How to determine the reality of mystical experiences?

[Paul Martin]

Now didn’t you get a masters in mathematics some forty years ago?

Yes, but as you are well aware, many of the skills have atrophied since then.

Paul, with that theorem idea of yours in mind, I composed a presentation which I last updated a short time ago. If you would look at that and tell me what is difficult to understand, we might be able to create something clear.

Yes, I still owe you that. Be patient.

I personally wouldn’t put it that way.

Your way is better. I had the choice of being vague or wrong. I chose vague. When I said, "consistency implies the laws of physics", I conveniently and deliberately didn't specify what it is that must be consistent. You cleared this up by saying that it is the explanations which must be consistent. This relates to a recent comment by Dichter in another thread (https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=968280#post968280 )that points out that truth has no meaning except in a linguistic context. That is, the only things that can be true or false are statements in some language. The same is true for consistency. Langauge statements can be consistent or inconsistent, but physical things can't be, unless you choose to call something like quantum superposition inconsistent.

Thank you for providing an improved way of stating your theorem (as I hoped you would).

Why not just start with the simple fact that you are aware you can think and call it a Great Original Dilemma. That perhaps the conscious aspect (what one might call the soul) is the primary element of reality (that Great Original Dilemma) and that what everyone calls real is a fabrication of the soul designed to explain the experiences of the soul? Paul, does that sort of fit your picture of the situation? Grapple with that for a while and give me your conclusions.

I did and it was an easy "grapple". That is exactly the approach I have made in coming up with my personal philosophy except the words I use are slightly different.

Instead of "the simple fact that you are aware you can think" I call it "the ability to know". It's exactly the same thing. Mine has the advantage, though, of not using the term 'you', which you use without definition. If we agree that 'you' is a synonym for 'the ability to know', then we are consistent in our language usage, and we agree.

Instead of calling 'the conscious aspect', or the 'soul', by the name 'Great Original Dilemma', with its provocative acronym, I have chosen to use the term 'Primordial Consciousness', or just 'PC'. But in my view, all these terms are synonyms and again our views seem to be consistent.

Instead of referring to physical reality as "a fabrication of the soul designed to explain the experiences of the soul" I have paraphrased Berkeley by saying that physical reality is nothing but ideas in the mind of PC. Here again, except for the words, I think our concepts are completely consistent.

So, yes, that not only sort of fits my picture of the situation, it describes it almost exactly. It seems as if we are even describing the same portion of the elephant, or as you promised me long ago, I think we have a glimpse of the entire elephant.

Thanks for your comments, Dick. I am definitely having fun now.

Paul

 

[Les Sleeth]

. . . Dick has discovered a mathematical way to prove that the behavior of any universe which can be described as a set of numbers can be modeled by his differential equation and therefore must obey the laws of physics. This means that the universe, or at least its phenomenal behavior, could have arisen by something producing a set of numbers. . . .

. . . Instead of "the simple fact that you are aware you can think" I call it "the ability to know". It's exactly the same thing.

You guys seem to agree that truth can be had by reason alone, but that is disputed by the fact that philosophers had it that way for centuries and produced virtually no knowledge. As William James so simply put it, “To know is one thing, and to know for certain that we know is another.”

Because you can make sense logically or mathematically doesn't mean anything more than the logic and math have been applied according to their own internal rules; it doesn't mean that reality conforms to your perfect logic or math. So what you in an earlier post call "proof" can hardly be that unless you are willing to stipulate that all you mean is your math has obeyed all math rules. It proves absolutely nothing about reality.

Rationalism should be dead and buried by now, but unfortunately its ghost lingers on. The first real progress in philosophy since the Greeks was the empiricists IMO, and that was due to recognizing that making sense doesn't necessarily mean what's been reason will conform to reality. The only way to know if what we've reasoned corresponds to reality is to set up situation where we can observe what's been hypothesized. As Locke said in his An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, “Whence has it all the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I answer, in one word, from experience. In that all our knowledge is founded, and from that it ultimately derives itself.”

If you were to say that all you and Dick are doing is theoretical modeling, then I would be fine with that. It can be fun to follow a model and see how it pans out. But you used the word "proof," and in discussions with Dick in the past he clearly indicated he thinks he "knows" by reason alone, so it seems now you are agreeing with him (if I've misinterpreted your meaning, I apologize). Right there the principles of science have been violated. For science, there is no proof without observation, pure and simple, so I don't know why you or anyone with a Ph.D in science would think otherwise.

 

[Paul Martin]

Hi Les,

Thank you for your comments. I am always impressed by what you write. I am dismayed, however, at the difficulty Dick and I have in expressing our views. I really don't think that the three of us are all that far off in our world views. The big differences are in our respective unique areas of expertise, not that I have one, but you guys both do. I think our only real disagreements are semantic.

You guys seem to agree that truth can be had by reason alone

If it seems that way, then there has definitely been a misunderstanding. I don't believe that much, if any, truth can be had by any means. The only statement I accept as truue is the statement, "Thought happens". Everything else is subject to interpretation and doubt. But there is a notion of mathematical truth, which should more rightly be called consistency. A "true" statement in mathematics is simply one that has been logically demonstrated to be consistent with the accepted body of other mathematical statements. I don't believe that any statement about reality can be proved to be true unless the statement is a tautology, in which case it is merely a statement about labeling and it doesn't say anything about reality.

So what you in an earlier post call "proof" can hardly be that unless you are willing to stipulate that all you mean is your math has obeyed all math rules. It proves absolutely nothing about reality.

I agree completely. That is all I mean. I insist on the stipulation you mention.

The first real progress in philosophy since the Greeks was the empiricists IMO, and that was due to recognizing that making sense doesn't necessarily mean what's been reason will conform to reality.

I am less of a philosopher than you so I will accept what you say here. From a mathematical viewpoint, however, the first real progress since Euclid was the recognition that there is no distinction between axioms and postulates. That is, there is no "axiom" that is self-evidently true. They are all arbitrary and have nothing to do with reality. I think that recognition is equivalent to the progress of the empiricists, so I think we agree here.

The only way to know if what we've reasoned corresponds to reality is to set up situation where we can observe what's been hypothesized.

I agree completely. And, I would add that if we did set up such a situation and observed that nature conforms to our hypothesis, we still can't say that what we've reasoned is true. Instead, all we can say is what you said: we can say what we've reasoned corresponds to reality. Mathematically, this means that the best we can get is an isomorphism between the model and reality. Or, linguistically, all we have is a metaphor that says that reality is something like our model. In any case, all we really have is some agreement to accept some language statements, which we might have the arrogance to call "laws", or "truth". But we really can't say that we know anything about reality.

Nonetheless, we shouldn't downplay those language statements too much. After all, they allow us to function as human beings much more effectively. There is a poem by the mathematician C.R. Wylie, Jr. that I like in one of my college textbooks:

"PARADOX

Not truth, nor certainty. These I foreswore
In my novitiate, as young men called
To holy orders must abjure the world.
'If. . . . , then . . . ,' this only I assert;
And my successes are but pretty chains
Linking twin doubts, for it is vain to ask
If what I postulate be justified,
Or what I prove possesses the stamp of fact.

"Yet bridges stand, and men no longer crawl
In two dimensions. And such triumphs stem
In no small measure from the power this game,
Played with the thrice-attenuated shades
Of things, has over their originals.
How frail the wand, but how profound the spell!"
("Advanced Calculus", by Louis Brand, 1955, Wiley, New York, p. xiv)

It is the "Yet bridges stand..." part that I think we should not overlook. Even though we can't say anything about ultimate reality, we can sure come to a useful understanding of phenomena.

If you were to say that all you and Dick are doing is theoretical modeling, then I would be fine with that.

Speaking for myself, and I think for Dick as well, that is all I claim we are doing. I think we have no substantial disagreement.

It can be fun to follow a model and see how it pans out.

I agree. And for those who come up with something really useful, like F=ma, it can also profoundly change human society.

But you used the word "proof," and in discussions with Dick in the past he clearly indicated he thinks he "knows" by reason alone, so it seems now you are agreeing with him (if I've misinterpreted your meaning, I apologize).

Since I typically don't use the word "proof", I think you are referring to Dick's statement, "In essence I proved that the answer to the question “Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?” is definitively “yes”. " I'll give you my opinion of what he meant. He claims to have proved that the answer "yes" is consistent with the question in the strict mathematical sense. Nothing more. Physics is ultimately a set of language statements that give a method of predicting the outcome of physical experiments. Dick's assertion is that he can demonstrate a mathematical proof, in the sense of Euclid, that all statements that provide a successful methodology for predicting physical phenomena can be derived from his differential equation, which I say is a theorem. Yes, it is an outlandish claim, but as yet no one has shown it to be false.

Now, what Dick "knows" by reason alone, is that his differential equation is a tautology. That is, it is simply another way of stating the axioms of mathematics and their implications.

Right there the principles of science have been violated. For science, there is no proof without observation, pure and simple, so I don't know why you or anyone with a Ph.D in science would think otherwise.

