Implications of a single consciousness

[learningphysics]

And how does it arrive through evolution if concepts can not arise from a state of ignorance?

When I first read "state of ignorance" I thought you meant ignorance of a specific being. I agree that concepts can arise in a species through mutation and natural selection. I guess it is possible they could arise in a living human through mutation.

I believe our everyday manner of learning builds upon concepts that are hardwired into our genes... concepts like causality and negation, unity... Just like a spider is hardwired to know how to spin a web.

Locke believed that the infant's brain was a blank slate that could be molded and shaped in any manner. This is what I was arguing against.

 

[Doctordick]

When I first read "state of ignorance" I thought you meant ignorance of a specific being. I agree that concepts can arise in a species through mutation and natural selection. I guess it is possible they could arise in a living human through mutation.

It seems to me that the statement "they could arise" can not be a very intellectually satisfying resolution of the problem. My question is "how does this arise?" If it can happen (and it most certainly has happened) then how is certainly a solvable problem. However, I can find no one who is even slightly interested in "how". And I am regarded as a "crackpot" merely because I have decided to take a serious look at the problem.

I believe our everyday manner of learning builds upon concepts that are hardwired into our genes... concepts like causality and negation, unity... Just like a spider is hardwired to know how to spin a web.

If that is the case, explain why a newborn baby cannot pass the college boards. Exactly what concepts are lacking at birth and how are these concepts acquired? Notice I said "at birth". Clearly they all have a functioning world view by the age of two. Just how was that world view acquired?

Locke believed that the infant's brain was a blank slate that could be molded and shaped in any manner. This is what I was arguing against.

That's nice. But it seems to me that what you are actually doing is presuming the problem can not be solved because you, personally, don't know how to solve it. That is not what I would call a very solid foundation. Have you been following my comments to saviormachine on the "Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?" thread? Take a look at that and see if I say anything ridiculous. In fact, if you find anything I say to be unjustified and can argue your position rationally, I will take you very seriously, even if some would like to classify me as a "TROLL". (I think they just don't want their world view challenged.)

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Tournesol]

I believe our everyday manner of learning builds upon concepts that are hardwired into our genes... concepts like causality and negation, unity... Just like a spider is hardwired to know how to spin a web.

If that is the case, explain why a newborn baby cannot pass the college boards. Exactly what concepts are lacking at birth and how are these concepts acquired? Notice I said "at birth". Clearly they all have a functioning world view by the age of two. Just how was that world view acquired?

They cannot pass because the 'knowledge' they have is of an extremely
general nature and needs to be made much more specific and detailed.
How that more detailed knowledge is acquired is on the basis of
certain underlying, innate skills like Chomsky's universal grammar.

That's nice. But it seems to me that what you are actually doing is presuming the problem can not be solved because you, personally, don't know how to solve it.

The rest of us know there is no such thing as knwoedge-from-absolute-ignorance, or a completely blank slate, as far as individuals are concerned because centuries of scientific
and philosophical endevour tell us so. Read Kant, Chomsky, Pinker, etc.

If you are talking in an evolutionary context, you should make that clear.

 

[Doctordick]

The rest of us know there is no such thing as knwoedge-from-absolute-ignorance, or a completely blank slate, as far as individuals are concerned because centuries of scientific and philosophical endevour tell us so. Read Kant, Chomsky, Pinker, etc.

Yeah, and man will never fly either! People are always ready to admit that they are not necessarily infallible; except for the issue they are currently arguing.

If you are talking in an evolutionary context, you should make that clear.

Because I am not. I do not believe the egg and sperm cells are hard wired to understand Shakespeare or Linear A. And even if you do believe that ability is hard wired in, the problem of explaining the final result is still there. How did evolution accomplish it? "From dust we came and to dust we return." That seems to be pretty brilliant dust! As far as I can tell, the only solution to the problem you people are willing to accept is "it was always there": i.e., the theological answer "it was created by God". Or maybe it's that old "out of sight, out of mind" thing. Perhaps you feel, if you can push the problem far enough into the past, you won't have to think about it. So be it; who am I to argue with the authorities!

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Tournesol]

Yeah, and man will never fly either! People are always ready to admit that they are not necessarily infallible; except for the issue they are currently arguing.

But you have made absolutely no cogent or relevant critique of the accepted theories whatosever (and give no sign of understanding what they are).

If you are talking in an evolutionary context, you should make that clear.

Because I am not. I do not believe the egg and sperm cells are hard wired to understand Shakespeare or Linear A.

As stated, no one else does. That would appear to be an exageration or a misunderstanding. The claim is that humans have a hardwired ability to *acquire* language. Nothing you have said touches on that -- on fact you
seem to assume that some linguistic ability is already in place.

And even if you do believe that ability is hard wired in, the problem of explaining the final result is still there. How did evolution accomplish it? "From dust we came and to dust we return." That seems to be pretty brilliant dust! As far as I can tell, the only solution to the problem you people are willing to accept is "it was always there": i.e., the theological answer "it was created by God". Or maybe it's that old "out of sight, out of mind" thing. Perhaps you feel, if you can push the problem far enough into the past, you won't have to think about it. So be it; who am I to argue with the authorities!

Evolution accompanied "it" by, essentially, trial and error. None of the
people who aer disagreeing with you thinks "it" was inexplicable or a miracle.
It is completely unclear why you think some *other* explanation of evolutionarily acquired learning strategies is acquired. In fact, it is unclear *whether* you do, since you might be laboriously re-inventing the wheel,
given the extreme unclarity of your exposition.

