How to determine the reality of mystical experiences?

  • Thread starter PIT2
  • Start date
  • #176
Rade
Doctordick said:
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.
 
  • #177
631
0
Let me see if I can comprehend what you are saying.
Rade said:
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". o:)
Rade said:
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.
Rade said:
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.
Rade said:
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.
Rade said:
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.
Rade said:
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
 
  • #178
Rade
Doctordick said:
..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.
 
  • #179
631
0
Rade said:
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" from my equation. What I said was
Doctordick 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.
Your post can certainly be interpreted as a solution to my equation. The solution is just about as meaningless as it is simple. :yuck:

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,"
Rade said:
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. :biggrin:

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

Have fun -- Dick
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #180
Rade
Doctordick said:
The solution is just about as meaningless as it is simple. :yuck: I don't think you have any comprehension at all as to what my paper http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm [Broken] 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:

Doctordick said:
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:

Doctordick said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #181
631
0
Rade said:
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
 
  • #182
Rade
Doctordick said:
... 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.
 
  • #183
Rade
Doctordick said:
...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.
 
  • #184
631
0
Rade, do you really think that deserves a response?

Dick
 
  • #185
162
0
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #186
114
0
Doctordick said:
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.

Doctordick said:
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.
 

Related Threads on How to determine the reality of mystical experiences?

  • Last Post
5
Replies
110
Views
9K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
26
Views
7K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
36
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
14K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Top