I don't think otherwise, and I don't think Dick does either. That kind of proof is different from the mathematical proof we have been talking about. And scientists themselves rarely if ever claim that they have proved anything. Instead they only claim to have produced evidence that tends to support an hypothesis.

Now, having said all that, I am really not happy with my response. The problem is that language is just not suitable to express what I want to say. And I think that goes for all of us, particularly for Dick (no offense Dick, but you know that to be "true"). Let me try to express myself another way.

I think the three of us are a microcosm of humanity and that the difficulties we are having in communication are typical. I think the "blind man and the elephant" parable really describes our situation. We are looking at the same thing, we see different parts of it, and we have a hard time expressing to those who haven't seen our part what we have seen. You know you can't adequately describe to us what you experience in meditation -- unless we become competent at it; Dick knows that he can't adequately describe to us what he has discovered mathematically -- unless we become competent at it; I know that I can't adequately describe the goofy crackpot ideas I have come up with without using up so many words that my readers fall asleep. I think both of you have serious and important information that could help extend our understanding of reality. I think that both of your ideas, as best as I can understand them, support and help make sense of my goofy crackpot ideas. This may send a shudder down your spine, but really, I think we are all helping each other see the whole elephant.

Now, I may be getting too close to the deep end, so I'll stop for dinner.

It's good talking to you, Les.

Paul

 

[Rade]

...Why not just start with the simple fact that you are aware you can think and call it a G[/color]reat O[/color]riginal D[/color]ilemma. That perhaps the conscious aspect (what one might call the soul) is the primary element of reality (that G[/color]reat O[/color]riginal D[/color]ilemma) and that what everyone calls real is a fabrication of the soul designed to explain the experiences of the soul?

Are we starting with the simple fact of "you" or "aware" in this argument of yours ?

 

[Doctordick]

You guys seem to agree that truth can be had by reason alone, but that is disputed by the fact that philosophers had it that way for centuries and produced virtually no knowledge.

And that is exactly the reason no one will take the trouble to look down the rabbit hole I have discovered. It is all logic and has to be examined very carefully; something few people are willing to do, particularly if they think the conclusions are ridiculus.

'If. . . . , then . . . ,' this only I assert;
And my successes are but pretty chains
Linking twin doubts, for it is vain to ask
If what I postulate be justified,
Or what I prove possesses the stamp of fact.
... by Louis Brand

Is an exact statement of what I have done. The proof is a true statement about reality only if the ellipses following that “If” constitute a true statement about reality. If indeed that is the case, then the statement represented by the ellipses following the “then” will also constitute a true statement about reality. And, as he says, the “successes are but pretty chains Linking twin doubts, for it is vain to ask if what I postulate be justified”. The critical issue in my “proof” is that the first set of ellipses stand for the set C, the information upon which the explanation is based. I go to great pains to insure that no constraints whatsoever are placed upon that set: i.e., C can be absolutely anything. This results in the astounding statement: “If (what is being explained is anything) then (an interpretation of the explanation exists which must be a solution to my equation).

It follows that, if it is true that you are trying to present an internally consistent explanation of something, then it is true that there exists an interpretation of your explanation which satisfies my equation. That makes that equation a pretty fundamental statement. And it is a constraint on your explanation, not a constraint on reality. That is a very profound result with deep and far reaching consequences.

As William James so simply put it, “To know is one thing, and to know for certain that we know is another.”

Yes it very much is!

It proves absolutely nothing about reality.

I agree with you absolutely! And, since all of modern physics can be deduced from my equation, it points out that modern physics proves absolutely nothing about reality. What I have proved is that “Physics” is essentially a bookkeeping system to keep track of the statistical nature of your experiences and provide a prediction of the future consistent with those experiences. Actually, a rather simple proposition.

If you were to say that all you and Dick are doing is theoretical modeling, then I would be fine with that.

That is what everyone thinks because they believe that the fact that the philosophers who approached from that direction for centuries failed consistently is a proof that it cannot be done. For how many centuries did educated scholars believe that man could not fly?

It can be fun to follow a model and see how it pans out.

Apparently everyone who moves to take me seriously begins by trying to follow the model but, in doing so, they miss the entire import. My model is almost entirely abstract. It is a model of any explanation, not a model of what the explanation explains.

For science, there is no proof without observation, pure and simple, so I don't know why you or anyone with a Ph.D in science would think otherwise.

Now there you are totally wrong. Science is full of proofs of the kind, “If … then …”. Without understanding logic, a career in science would be unthinkable.

Are we starting with the simple fact of "you" or "aware" in this argument of yours ?

I feel English is too vague a means of communicating to consider that an issue. It’s all in your interpretation.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Les Sleeth]

I don't think otherwise, and I don't think Dick does either. That kind of proof is different from the mathematical proof we have been talking about. And scientists themselves rarely if ever claim that they have proved anything. Instead they only claim to have produced evidence that tends to support an hypothesis.

The proof is a true statement about reality only if the ellipses following that “If” constitute a true statement about reality. If indeed that is the case, then the statement represented by the ellipses following the “then” will also constitute a true statement about reality. And, as he says, the “successes are but pretty chains Linking twin doubts, for it is vain to ask if what I postulate be justified”.

I like your answer Paul, but Doctordick seems ambiguous. Is it strictly a mathemathmatical proof without claims that reality must conform? In his response I quoted it seems he believes reality necessarily must conform to pure logic if one's "then" statement is correctly linked logically to an observed "if" statement. That is rationalism, not science.

Because logic and math are used in science doesn't mean they can ever be allowed to constitute the whole of a scientific proof. So I still am of the opinion that while you seem clear about the difference between a scientific and math/logic proof, Doctordick doesn't seem to want to make a clear distinction between the two.

 

[Paul Martin]

Doctordick seems ambiguous

Yes, it's a common problem of his (as it is for most of the rest of us).

Is it strictly a mathemathmatical proof without claims that reality must conform?

Yes. In my struggle to understand what Dick has discovered, he continually admonished me any time I would infer anything about reality from his work. What has slowly become clear to me after all these years is that his result makes claims only about the relationship between explanations and reality. No claims are made about reality itself. The claim is that if a particular consistent explanation happens to conform to reality (incidentally, we have no way of knowing whether or not it does), then there exists an interpretation of that explanation which satisfies his equation and thus obeys the laws of physics.

I think the ambiguity stems from the two different connotations of 'proof' which we have discussed. I think the three of us are very close to an understanding on this issue.

In his response I quoted it seems he believes reality necessarily must conform to pure logic if one's "then" statement is correctly linked logically to an observed "if" statement. That is rationalism, not science.

I think you have nailed the difficulty here. If, by 'rationalism' you mean 'mathematics', then yes, Dicks development is rationalism and not science. But just as the Pythagorean Theorem is rationalism (mathematics) it nonetheless is useful in developing the predictive theories of science. Whether or not reality conforms to the Euclidean metric, which is the necessary and sufficient condition for the Pythagorean Theorem to hold, is still open to debate among scientists.

Your statement above, about what seems to be Dick's belief, needs some careful parsing. As I pointed out, it is not reality that must conform; it is that a consistent explanation must conform. And, the conformance is not to "pure logic" but in some sort of analogic or isomorphic way there must be a conformance between the explanation and something real, about which we know nothing.

I think the difference, between Dick's intent and your interpretation of it, is in the things that are linked by the "if" and the "then". In science, both of those things are observations. In Dick's theorem, neither of them is.

Instead, in Dick's Theorem the "if" is a statement about the consistency of some explanation, and the "then" is the assertion that a particular way of interpreting that explanation must exist, viz. one which obeys the laws of physics. No claim of anything about reality is express, and it is only implied if the "explanation" is claimed to have something to do with reality, and such claim does not bear on Dick's result.

Because logic and math are used in science doesn't mean they can ever be allowed to constitute the whole of a scientific proof.

I agree completely! And I'm sure Dick does too. The whole idea of a scientific "proof" is in the observation of a physical demonstration. Dick's result is pure mathematics (which is why I insist on calling it a theorem) and it applies to science in the same way as any other theorem. None constitutes "the whole of a scientific proof".

So I still am of the opinion that while you seem clear about the difference between a scientific and math/logic proof, Doctordick doesn't seem to want to make a clear distinction between the two.

I think he does. But if not, I'll let him speak for himself.

This is a very happy day for me, Les, and I have you to thank. I have been dismayed for years at how Dick's development has been misunderstood on these forums and at the difficulty he has had in clearing up the confusion. My work with him has been clouded with the same difficulty, although it has been easier to deal with since there are only the two of us involved, and we have had the opportunity to sit down and talk face to face.

In spite of this advantage, Dick has always maintained that I still don't get it. We have worked specifically on trying to get me to understand what I was missing and we failed. I have a proposed additional section of my website intended to be devoted to a plain English exposition of Dick's result that would finally make clear what it claims, and as yet it is unfinished and unsatisfactory.

