied on to exist in any valid representation of any closed collection of information. Is it the only view? Hell no, but it is dammed powerful place to start thinking.***
Sorry for my wording(?), but what I meant to say was that because you are using apriori definitions and analytic reasoning, you are in effect saying that your model is correct (i.e., assuming the math is correct). Am I understanding you correctly?
***H: In my view in order for something to qualify as information it must be able to be conceptualized. I can't agree that everything that is conceptualized can be represented by numbers, but I'll agree that anything that is communicable must be represented by numbers. D: Then I take this to indicate that you agree that any communicable information can be represented by numbers! However, you want to maintain the cavil that your explanation of reality requires more! Well Harv, if it does, I am afraid you will have to keep it to yourself.***
That's fine, because that's just what I say about reality - it is incommunicable and at best only approximated in human language.
***H: Reality is what is it is. D: Essentially exactly what I defined it to be "Something A": information without interpretation. You put forth the cavil that "information" is not "information" unless it is possible to conceptualize it. Ok I will allow you that one as it is entirely immaterial. Certainly if you cannot conceptualize it you are not going to explain it and you have lost my interest. This is no more than the other side of a similar cavil you bring up later!***
If the part of reality that is non-conceptualizable has lost your interest, then you are in effect saying that you are not concerned with all of reality, just a subset of it that is communicable, is that right? If so, then you should change your paper from "reality is a set of numbers" to "a certain subset of reality is representable by a set of numbers". That would look much better.
***H: How can we discern possibility since we should find constraints that reality is under in order to determine those issues. D: I have no idea what you are trying to say there! The sentence has no meaning which I can resolve. You seem to have some idea in your head as to how something is to be done which is beyond my comprehension. Who said that "reality" is under any constraints at all?***
You did by saying that reality is a set of numbers. That's a constraint whether you like it or not.
***H: However, what if reality doesn't care about what we think is possible or not? It simply goes on its merry way doing what it does best - being itself (and whatever that entails). D: That certainly doesn't conflict with anything I have said and is entirely consistent with my model. What you can't seem to comprehend is the idea that the apparent constraints exist only in the model. The reality of these constraints is an illusion produced by our interpretation of the facts we know. And you cannot understand that without understanding the development of the model.***
Okay, your model has constraints but it is a model of reality, and if you cannot properly identify reality, then it is a model misconstrued.
***H: A sense impression is what is being impressed upon us (i.e., our senses). There doesn't have to be a source of our sense impressions. D: Well then that position sort of leaves "explanation" out in the cold doesn't it. If there is no possible explanation than why try to dream one up. But I think you are wrong there, I think I can dream up an explanation for anything! In fact, I'll give you one that fits any reality "God did it!" I don't count it as a useful explanation, but it's an explanation!***
We can extend an explanation to explain the unobservable, but proof of the explanation is out of the question.
***H: If you consider all possibilities, then one of your possibilities should include the possibility that you cannot include all possibilities. D: Now that is a cavil if I ever heard one! Harv, I have certainly included that possibility by the very act of dismissing it. If that is the case, then all approaches will fail so let's not worry about it and do the best we can. And even in that case (once you understand my model) it turns out that my model is valid. But don't worry about that now.***
"If that is the case..."!!! You cannot eliminate it as a possibility, and therefore you cannot make statements about reality that you do or do not know is the case. You simply must be content with "it appears this is the case", or "the evidence strongly suggests this...", or "we don't know, but our inclination is to accept...". We are all in this position and that is why foundationalism is now almost universally rejected.
***H: See, your conceptualization is leading to assumptions as well as more constraints (e.g., it is possible to obtain additional information and know more than we know at this time). D: Oh my god, I have dropped the possibility that what I know today is all that I will ever know. God Harv, how can you be so dense. By the way, if you look closely at my development, that case has not been omitted at all; though I think it is rather frivolous to think of that particular explanation as very valuable.***
"I think"? Dick, these are the terms used in science. But, the good news is that our ideas are verified in scientific circles by relying on evidence. You are stuck trying to deduce the nature of reality (e.g., as a set of numbers) when science is focused on the way the world appears to us. It is not concerned with the true nature of reality. Forget that stuff, you cannot know, you can only speculate and postulate and deduce with a rational mind, etc, but you cannot know. Forget trying to prove something from a definition of reality. Such arguments prove nothing.
***H: Other possibilities (as extreme as they are) are that your assumption is wrong and that our senses do not bring information (maybe that is already encoded in our minds which only give us the illusion of having senses). D: Cavil, cavil, cavil!!! That possibility is clearly present in my model! I wish I could just take what is in my head and stick it in your head. If I could, you would see the ridiculousness of your complaints.***
Dick, you are assuming mathematics. If the math is wrong about reality then your deductions are wrong about reality. It is quite simple, it is impossible to know, but we can have what we believe to be a 'rational' perspective of what is 'out there'.
***H: Another possibility is that this kind of reasoning is not valid and the Universe gives no indication that this is so. How can you eliminate that possibility? D: I don't know Harv. Do you have any suggestions? If logic is invalid then we are kind of wasting our time aren't we? I think I will just pretend that rational logic is valid reasoning as it seems I have nothing to lose if it isn't! If you would rather stand out in the dark, be my guest.***
At last a little humility when it comes to saying something about reality. Whatever you come up with in a logical manner, is only a tentative statement about reality based on certain assumptions. Reality may be far different than that and we cannot say it isn't. I'm glad you are willing to concede this possibility.
