I am going to post this to the forum because I feel that everyone should be cognizant of the issues you bring up!
Ruquist: I do not want to interfere with your on-line discussion with Aurino.
But some aspects of yesterdays post puzzle me.
1. You said " a coherent illusion which will reproduce any random
collection of data"
I did not realize that the data had to be random. Is this a typo
because just below you say "it is not possible to conceive a collection of
data which could not be seen as obeying those laws".
You need to study the definition of "random" a little closer. There is no such thing as requiring a piece of data to be "random". Random means you don't know any way of exactly predicting the result. When I use the term "random" I mean that my results are not dependent upon any constraints on the input data of any kind.
Ruquist: Does the collection have to be random? Would the laws apply to a single
point of data and nothing more?
As I said, there exists no way of guaranteeing any collection of anything is random. It is an idea in the head of the examiner indicating "he" does not know how it was generated! And yes, it may consist of one point of data and nothing more; however, that is a rather uninteresting situation as simply stating that it is one point of data contains all the information available. There is nothing to analyze!
Ruquist: 2. You say, "the only constraint on my analysis is that there exists no
information outside the information in the communicable record." I am
puzzled. Do you mean all the information in the universe that is
communicable? Or is it limited to one person's subconscious, or something
I mean exactly what I said, "there exists no information outside the information in the communicable record being used to model reality". That is, you know nothing except what is available to you to analyze;
Ruquist: 3. Using numbers as just labels for things is just what Godel did, and
he found incompleteness. However, I think this has already been covered
in the forum.
This appears to be nothing more than a comment! I do not see a question.
Ruquist: 4. 'All of the information any of us have....was set down in our
genetic make-up or arrived at through finite physical interactions...". You
seem to omit supernatural sources of information such as a
reincarnating soul. Is this so?
No, it is not so! I omit only ideas which can not be communicated as, if they cannot be communicated, how am I supposed to obtain them for my analysis?
Have fun -- Dick