But in your recent conversations with Dick, which at times had me wincing, and in this present exchange, it seems to me that it has finally dawned on me what Dick's Theorem actually says. Without these conversations, I may not ever have gotten it. I may be jumping the gun here, and Dick might very well say that I still don't get it, but if so, I still think I have drawn closer. We'll see.

In any case, thank you for your insight, energy, articulation, and persistence.

Paul

 

[Paul Martin]

Are we starting with the simple fact of "you" or "aware" in this argument of yours ?

I am very interested in knowing what you see as the difference between "you" and "aware". Are you something different than the awareness that seems to be riding around in your body? If so, what exactly is the difference?

Paul

 

[Dichter]

You guys seem to agree that truth can be had by reason alone, but that is disputed by the fact that philosophers had it that way for centuries and produced virtually no knowledge.

That sounds like a strange argument to me. Since when professional incompetence is evidence that a job cannot be done?

If you want to gain knowledge by reason alone, forget philosophers, call in the mathematicians. Sure, mathematicians don't talk about juicy stuff, but at least they make a lot of sense and the truths they have found seem indisputable.

As William James so simply put it, “To know is one thing, and to know for certain that we know is another.”

I wonder if William James had any doubts about two plus two being four.

Because you can make sense logically or mathematically doesn't mean anything more than the logic and math have been applied according to their own internal rules; it doesn't mean that reality conforms to your perfect logic or math.

Reality can perfectly conform to logic if you allow yourself the freedom to conceive of things that are supposed to exist but cannot be directly perceived or measured (things like fields and forces, for instance). Since those things are products of our imagination, they can do whatever it takes to make reality conform to our logical explanations of it. (did I just read a post where someone mentioned phlogistons?)

On the other hand, if you don't have the freedom to give real existence to products of our imagination, then I suspect even "reality" would vanish. As far as I can tell, the notion of a reality underlying our experiences is just a product of our imagination, like fields and forces. And the same can be said for consciousness. I think the only thing we know exists for sure is experience; the existence of anything causing or being caused by experience seems to lack any solid evidence.

(I take it this is equivalent to Paul's "thought happens" being the only absolute truth)

For science, there is no proof without observation, pure and simple, so I don't know why you or anyone with a Ph.D in science would think otherwise.

So when was the last time someone observed gravity? I have only seen things falling, I have never seen something causing things to fall.

It does seem to me people with Ph.D in science do believe in proofs without observation.

 

[Les Sleeth]

If, by 'rationalism' you mean 'mathematics', then yes, Dicks development is rationalism and not science.

I mean any sort of reasoning about reality without actually attempting to observe what has been reasoned; it can be mathematical reasoning or logical reasoning.

But just as the Pythagorean Theorem is rationalism (mathematics) it nonetheless is useful in developing the predictive theories of science.

Of course! I have no doubts about the usefulness of rational processes in helping us discover the nature of reality. In my own view, I see my reason helping me know where to look for confirming experience, or for experiences that give me the knowledge I am seeking. It's just that I never believe I "know" until I have experienced it.

It seems from Godel's first incompleteness theorem that the math side of things has come to the same conclusion. Consider this explanation from the Wikipedia:

"For any consistent formal theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, it is possible to construct an arithmetical statement that is true 1 but not provable in the theory. That is, any consistent theory of a certain expressive strength is incomplete.

Here, "theory" refers to a set of statements. (A theory is in general an infinitely large set.) A theory is "consistent" if it does not prove any contradictions. The meaning of "it is possible to construct" is that there is some mechanical procedure which when given the axioms of the theory, produces another statement. That this statement is not provable in the theory means that it cannot be derived from statements of the theory using the standard rules of first-order logic. The statement produced by the procedure is often referred to as "the Gödel sentence" for that theory, though there are actually infinitely many statements that have the same property (of being true but not provable from the theory)."


My non-mathematical interpretation of that would say any consistant theory contains assumptions which are not proven by the theory itself, and therefore no theory can either self-prove or generate new statements which are proven. In the real world, this theorem seems to correspond to the practice of empiricism where we reason a hypothetical path and then follow it by attempting observation. We can't just reason the path and claim we know anything, yet it has seemed to me that is just what Doctordick has been saying.

. . . the conformance is not to "pure logic" but in some sort of analogic or isomorphic way there must be a conformance between the explanation and something real, about which we know nothing.

The epistomology known as correspondence seems to cover this. I'll grant that the ambiguous use of the term "proof" might be the problem, but that still leaves me wondering about somehting Doctordick seem to imply.

For example, you/he says:

Instead, in Dick's Theorem the "if" is a statement about the consistency of some explanation, and the "then" is the assertion that a particular way of interpreting that explanation must exist, viz. one which obeys the laws of physics. No claim of anything about reality is express, and it is only implied if the "explanation" is claimed to have something to do with reality, and such claim does not bear on Dick's result.

Is this to be interpreted strictly within the context of theoretical physics? If so, then I have nothing more to say since it isn't what I am concerned about in this thread. In this thread we are talking about the "reality" of the mystical experience, and so when you say ". . . that explanation must exist, viz. one which obeys the laws of physics," is Doctordick's idea that to be real an explanation must have a physical counterpart?

I must say that in past discussions, such as in "Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics," I have thought he has said exactly that. If that is the case, then he's built in an a priori assumption about the nature of reality that automatically acts a filter. Yes, everything physical can be reduced to pure physics, but that doesn't imply that everything is physical.

In regard to the mystical experience, we may not even be able to fit it to the math side . . . what if it is purely known on the experiential side? If so, the demand that it be revealed by any theoretical process is futile.

 

[Paul Martin]

[By 'rationalism'] I mean any sort of reasoning about reality without actually attempting to observe what has been reasoned; it can be mathematical reasoning or logical reasoning.

Then 'rationalism' is different from 'mathematics' and we need to revisit this point. You say that rationalism is "reasoning about reality". Mathematics is not about reality, but is only about abstract entities that may or may not have anything to do with reality. It is the scientists who make the hypothetical connections between those abstract entities and something they consider to be real. Sometime those connections lead to useful insights and sometimes they don't. But either way, the connections are outside the boundaries of mathematics. With this distinction being made, Dick's work is mathematical and not rationalism.

My non-mathematical interpretation of that would say any consistant theory contains assumptions which are not proven by the theory itself, and therefore no theory can either self-prove or generate new statements which are proven.

I would agree with your interpretation if you change 'assumptions' to 'propositions'. But I see this interpretation as different from your assertion that, "It's just that I never believe I "know" until I have experienced it." When you say, "know", I think you are talking about something real. In the context of Goedel's Theorem, the only applicable sense of "know" is whether we can be certain that certain propositions are consistent. Goedel's conclusion is that we can't "know" in that sense about some abstract language statements. Your conclusion is that you can't "know" about some aspect of reality without experience. There is a logical parallel, but the two contexts are quite different.

We can't just reason the path and claim we know anything, yet it has seemed to me that is just what Doctordick has been saying.

Maybe it will help clear things up if we are more specific. We can't just reason the path and claim we know anything about reality. We can, however, reason the path and claim that we know something about the relationships between some language statements. The language statements have nothing to do with reality, and the relationships are strictly defined by arbitrary rules. I think that is what Doctordick has been saying.

Is this to be interpreted strictly within the context of theoretical physics? If so, then I have nothing more to say since it isn't what I am concerned about in this thread. In this thread we are talking about the "reality" of the mystical experience

No, it isn't to be interpreted strictly within the context of theoretical physics. It applies to any context which has any consistent explanation. Of course physics attempts to come up with consistent explanations for real (physical) phenomena, so it applies there. But, if some consistent explanation could be arrived at for mystical experience, then Dick's result would apply there as well. It would say that if that explanation were indeed consistent, then there would be some way of interpreting it such that the laws of physics would obtain in that interpretation. It would impose a constraint on the possible consistent explanations for mystical experience, which I think would be important to understand when trying to come up with explanations.

In my view, it nets down to two possibilities, which might exist in any combination: parts (or aspects) of reality might admit consistent explanations, and in those cases, reality must conform to the laws of physics. Other parts (or aspects) of reality might not admit any consistent explanation, and in those cases, reality may behave in defiance of the laws of physics. My guess is that there is some of both going on with respect to mystical experiences and that in the physical world, above the threshold of the HUP, all aspects can be consistently explained, and thus the laws of physics are obeyed.

... when you say ". . . that explanation must exist, viz. one which obeys the laws of physics," is Doctordick's idea that to be real an explanation must have a physical counterpart?

No. First of all, he never talks about an explanation being real. He talks about explanations being consistent or not. Secondly, if any connection is made between an explanation and reality, that is done outside the context of Dick's theorem.

In regard to the mystical experience, we may not even be able to fit it to the math side . . . what if it is purely known on the experiential side? If so, the demand that it be revealed by any theoretical process is futile.

I am just a little less pessimistic than that. I think there may be some aspects of the mystical experience that would lend themselves to math and logic. If so, some explanations for some of it might be possible. But your guess here is probably much better than mine.