***H: How do you know you don't live in that particular Dick-contradicting universe? D:
Cavils Harv, meaningless cavils of no import whatsoever. Your comments contribute nothing at all to this conversation.***
That's okay. I knew you wouldn't seriously consider the question. It opens the possibility for error.
***H: Dick, you are making deductions that make sense, but they are not proofs of anything. They are simply assumptions. D: No, you are wrong as you have no comprehesion of what I am doing; what I have presented is nothing other than a way of looking at information. The central issue is "any information" may be viewed from this perspective. Show me some that cannot! I full well know that my perspective is far far broader than anything ever conceived of by you and it is quite clear to me that there is none! Your suggestions of possibilities are simply not well thought out.***
If you are willing to revise the early statements in your paper, then it becomes more interesting. You cannot say prove anything about reality unless you know what kinds of constraints (premises) are involved. But, to know those constraints you must know something that none of us can know. If you want to limit your paper to a subset of reality that is communicable by the representation via numbers, then the model becomes a little more realistic. But, then, it is not a model of reality but a model of communicable concepts. Is that what you would like to do, introduce a model of communicable concepts and the constraints that exist on those kind of concepts? How do you validate your definitions in such a model? This is another weakness that is in your current version.
***H: Maybe we are just butterflys dreaming that we are men. D: Another totally thoughtless cavil! That is fine Harv, it presents no problems to my model at all! Unless you are prepared to prove that there exists no possibility that a butterfly could conceive that reality consists of "something A" which comes from "something B" by "some unknown means"! And, that if it did ever come to understand it, "something A", "something B", and that "unknown means" will be understood via a set of numerable concepts. If you deny that possibility then your cavil might make sense except that if you deny that possibility the cavil is ridiculous. You need to think things out a little before you post!***
Dick, as long as you talk about 'reality' it is not I who have any burden of proof to demonstrate. You have to prove that reality is limited according to how you say it is limited (e.g., must be limited to what is logical from the perspective of a young primate species that evolved intellectual abilities within the last few million years, etc). The 'cavil is ridiculous' does not matter. Who says that reality must not be ridiculous from the perspective of a young primate species with primitive technology? I don't think anyone in that young primitive species has a right to say what reality can and cannot be. Imagine the gumption! Who do they think they are, they are only ants.
***H: You are assuming logic and math, but all of these are just human games that come from abstracting our observations of the world. You cannot say that reality is how you observe it. D:
So what? I have no idea why you consider that comment to bear on anything I say. I can only conclude that you have no idea what I am talking about. My impression is that, lacking anything thoughtful to say, you decided to just throw in a philosophic cliché.***
Not at all. You are saying things that are much much bigger than you or I. When considering how we should think of reality, we cannot restrict ourselves - even to human logic or human mathematics. All of these 'games' are based on human perceptions of the natural world. They are hopelessly mired with our day to day assumptions about the world. You cannot mildly assume them to be useful to understand the hidden nature of reality. This knocks out foundationalism right from the get-go.
***H: You can only say it is pragmatically useful to say reality is how you observe it. Any other statement is not based on fact, but is based on assumptions, human constraints, etc. D: Harv, anything anybody can say about anything is based on some mental model of something. What I am trying to do is open up the possibilities as far as I can. I am of the opinion that I have been successful. Your position seems to be that I cannot possibly have been successful and you are not going to look at it. All you throw at me are your reasons for believing that position. Hell Harv, why do you think no one has ever seen what I have seen? Because I'm so brilliant? Hell no, they haven't seen it because they haven't looked that's why. A concise description of my model at this point in the construction is: "something A" which comes from "something B" by "some unknown means"! Now please, if you think you have anything rational to say, point out some concept you think is worthwhile which cannot be imbedded in that model.***
Dick, the reason you aren't getting serious looks is that you are mixing philosophy with science, but your philosophical position (foundationalism) has been rejected a long time ago and even science knows it. The scientific method is what works. The model that you are proposing sticks out like a sore thumb as 'unscientific' and 'philosophical'. There isn't any real scientific concern that is addressed. Your 'problem' has no definition, and no reason to be answered. I'm sorry, but I guess I'm just being honest.
***H: Pragmatism. You cannot remove explanations because they are the only useful tools by which to interact with our world. D: It sounds like I am talking to George Washington again! "They are the ONLY useful tools by which to interact with our world"? I guess you indeed do truly believe that there is nothing new to be learned.***
You sounded a lot like George when you said: "If that is the case..." (see above). When you said that you admitted that it could be the case, but you don't know it is the case, and if it is the case then you have nothing really to offer here. Sounds like you and George have a lot in common.
***H: Conceptual tools, such as your model, are justified only if they are useful. D: So you have already decided that my model is not useful and thus understanding it is a waste of time! Then why are you talking to me?***
I'm starting up a cuckoo religion and I want you as my first convert (smile).
***H: Explanation tools are the most useful since we survived millions of years of evolution with those tools. Figments or not, what matters is the predictive and explanatory sense that explanations provide. We cannot know reality, but we can at least think and feel we do. That's all that matters. D: So I guess you think and feel you know and that is all that matters. That's nice Harv, or should I call you George?***
Since you admitted to being like George, I guess we have something in common, huh?
Warm regards, Harv
|