Paul

 

[selfAdjoint]

My non-mathematical interpretation of that would say any consistant theory contains assumptions which are not proven by the theory itself,

NO! The theory is derived from a finite set of assumptions (axioms) and syntactic rules and contains STATEMENTS that can be formed according to the rules that are not CONCLUSIONS from the axioms. There is nothing about ADDITIONAL ASSUMPTIONS.

In the real world, this theorem seems to correspond to the practice of empiricism where we reason a hypothetical path and then follow it by attempting observation

The theorem is about axiomatic theories of arithmetic (and has been shown to apply to computer programs too), it has no applicabilitity to the general world. For example geometry does not fall under the theorem.

 

[Les Sleeth]

That sounds like a strange argument to me. Since when professional incompetence is evidence that a job cannot be done?

I wouldn’t characterize it as incompetence (out of respect for some great thinkers), but I would say they were missing a crucial piece of the epistemological puzzle. Because they lacked that piece, they tried even harder to make rationalism work, which produced libraries of speculation and little more.

If you want to gain knowledge by reason alone, forget philosophers, call in the mathematicians. Sure, mathematicians don't talk about juicy stuff, but at least they make a lot of sense and the truths they have found seem indisputable.

Surely you jest! I wonder if you know what we are talking about. We are discussing how one knows, not how one calculates. Do you think someone could sit in his room, mathematically figure out reality, and then actually know he has figured it out without going out and experiencing reality? Calculations tell us if the math is correct, it doesn’t tell us if it corresponds to reality; we only know that if we observe. That observation is the “missing piece” rationalistic philosophers lacked.

I wonder if William James had any doubts about two plus two being four.

In addition to being a devoted empiricist, James was also a fan of philosophical pragmatism. One thing you can most definitely say about empiricism is that it “works,” evidenced by all the technology it has produced. The meaning of “empirical” is experience, so I am certain James, a brilliant philosopher, knew that the addition of experience to rationality (and rationality of course includes math) was what was making philosophy finally “work.”

Reality can perfectly conform to logic if you allow yourself the freedom to conceive of things that are supposed to exist but cannot be directly perceived or measured (things like fields and forces, for instance). Since those things are products of our imagination, they can do whatever it takes to make reality conform to our logical explanations of it. (did I just read a post where someone mentioned phlogistons?)

Except it isn’t true that fields and forces can’t be measured or perceived, that is exactly why we know about them. And why do you think after some unknown particle is indicated by math the next step scientists take is to look for it? In terms of research, experience is the foundation of modern epistemology, math and logic serve to predict what to look for.

On the other hand, if you don't have the freedom to give real existence to products of our imagination, then I suspect even "reality" would vanish. As far as I can tell, the notion of a reality underlying our experiences is just a product of our imagination, like fields and forces. And the same can be said for consciousness.

I am not sure I get your point. We are consciousness, and so we that’s all we have to work with. I don’t see the value in doubting its ability to accurately perceive reality.

I think the only thing we know exists for sure is experience . . .

I like this thought, but you seem to vacillate about how much you believe it.

. . . the existence of anything causing or being caused by experience seems to lack any solid evidence.

Well, what causes it lacks conclusive evidence, but I know for a fact that my experience causes me to know I exist.

(I take it this is equivalent to Paul's "thought happens" being the only absolute truth)

Sounds like rationalism.

So when was the last time someone observed gravity? I have only seen things falling, I have never seen something causing things to fall.

To “observe” isn’t necessarily limited to our visual sense; to hear is to observe and to feel is to observe. Gravity can definitely be felt. But even if it is true that gravity is only inferred from its effects, it isn’t a big deal if you can see it working and working consistently. No matter where we’ve gone in the universe so far the effects of gravity (and acceleration) have held. (Of course, nobody really understands the “why” of gravity.)

It does seem to me people with Ph.D in science do believe in proofs without observation.

IMO, only the foolhardy believe something is proven about reality without observation. How do you think philosophy got the reputation of mental masturbation? After all the centuries of trying to know without the observation requirement, and seeing the vast amount of baloney written (albeit clever baloney), nobody with half an education should still be trying to understand reality only intellectually.

 

[Les Sleeth]

NO! The theory is derived from a finite set of assumptions (axioms) and syntactic rules and contains STATEMENTS that can be formed according to the rules that are not CONCLUSIONS from the axioms. There is nothing about ADDITIONAL ASSUMPTIONS..

Thank you, that's what I meant.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Then 'rationalism' is different from 'mathematics' and we need to revisit this point. You say that rationalism is "reasoning about reality". Mathematics is not about reality, but is only about abstract entities that may or may not have anything to do with reality.

I'd say math is rationalistic and obviously a most useful tool. Rationalism as I mean it is the improper inference from reason or math that some never-observed aspect of reality necessarily follows.

I would agree with your interpretation if you change 'assumptions' to 'propositions'. But I see this interpretation as different from your assertion that, "It's just that I never believe I "know" until I have experienced it." When you say, "know", I think you are talking about something real. In the context of Goedel's Theorem, the only applicable sense of "know" is whether we can be certain that certain propositions are consistent. Goedel's conclusion is that we can't "know" in that sense about some abstract language statements. Your conclusion is that you can't "know" about some aspect of reality without experience. There is a logical parallel, but the two contexts are quite different.

Yes, sorry . . . I rushed through that little point and slipped up. Also, I probably got too creative in my attempt to draw a clear distinction between reason and experience.

I don't have time to answer your entire post right now, but I like the discussion.

Let me say however that your representation of Doctordick's beliefs are not what I've experienced with him. I don't think I have ever read him where I didn't sense he thought one could know some of the major things by reason alone (and often that if who he was addressing would just put themselves under his tutelage he would show them how to know reality through his methods).

 

[selfAdjoint]

We are discussing how one knows, not how one calculates. Do you think someone could sit in his room, mathematically figure out reality, and then actually know he has figured it out without going out and experiencing reality? Calculations tell us if the math is correct, it doesn’t tell us if it corresponds to reality; we only know that if we observe.

Well, it's not what I would call likely, but it is logically possible. A theory could have the properties that (a)It is unique, and (b) It is necessary, and (c) It accounts for all the thinker's experiences. Then it would be as valid as, say any theory based on personal experience of unity.

 

[Rade]

I am very interested in knowing what you see as the difference between "you" and "aware". Are you something different than the awareness that seems to be riding around in your body? If so, what exactly is the difference? Paul

Thank you for the question. The difference as I see it is one of constraint. There is only one "you", but a range of possibilities of being "aware", including not being aware. Perhaps it is an axiom that all living entities are constrained in awareness but not in being.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Well, it's not what I would call likely, but it is logically possible. A theory could have the properties that (a)It is unique, and (b) It is necessary, and (c) It accounts for all the thinker's experiences. Then it would be as valid as, say any theory based on personal experience of unity.

I agree it is possible to mathematically compose a theory as valid as one based on personal experience, or even to come up with one that surpasses. But that wasn't my point.

What I was trying to say was, whether or not one has got a theory right cannot be known unless one is able to experience what one has hypothesized. You can "believe" you can have "faith" you can be supremely logical . . . but none of it gives one knowledge. Only experience delivers that.

So you might have hit the nail exactly on the head, but you will never know it unless you can confirm it by experiencing the reality you have predicted.

 

[Doctordick]

Hi Les, we seem to verging on communication here. I think Paul’s presence is a valuable asset and I hope you don’t think we are ganging up on you.

I like your answer Paul, but Doctordick seems ambiguous …

Sorry about that. I think it stems from the fact that I have thought about issues related to my proof for some 50 years and my concept of what is going on here is probably quite alien to both of you. That is not a criticism of either of you, it is just that I suspect that what I am thinking and what you think I am thinking are quite different things. When it comes to thoughts and communications, there are three very important and vastly different concepts which I think we should take care to recognize.

There are symbols (words, letters, pictures, sounds, gestures, ascII code, Chinese characters, Egyptian hieroglyphs etc.) all are intermediaries in communications and, if they are to be understood, they must be learned. Learning these symbols is exactly the same problem as is learning anything else. It should be recognized that the idea that one understands these symbols can no more be proved than one can prove any other theory. The assumption that the symbols are understood is supported only by the fact that, once we understand them, our interchanges via them make sense to us. That is, we no longer have to make adjustments to our understanding of them as we are no longer surprised by their usage.

There are concepts (mental images together with the connections associated with those ideas). Concepts are totally internal to each of us. They are private in the sense that we can not deliver a concept in our head to another mind. We can name them via symbols and, if we have a sufficiently large collection of concepts already named via symbols and reasonably well understood, we can perhaps communicate the concept we have in mind to another. But it must be recognized that the fact that a concept has been communicated is an assumption. Again, this assumption is supported only by the fact that, once the concept is understood, usage of the symbol we have attached to that concept no longer surprises us in our communications.

Finally, semantics generally includes a referent (real world object). This is supposed to be the actual thing being referred to. However, it must be recognized that it also is assumed. It is an element of our experiences. If a particular experience is repeated often enough, we will mentally develop a concept of that experience. That concept will include relationships with other experiences and, if the concept continues to be consistent with our experiences we will assume it is a referent to a real thing and not an illusion. Once again, the only support is the fact that we are no longer surprised by the experiences associated with that referent. We “know” that experience and can recognize it.

Lack of surprise is the thread through all these components. The existence of reality is an assumption. When I say that I am neither saying reality does not exist (solipsism) nor am I saying that reality does exist (realism), I am merely saying that we don’t know the answer. Our only ally in our search for truth is finding an explanation which yields expectations consistent with our experiences: i.e., a good explanation eliminates surprises. If we have a decent explanation, we will not be surprised by experiences covered by that explanation.

The point of all that being that everything has to be learned and nothing is a-priory known. Thus it is that your interpretation of any phenomena is dependent upon the information you have acquired with regard to that phenomena (where what I mean by the term “phenomena” is a completely open issue). I consider your interpretation to be equivalent to a personal explanation of whatever is being referred to by the term phenomena.

Now, I have defined an explanation to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information. If you believe that definition does not include your concept of an explanation, then you need to either show me an example of what you believe to be an explanation which does not provide any information as to your expectations or something which yields your expectations which can not be seen as an explanation.

Now, if you will concur with me that I have defined a concept consistent with the common comprehension of an explanation then I can guarantee you that there exists a totally consistent interpretation of the symbols used to communicate that explanation which requires the fundamental elements of that explanation to obey my equation if it is an internally consistent explanation. The issue of reality has absolutely nothing to do with that proof. And it is a constraint on your explanation, not a constraint on reality. (Check message #255 on this thread)

Because logic and math are used in science doesn't mean they can ever be allowed to constitute the whole of a scientific proof. So I still am of the opinion that while you seem clear about the difference between a scientific and math/logic proof, Doctordick doesn't seem to want to make a clear distinction between the two.

Oh, I very much make the distinction, or perhaps attempt to make the distinction; however, having discovered my proof (that any internally consistent explanation of anything must be a solution to my equation) I have yet to find a single possible experiment which would differentiate between “absolutely anything is possible” and “it has to obey the laws of physics”. I have found no instance where any physical experiment failed to be a solution to my equation. It seems to me that I can take that fact as strong evidence that my deduction is equivalent to observation (and that would be the observations of thousands of professional researchers dedicated to careful observation over many many centuries).

What has slowly become clear to me after all these years is that his result makes claims only about the relationship between explanations and reality.

How about “relationships between explanations and the behavior of the fundamental elements of those self same explanations. If the explainer claims those fundamental elements are part of reality, then and only then can one interpret my results as making claims about the relationship between explanations and reality; however, that makes the assumption that the explainer's explanation is correct.

No claims are made about reality itself. The claim is that if a particular consistent explanation happens to conform to reality (incidentally, we have no way of knowing whether or not it does), then there exists an interpretation of that explanation which satisfies his equation and thus obeys the laws of physics.

I only have one cavil with this statement Paul. It is not necessary that the explanation conform to reality. If it is an internally consistent explanation, there exists an interpretation of it which satisfies my equation and thus obeys the laws of physics. In fact, it would be nice to find a solution to my equation which does not conform to reality as we know it. We could then design an experiment to investigate that solution. If that solution could not be found represented in reality, we would know that there would have to be a law preventing such a real solution. We would finally know something definitive about reality.

You are all throwing the term “rationalism” around enough here to get me to look it up. It seems that “rationalism” is an approach to philosophy based on the thesis that human reason can, in principle, be the source of all knowledge. If that is the meaning you all intend, I can assure you that I am not making any attempts whatsoever to conform to the rationalist thesis. In fact, I am doing exactly the opposite. I began my work trying to exactly lay out the proper constraints a scientist should observe in order to avoid wasting his time with experiments where the results of the experiments provide no additional information. That would be where the outcome of the experiment was preordained by his definitions. For example, if down hill is to be defined via a carpenter’s level, an experiment to determine if water runs downhill is an utter waste of time. Since the bubble in the level is the absence of water, downhill has been defined to be the direction the water ran.

When I had finally laid out the logical constraints one should consider prior to designing their experiment I found I could express those constraints in the form of an equation which, over the years, I have come to call my fundamental equation. Initially, the most serious difficulty was that the equation was quite meaningless as I could not solve it. It took me over five years before I found the first solution. Now I fully expected the result to be a constraint, on relations, not a predictor of anything (after all the construct is clearly a tautology). What I discovered was that all the fundamental equations of modern physics were either solutions to that equation or approximate solutions to it. The only interpretation of that result that I can conceive of is that physics itself is a complex tautology: i.e., it is all true by definition. That was over twenty years ago and, to this day, I am aware of no experiment which would violate the rationalist thesis. In my thoughts, there is only one experiment I can conceive of which would provide such a violation. As I said above, that would be to find a solution to my equation which could not be found in reality. I have not yet found one and certainly no one else will find one unless they at least understand it enough to search for such a solution.

So I still am of the opinion that while you seem clear about the difference between a scientific and math/logic proof, Doctordick doesn't seem to want to make a clear distinction between the two.

I think he does. But if not, I'll let him speak for himself.

My proof has nothing to do with what you are calling “scientific proof”. When I say it is a proof, I mean a logical proof pure and simple.

Dick has always maintained that I still don't get it. We have worked specifically on trying to get me to understand what I was missing and we failed.

Paul, you are as close to understanding what I am saying as anyone and every time we have added to our conversations I think you have improved. What I am saying is that any internally consistent explanation of anything can be interpreted in a way which requires my equation to be true. And you are perfectly right, that statement has nothing to do with reality as it has only to do with the explanation. The interesting fact, which I think you are getting very close to comprehending, is that, since the behavior of the fundamental elements of that explanation are exactly what has been theorized to be the behavior of the fundamental elements of modern physics, the phenomena of modern physical reality can be seen as the foundation of any explanation of anything. It is that fact which answers the question, “Can everything be reduced to physics?” in the affirmative.

And finally, to Less Sleeth, I have put forth no theory, I have put forth a logical deduction. It is interesting that you have brought up rationalism. Given what I have shown, if I were to put forth a theory, that theory would be that the rationalist thesis is correct. And, as I have already said twice, the scientific proof that the rationalist thesis is in error would be to find a solution to my equation which describes a phenomena which cannot be found in reality. From my position, I see that as a distinct possibility so I would not yet call myself a rationalist.

But in your recent conversations with Dick, which at times had me wincing, and in this present exchange, it seems to me that it has finally dawned on me what Dick's Theorem actually says. Without these conversations, I may not ever have gotten it. I may be jumping the gun here, and Dick might very well say that I still don't get it, but if so, I still think I have drawn closer. We'll see.

Paul, I think that, if you have missed some point, it is only a subtle nuance of the presentation. I would say that you are so close to understanding exactly what I am saying that the differences could almost be called trivial. :!)

Les Sleeth on the other hand is confusing evidence that the rationalists are correct with a thesis that the rationalists are correct and he is essentially refusing to look at the evidence. Dichter, I appreciate your thoughtful comments though I think you are missing the essence of some of Les’s complaints. I enjoy your forthright comments none the less.

So you might have hit the nail exactly on the head, but you will never know it unless you can confirm it by experiencing the reality you have predicted.

At the risk of repeating myself, I have found no instance where any physical experiment failed to be a solution to my equation. It seems to me that I can take that fact as very strong evidence that my deduction appears to be equivalent to observation (and that would be the observations of thousands of professional researchers dedicated to careful observation over many many centuries).

Have fun -- Dick

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."
by Anonymous

 

[Paul Martin]

There is only one "you"

Well, that depends on perspective. There is only one "me", but from my perspective, there is not only "you" but there are also about six billion other people whom I would also address as "you" if I were to talk to them.

a range of possibilities of being "aware", including not being aware

As I said above, there are six billion possibilities of being "you", as well as the possibility of not being you.

This is, of course a silly game with words. But what I was getting at with my question was your thoughts about what constitutes your essential identity. It seems to me that one's awareness constitutes one's identity and it is that identity that is addressed by the pronoun 'you'.

Perhaps it is an axiom that all living entities are constrained in awareness but not in being.

I think we know of no axiom that is self-evidently true, if that's what you mean by 'axiom'. As for constraints, I would agree that living entities are constrained in awareness. But don't you think they are also constrained in being? After all aren't they constrained in extent, in location, in possibilities, in time, etc. etc.?

Paul

 

[Paul Martin]

How about “relationships between explanations and the behavior of the fundamental elements of those self same explanations. If the explainer claims those fundamental elements are part of reality, then and only then can one interpret my results as making claims about the relationship between explanations and reality; however, that makes the assumption that the explainer's explanation is correct.

Yes, I'll buy that. That way you don't have to make any claims whatever about reality. I think that we actually can say nothing meaningful about reality at all -- except maybe that statement itself.

I only have one cavil with this statement Paul. It is not necessary that the explanation conform to reality. If it is an internally consistent explanation, there exists an interpretation of it which satisfies my equation and thus obeys the laws of physics.

Yes. That should have been obvious to me from the math. The explanation might explain something, or it might explain nothing. But if it is consistent, then your equation must hold. As you have been saying all along, it is much more general than physical reality, or reality at all.

What I am saying is that any internally consistent explanation of anything can be interpreted in a way which requires my equation to be true.

You have been saying that for a long time. It is finally making sense to me. Sorry I'm so slow, but as you well know, that's how I am.

Paul

 

[Les Sleeth]

There are concepts (mental images together with the connections associated with those ideas). Concepts are totally internal to each of us. They are private in the sense that we can not deliver a concept in our head to another mind. We can name them via symbols and, if we have a sufficiently large collection of concepts already named via symbols and reasonably well understood, we can perhaps communicate the concept we have in mind to another. But it must be recognized that the fact that a concept has been communicated is an assumption. Again, this assumption is supported only by the fact that, once the concept is understood, usage of the symbol we have attached to that concept no longer surprises us in our communications.

Right, I understand the basis of thought and communicating. I’ve looked ahead at the line of reasoning you will take and I think you are about to assume a couple of things I don’t. Just to give you a preview of where I am headed with this critique, I don’t think you are careful enough in distinguishing between what might be called pure experience, and the processes of reason.

Since I’ve relied on William James already in this thread (though I am not a disciple or anything), let me stick with his model a bit to help explain “pure experience.” Here’s a link to James’ paper, Does Consciousness Exist:

http://fair-use.org/william-james/essays-in-radical-empiricism/does-consciousness-exist

He intends the term “consciousness” to mean rational thought (which is not agreed on today as a suitable definition of consciousness). But his model is useful in that he assumes a fundamental substrate that thinking happens within, what he calls pure experience.

How can he say consciousness (viz. rationality) does not exist? It’s because it is not an entity (endurance as an identity), but rather an ever-changing process, and one which turns instantly invisible as it completes its functions (functionalists here likely would be satisfied consciousness is explained). However something does remain, and that is the more basic substrate of experience which is the knower of some object known.

I’m going to stop using James soon, but I hope you get the fundamental concept that thinking happens within something more basic which is absorbing, understanding, realizing . . . knowing what the process of thought acts on.

Finally, semantics generally includes a referent (real world object). This is supposed to be the actual thing being referred to. However, it must be recognized that it also is assumed. It is an element of our experiences. If a particular experience is repeated often enough, we will mentally develop a concept of that experience. That concept will include relationships with other experiences and, if the concept continues to be consistent with our experiences we will assume it is a referent to a real thing and not an illusion. Once again, the only support is the fact that we are no longer surprised by the experiences associated with that referent. We “know” that experience and can recognize it.

Yes, more good characterization of thought processes. But I will argue that we don’t need the intermediary “concept” to know, as you seem to imply. If that were true, how could a dog (as I’ve asked a couple of times already) know his way home? We need concepts to think, but not to know.

Lack of surprise is the thread through all these components. The existence of reality is an assumption. When I say that I am neither saying reality does not exist (solipsism) nor am I saying that reality does exist (realism), I am merely saying that we don’t know the answer. Our only ally in our search for truth is finding an explanation which yields expectations consistent with our experiences: i.e., a good explanation eliminates surprises. If we have a decent explanation, we will not be surprised by experiences covered by that explanation.

Well, here’s where we significantly diverge. Our concepts about reality are assumptions. To doubt the existence of realty we’d need reason to doubt the ability of consciousness to perceive existence, and we have no reason to doubt that.

Here’s my last dependence on James, but if you read the paper I referenced he mentions pragmatic tests. Reasoning with a kindred test, why should we doubt that consciousness experiences existence when we work with what exists and it both behaves as we perceive and we are able to manipulate stuff as we’ve perceived? The pragmatic test tells us, for example, that if we perceive cold as hot, then when we apply hot to an ice cube it should surprise us and stay frozen . . . but that’s not what happens. Our perception “works.” I can see an objection coming to that point so let me clarify further that we have to be really careful here with our terms.

Let’s take a bug crawling across sidewalk. He scurries along and then encounters a twig. He stops, feels it with his antennae, and moves around it. Now, I say he “knows” that something in his path exists; but he doesn’t “know” in a way you do.

You have names/symbols for the twig, you have concepts for its makeup, you have theories about its origin, and so on. In other words, you have a conceptual framework the bug doesn’t. So what’s happening is that both you and the bug “know” a twig exists, but only one of you can conceptualize about it. Two completely different things but you are using one word— know—to describe them. Intellectual certainty is one thing, and experiential certainty is another. The intellect requires a specific logic to be satisfied as to the “what,” but experiential certainty only requires an encounter to know something exists.

If I had my way, I would use the term “know” to describe experiential encounters with existence, and I would use the term “accurately explained” to characterize conceptualizing that nicely corresponds to how things are ordered, organized, composed, etc.

The point of all that being that everything has to be learned and nothing is a-priory known. Thus it is that your interpretation of any phenomena is dependent upon the information you have acquired with regard to that phenomena (where what I mean by the term “phenomena” is a completely open issue). I consider your interpretation to be equivalent to a personal explanation of whatever is being referred to by the term phenomena.

Exactly, and here you clearly state the situation. There is the experience of existence, and there is the interpretation. Two TOTALLY different things.

Now, if you will concur with me that I have defined a concept consistent with the common comprehension of an explanation then I can guarantee you that there exists a totally consistent interpretation of the symbols used to communicate that explanation which requires the fundamental elements of that explanation to obey my equation if it is an internally consistent explanation. The issue of reality has absolutely nothing to do with that proof. And it is a constraint on your explanation, not a constraint on reality. (Check message #255 on this thread)

I agree reality has nothing to do with your proof. Do I need to point out that you are merely confirming what I’ve been saying all along?

Oh, I very much make the distinction, or perhaps attempt to make the distinction; however, having discovered my proof (that any internally consistent explanation of anything must be a solution to my equation) I have yet to find a single possible experiment which would differentiate between “absolutely anything is possible” and “it has to obey the laws of physics”. I have found no instance where any physical experiment failed to be a solution to my equation.

I don’t know if you have discovered such an explanation, but I agree one is possible. But take pause here . . . remember, I’ve read many things you have said in the past, and one of them is that EVERYTHING can be reduced to physics, which you’ve just said again.

Now, just because you express something in physical terms doesn’t mean it has been properly expressed, so I assume you accept the requirement that expressions of "everything" are complete. In other words, if love has a physical aspect and a non-physical aspect, then the statement “love can be reduced to physics” means you think you can account for all aspects of love with physics (i.e., and not just that you are only accounting for the physical aspects). It is my recollection that you have said physics can cover it all many times.

It seems to me that I can take that fact as strong evidence that my deduction is equivalent to observation (and that would be the observations of thousands of professional researchers dedicated to careful observation over many many centuries).

Do you see my objection yet? There is no rationalistic equivalent to experience! They are two utterly distinct processes. “Knowing” is an experiential product, and “understanding” is a rational product.

Les Sleeth on the other hand is confusing evidence that the rationalists are correct with a thesis that the rationalists are correct and he is essentially refusing to look at the evidence.

Oh really? What evidence would that be? You above stated as plainly as one can that “my deduction is equivalent to observation.” That sir, unlike your claims, is unambiguous rationalism.

 

[Doctordick]

Well Les, the only thing I can really say to summarize your post is that, "The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed." I think you have made some major misinterpretations of what I said, and Paul is probably correct: that it is my fault for failing to be clear. Paul, maybe you can help me out here as I think you pretty well know what I am talking about.

But I will argue that we don’t need the intermediary “concept” to know, as you seem to imply.

I don't think I implied any such thing. Perhaps you drew that conclusion from my use of the word "object" in the third semantic reference. I did not intend the word to be constrained to any specific character of thing. With that correction, this is what I meant to say:

Finally, semantics generally includes a referent (real world thing[/color]). This is supposed to be the actual thing being referred to. However, it must be recognized that it also is assumed. It is an element of our experiences. If a particular experience is repeated often enough, we will mentally develop a concept of that experience. That concept will include relationships with other experiences and, if the concept continues to be consistent with our experiences we will assume it is a referent to a real thing and not an illusion. Once again, the only support is the fact that we are no longer surprised by the experiences associated with that referent. We “know” that experience and can recognize it.

How can you know something you cannot be aware of or refer to? Just what is it that you could know in such a circumstance?

If that were true, how could a dog (as I’ve asked a couple of times already) know his way home? We need concepts to think, but not to know.

Now here I think you considerably underestimate the mental powers of a dog. We just got back from Denver visiting our pregnant daughter. (First grandchild after pretty well giving up hope!) Anyway, they have a dog. When they ask the dog to get the paper, he gets up and gets the paper. When they ask the dog if he wants to go out he goes to the door. When they ask the dog if he wants to go for a walk he wags his tail and gets his leash.

Now are you going to convince me that dog has no concept of getting the paper, going out or going for a walk? Or better than that, that a normal dog has no concept of "food"? If a squirrel has no concept of food, how come he doesn't eat rocks?

To doubt the existence of realty we’d need reason to doubt the ability of consciousness to perceive existence, and we have no reason to doubt that.

To set any part of our perceptions above examination is to scuttle rational science. Considering the almost unbelievable breadth of illusions which the subconscious human mind can create, it rather seems to me that we have fairly good reasons to doubt the veracity of our perceptions on any issue. And I think quite a little support exists for such doubts.

The existence of reality is an assumption. When I say that I am neither saying reality does not exist (solipsism) nor am I saying that reality does exist (realism), I am merely saying that we don’t know the answer.

If we are going to remain objective we must allow for the possibility we could be wrong. You make no such allowance whereas, via the introduction of the set C, I certainly allow for the possibility that you are correct.

Now, I say he “knows” that something in his path exists; but he doesn’t “know” in a way you do.

Once again, you have made an assumption without real justification. How do you "know" that the bug's knowledge differs from mine in any manner other than complexity?

If I had my way, I would use the term “know” to describe experiential encounters with existence, and I would use the term “accurately explained” to characterize conceptualizing that nicely corresponds to how things are ordered, organized, composed, etc.

Aren't you sort of getting ahead of the game here? It seems to me that your position has made a great many assumptions not even examined, much less accounted for.

I don’t know if you have discovered such an explanation, but I agree one is possible.

I have not discovered an explanation of anything! What I have discovered is that I can guarantee you that, for any explanation of anything, there exists a totally consistent interpretation of the symbols used to communicate that explanation which will require the fundamental elements of that explanation to obey my equation so long as that explanation is internally consistent.

I think you should read that sentence over carefully in order to comprehend what I am saying.

In other words, if love has a physical aspect and a non-physical aspect, then the statement “love can be reduced to physics” means you think you can account for all aspects of love with physics (i.e., and not just that you are only accounting for the physical aspects). It is my recollection that you have said physics can cover it all many times.

No, that is not at all what I am saying. To paraphrase your comment, what I am saying is that, if "you"[/color] can account for all aspects of love in any internally consistent way, when you go to communicate your explanation to me, no matter how short or how long and involved that explanation might be, there will always exist a totally consistent interpretation of your[/color] explanation which will satisfy my equation. Paul, if you can explain that sentence to Les, please help me out.

Oh really? What evidence would that be? You above stated as plainly as one can that “my deduction is equivalent to observation.” That sir, unlike your claims, is unambiguous rationalism.

Somehow you have managed to miss the essence of my discourse. That every explanation of anything can be seen as a solution to my equation is a proved fact. That is an analytical fact flowing explicitly from my definition of an explanation. (An explanation, by the way, which you failed to criticize.) That fact has utterly nothing to do with reality and is merely a logical conclusion. The problem here is that all of physics may be shown to be a solution to that equation. The issue which arises through that profound difficulty is that, what the world considers observational evidence is exactly the defense of thousands of years of scientific work. The fact that their results are exactly the results of satisfying my equation constitutes an enormous body of evidence that my deduction is entirely equivalent to observation and that the rationalists are correct.

And finally, the fact that absolutely any explanation of anything can be interpreted to be a solution to my equation says that there is no fundamental difference between any explanation and the field of physics. The final nail in the coffin of your position is the fact that requiring the fundamental elements underlying your argument to obey the laws of physics says that what you are explaining is an emergent phenomena arising out of complexities of the interactions defined by those laws. Paul, if you aren't confused by that sentence, please help explain it to Les.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Rade]

.. It is that fact which answers the question, “Can everything be reduced to physics?” in the affirmative...

"Everything" ?? (1) Can "nothing" be explained by physics, since "nothing" is within the set of "everything" ? (2) Can metaphysics be explained by physics ? (3) Can a pure "effect" be discovered in the physics of its "cause" ? (4) What is the physics that explains the first movement in the universe ? (5) What is "good" according to the laws of physics ? (6) How does physics explain that the number 2 follows 1 ? (7) Can syllogism as a concept be reduced to physics ? I'll stop with these seven attempts to falsify your hypothesis--wait for answers.

 

[Doctordick]

I'll stop with these seven attempts to falsify your hypothesis--wait for answers.

I am sorry. You simply did not understand what I said.

What I have discovered is that I can guarantee you that, for any explanation of anything[/color], there exists a totally consistent interpretation of the symbols used to communicate that explanation which will require the fundamental elements of that explanation to obey my equation[/color] so long as that explanation is internally consistent.

That is, you cannot give me a complete and internally consistent explanation of anything which can not be interpreted in a manner which makes it a solution to my equation. If you want to prove[/color] that statement false, you have only two choices. You may either find a specific error in my proof or you must provide me with a "complete and internally consistent explanation" which I cannot express as a solution to my equation: i.e., you must provide me with a way of determining exactly what your expectations are[/color] of the validity of any[/color] statement regarding of one of those things you mentioned.

The second would be quite an achievement and probably worthy of a book even before I showed you how to properly represent the explanation (in fact, the easiest expression of your expectations would probably be a book in itself). The first would be far easier to achieve.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Rade]

I am sorry. You simply did not understand what I said...That is, you cannot give me a complete and internally consistent explanation of anything which can not be interpreted in a manner which makes it a solution to my equation.

Thus you ask me to show that any explanation [A] of "anything" does not actually inhere in your equation [E]. It follows that any [A] must actually inhere within the set of all possible explanations [C]. Now, to the question, can any [A] not actually inhere within your equation [E] ? To proceed, we must hold true the possibility that [A] does inhere within [E], and further that [C] inheres within [E]. But, if so, then a contradiction of inference results such that you demand that any specific explanation [A] always inheres in both [C] and [E], --but unless we do not question the premise that your equation [E] actually applies to all [C], then the inference that [A] always inheres within your equation [E] is impossible. Thus, your argument that all explanations [C] always can be reduced to physics [E=your equation] is falsified for clearly any universal equation [E] that actually applies to the set of all explanations [C] can never be questioned, yet above the question is obtained. Now, since the above is a complete and internally consistent explanation of the logical relationship of [A] [C] and [E] that cannot be a solution to your equation, your argument is falsified.

 

[Doctordick]

Let me see if I can comprehend what you are saying.

Thus you ask me to show that any explanation [A] of "anything" does not actually inhere in your equation [E].

You are apparently defining [A] to be a particular explanation of something. I am not exactly sure exactly how you mean the term "inhere". I am presuming that your intention is to say that [A] inherently obeys my equation. That is not exactly what I said; what I said is "What I have discovered is that I can guarantee you that, for any explanation of anything, there exists a totally consistent interpretation of the symbols used to communicate that explanation which will require the fundamental elements of that explanation to obey my equation so long as that explanation is internally consistent[/color]".

It follows that any [A] must actually inhere within the set of all possible explanations [C].

This sentence I do not understand unless you are merely saying that [A] is a member of the set of all possible explanations which you are calling [C] and in that interpretation, the phrase "If follows that" makes no sense at all. So I am somewhat confused as to your opening proposition. But I will go on with the presumption that you do understand what you are trying to disprove.

Now, to the question, can any [A] not actually inhere within your equation [E] ?

I presume you mean can there exist an explanation [A] such that there exist no interpretation of [A] which obeys my equation? I am not sure what [E] is supposed to stand for but I will let that issue ride.

To proceed, we must hold true the possibility that [A] does inhere within [E], and further that [C] inheres within [E].

I do not understand the intent of this sentence. The only possibility seems to be that your intention is to assume two things and then find a contradiction. Proceeding on the assumption that this is your intention, you seem to be saying, first assume that it is true that there exists an interpretation of [A], an example of some explanation, which obeys my equation. And further that there exists an interpretation of every explanation (the set [C]) which obeys my equation. This seems to me to be very confused as the second implies the first.

But, if so, then a contradiction of inference results such that you demand that any specific explanation [A] always inheres in both [C] and [E], --but unless we do not question the premise that your equation [E] actually applies to all [C], then the inference that [A] always inheres within your equation [E] is impossible.

A very confusing statement. Confusing in particular because [E] is a member of the set [C] your two supposedly different assumptions are not different at all and no contradiction can possibly exist.

Thus, your argument that all explanations [C] always can be reduced to physics [E=your equation] is falsified for clearly any universal equation [E] that actually applies to the set of all explanations [C] can never be questioned, yet above the question is obtained.

Is falsified? I cannot even pick out a thread of logic in your presentation, much less agree with your conclusion.

Now, since the above is a complete and internally consistent explanation of the logical relationship of [A] [C] and [E] that cannot be a solution to your equation, your argument is falsified.

First, it is not complete as, to be complete, you need to define the words you are using (that would be to provide sufficient information so that the meaning of every word could be deduced from your presentation). And I could find no internally consistent interpretation of your explanation at all. I am afraid I would not class it as internally self consistent without a lot of clarification.

My conclusion is that you just mocked that together for the fun of it and there is no logical coherent interpretation of it. Please clarify it or I will take it as evidence that you are just posting to confuse people. If that is the case, don't worry about it, baring clarification, I'll just put you on my "ignore" list.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Rade]

..My conclusion is that you just mocked that together for the fun of it and there is no logical coherent interpretation of it. Please clarify it or I will take it as evidence that you are just posting to confuse people. If that is the case, don't worry about it, baring clarification, I'll just put you on my "ignore" list.

No, your conclusion here is false. My argument derives in details from the Organon of Aristotle, specifically the Analytica Posteriora (87a:26)-. I have presented an "explanation" to argue that the claim you make on this thread that-- "your equation [E] proves that all explanation [C] can be reduced to laws of physics" -- in fact falls within a line of argument called by Aristotle Reductio ad Impossibile. Now, my explanation may be incorrect, but it was not posted to "mock" or "make fun" but to "falsify". Thus, the choice is yours, either show mathematically that my explanation of [A], [C], and [E] can be derived from your "equation" (thus to falsify that your argument is not an example of Reductio ad Impossibile) or not.

 

[Doctordick]

Thus, the choice is yours, either show mathematically that my explanation of [A], [C], and [E] can be derived from your "equation" ...

Once again, I must point out that you are not reading what I am saying. I never once said that any explanation "can be derived"[/color] from my equation. What I said was

That is, you cannot give me a complete and internally consistent explanation of anything which can not be interpreted in a manner[/color] which makes it a solution to my equation.

Your post can certainly be interpreted as a solution to my equation. The solution is just about as meaningless as it is simple.

Set t = 0 to something like 2:18 PM Sunday May 7, 2006 or there abouts, and set
B(0) to "a physics forum post appeared as,"

Thus you ask me to show that any explanation [A] of "anything" does not actually inhere in your equation [E]. It follows that any [A] must actually inhere within the set of all possible explanations [C]. Now, to the question, can any [A] not actually inhere within your equation [E] ? To proceed, we must hold true the possibility that [A] does inhere within [E], and further that [C] inheres within [E]. But, if so, then a contradiction of inference results such that you demand that any specific explanation [A] always inheres in both [C] and [E], --but unless we do not question the premise that your equation [E] actually applies to all [C], then the inference that [A] always inheres within your equation [E] is impossible. Thus, your argument that all explanations [C] always can be reduced to physics [E=your equation] is falsified for clearly any universal equation [E] that actually applies to the set of all explanations [C] can never be questioned, yet above the question is obtained. Now, since the above is a complete and internally consistent explanation of the logical relationship of [A] [C] and [E] that cannot be a solution to your equation, your argument is falsified.

under the assumption that nothing else in the universe has any bearing on the issue (which I am sure is false statement from your perspective but the C I have to work with consists of a single piece of information B(0) and nothing else). If you want to include anything else, you have to tell me in detail what you want included. In the case presented, psi = 1 when x = AscII representation of B(0). The best bet for all other arguments of psi would be a solution to my equation as there is no other information given.

I don't think you have any comprehension at all as to what my paper http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm is all about.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Rade]

The solution is just about as meaningless as it is simple. I don't think you have any comprehension at all as to what my paper http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm is all about.

Here is what I understand. That "your" explanation of what "your" equation explains is a logical contradiction (shown true below), and since logical contradictions cannot exist as being a truth statement, your false explanation thus falsifies the validity of your equation.

Thus, in previous post you clearly give the "explanation" of my solution:

First, it is not complete as, to be complete, you need to define the words you are using (that would be to provide sufficient information so that the meaning of every word could be deduced from your presentation).

Here you refer to my explanation, which in your equation is given as a type of solution B(0). Now, since any explanation given as B(0) cannot be a true solution to your model unless it is complete, then the explanation I provided cannot be a solution to your equation.

But, then we read in the following post:

Your post can certainly be interpreted as a solution to my equation. The solution is just about as meaningless as it is simple.

Which clearly is a contradiction of what you stated above. Thus we must conclude from these simple facts that it is not my solution, but your "explanation" of my solution, that is meaningless, and since you cannot derive a logical argument against my explanation, one is left to conclude that my explanation "can not be interpreted in a manner which makes it a solution to" your equation, and thus your model is falsified.

 

[Doctordick]

Thus we must conclude from these simple facts that it is not my solution, but your "explanation" of my solution, that is meaningless, and since you cannot derive a logical argument against my explanation, one is left to conclude that my explanation "can not be interpreted in a manner which makes it a solution to" your equation, and thus your model is falsified.

I repeat, I never made the first claim about "deriving" any explanations of anything or any "refutations" of any explanations. The issue here is "interpreting" your explanation. The interpretation that your posts are no more than a collection of words thrown together for the fun of it is a perfectly consistent explanation of your posts.

The issue of my proof is what can be deduced from the information available. If an explanation of the information available is to be internally consistent, there must exist an interpretation of that information which satisfies my equation. It is perfectly clear that you do not understand that sentence.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Rade]

... If an explanation of the information available is to be internally consistent, there must exist an interpretation of that information which satisfies my equation...

Let us look symbolically at your argument above.

1. Let A = an explanation of a thing
2. From Webster Unabridged we find that A = "the act of ...interpretation"
3. Let C = information available for a thing
4. Let D = rule that A be internally consistent
5. Let E = rule that there exists an A as an act of interpretation of C
6. Let F = your equation is satisfied

Symbolically, your argument is thus reduced to:

If A of C = D
Then E of C = F

Now, since it is always true that for any thing with C then A = E,
your argument becomes

If D, then F

Thus your argument simply informs that any A which is internally consistent satisfies your equation. But, it is internally consistent that not D (~ D) may be internally consistent, thus D = ~ D. Thus your argument is reduced to:

If D, then F
If ~ D, then F

And since your argument reduces to a contradiction, your model is falsified.

 

[Rade]

...The issue here is "interpreting" your explanation. The interpretation that your posts are no more than a collection of words thrown together for the fun of it is a perfectly consistent explanation of your posts.

The logical flaw of your argument here is your mis-use of the words "interpretation" and "explanation"--they represent the same concept as shown below, where A = B:

A = The interpretation that your posts are no more than a collection of words thrown together for the fun of it is a perfectly consistent explanation of your posts.

B = The explanation that your posts are no more than a collection of words thrown together for the fun of it is a perfectly consistent interpretation of your posts.

Since your model (and equation) are formed by a flawed use of the two terms (interpretation & explanation), your model (and equation) are not derived from a logically valid argument, and thus are falsified.

 

[Doctordick]

Rade, do you really think that deserves a response?

Dick

 

[Mickey]

I hope this thread wasn't under so long that I can't bring it back. PIT2 linked to it in another thread.

"Determining the reality" of whatever is not, in my opinion, a very honest way to approach any problem. It assumes too much and is intellectually stuffy with bravado on what reality is when we're still not finished learning about it yet. We do not determine the reality of theories or claims. We only determine how and when they agree or don't agree with observation.

Consider the claim, "I can fly." Well, I have been able to determine that this claim agrees with my observations when I have the assistance of a flying machine and/or when I'm dreaming. The assistance of a flying machine in dreams is apparently unnecessary, but it agrees with my claim nonetheless. Therefore, the honest approach is for me not to agree that I can or can't fly, but to recognize that the claim fits these special cases.

If you have experiences that interest you and wish to have them again, first, recognize the cases and conditions under which you have already had them. Then proceed to explore those conditions and, if possible, follow leads to other conditions, using your discretion.

Make careful notes, wash, rinse, and repeat.

 

[Eric England]

Rade, do you really think that deserves a response?

It must have, since you responded.

I can understand your frustration (believe me), but there are two glaring insufficiencies in your approach.

If an explanation of the information available is to be internally consistent, there must exist an interpretation of that information which satisfies my equation.

What exactly is the "interpretation" that satisfies your equation? Unless I'm mistaken about the scope and intent of your findings, doesn't your equation have to satisfy interpretation(s)?

The other insufficiency in your approach, in my opinion, is your attitude. A useful finding is not created by us, it is discovered by us in a spirit of humility.

I am humbly working with Paul and Canute (primarily) in the thread Canute was gracious enough to have started, regarding your findings.

You wish (and rightfully so) to have them well-considered and that is what you are getting. If you think that your findings are above our heads, then you shouldn't take any of us seriously, should you?

Your have the right to post, but you also have the responsibility to consicely respond to others (or not respond at all). The English language is not a vague and relatively useless methodology. It can be used that way, but that is user-error only.

As for it all boiling down to mathematics, what exactly have you establised that is rightfully beyond the pale of pre-existent findinigs? In addition, what perspective do you have to offer, that shows that mathematics is the "big box" that contains physics, philosophy, and religion?

I think these questions are concise and deserve a concise response. I will concisely resopond to your comments. If the answer is "I don't know", let's talk about that as well.