 

[Doctordick]

It is completely unclear why you think some *other* explanation of evolutionarily acquired learning strategies is acquired. In fact, it is unclear *whether* you do, since you might be laboriously re-inventing the wheel, given the extreme unclarity of your exposition.

From my post to the "Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?" thread:

The issue is that we have come from nothing except the universe itself. Somehow, having begun with totally undefined information (what we have come to call the universe or reality) which was delivered to us via a totally undefined mechanism (what we have come to call our senses) we have constructed a very sophisticated mental model of reality which seems to be quite valid (our expectations are pretty much in line with what happens). I take that as evidence that the problem (creating a valid model of a collection of totally undefined information transformed by a totally undefined mechanism) is a solvable problem.

That is the problem I have attacked. I am not claiming that I know how "we" (human beings) did it, I am simply claiming it can be done. That is, it is a problem which can be solved. I analytically solved it over twenty years ago. And I find my solution both very reasonable and very interesting. In fact, my single greatest interest is in talking to someone about the implied consequences of that solution. [Saviormachine is] one of the very few people who has had the patience to get this far and I am actually astounded by how well [saviormachine has] managed to comprehend what I am saying. Most everyone else fails to even comprehend there is a problem here. How can one explain a solution to a problem which they refuse to admit exists?

If you can't understand that, what hope do I have of explaining anything to you.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Tournesol]

You still haven't made it clear whether you are talking on the individual or the species level. However, the "totallly undefined" chargge seems unjustified either way. As individuals we have already taken on board a lot of information simply in learning to speak. As a species we are equipped with hard-wired competencies and strategies upon
which our ability to acquire symbolic, linguistic information is based.
You seem to be saying that since we (as a species) are not supplied with a set
of definitions or labels, we have no knowledge at all. The answer is that there
is know-how (competencies) as well as know-that (symbolic information), and the
latter grows out of the former, and we are supplied with the former.

 

[Doctordick]

You still haven't made it clear whether you are talking on the individual or the species level.

Because it makes utterly no difference. The problem is there whatever "level" you chose to examine. You just don't comprehend the problem.

However, the "totallly undefined" chargge seems unjustified either way. As individuals we have already taken on board a lot of information simply in learning to speak.

Simply learning to speak? If that is such a simple problem, how about giving me a detailed description of the procedure. Exactly how did "definition" come about? Either that fertilized egg knew the definition of something or it didn't. Totally undefined means it didn't know any definitions. If you say that is false, then tell me a "definition" it knew!

As a species we are equipped with hard-wired competencies and strategies upon which our ability to acquire symbolic, linguistic information is based.

It appears you are saying we are hard-wired to figure out definitions for undefined things: i.e., it is possible to start with undefined information and come up with definitions allowing explanation of that information.. Which is exactly the problem I have solved and which you deny exists.

Either that or you are saying that some definitions are hard-wired in. If that is the case, exactly what definitions would that be?

You seem to be saying that since we (as a species) are not supplied with a set of definitions or labels, we have no knowledge at all.

No, I am not. I am saying that, prior to definition, the information lacks "meaning": i.e., is not defined.

The answer is that there is know-how (competencies) as well as know-that (symbolic information), and the
latter grows out of the former, and we are supplied with the former.

And, before the latter grows out of the former, the former is "undefined". It follows that it must be possible to create defined structures which conform to significant relationships embedded in a body of undefined information, given enough undefined information.

As I said, "Most everyone else fails to even comprehend there is a problem here." All I am saying is that there must be a way to "create a language" of defined things given nothing but undefined things or how did language come to be? In my opinion, there is a problem here. Stated simply, the problem is that we manage to establish a method of judging or establishing our expectations with respect to totally undefined information. If we can do it, then it can be done. (Millions of babies do it every year.) "I take that as evidence that the problem (creating a valid model of a collection of totally undefined information transformed by a totally undefined mechanism) is a solvable problem."

Again, that is the problem I have attacked. I am not claiming that I know how "we" (human beings) did it, I am simply claiming it can be done. I have a solution. The question as to whether that solution is right or wrong is not a meaningful question. It is no more meaningful than asking whether the http://www.tnrdlib.bc.ca/dewey.html is right or wrong. The Dewey Decimal System is a system of establishing unique numerical labels to books so that they can be sorted and stored by those labels. If one knows the Dewey Decimal System and the library being visited is organized by the Dewey Decimal System, then specific books are quite easy to find. And lastly, the Dewey Decimal System is not a theory, it is a method.

I have invented a method of developing specific definitions to apply to undefined information such that expectations consistent with that undefined information are easy to specify. My solution to the problem of creating a valid model (an explanation = a method of quickly generating valid expectations from any given undefined information 100% consistent with that given information) is actually quite straight forward and I think anyone with a decent high school education could follow it. The problem is that I am a certified crackpot for even thinking about such things as "everyone knows it is not a solvable problem", or "there is no problem", or "we all already understand what is going on and no 'new theory' is required." In short, it is just too obvious that man can not fly.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Paul Martin]

To Dick: IMHO, your last post here was about the best one you have written on this subject. You have described your discovery in plain English here so that I think I am finally catching on to what you have been saying. Thank you.

To everyone else: I have done a considerable amount of work over the past 5 years studying and trying to understand Dick's work ( http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/reality/Contents.htm ). I am not competent to understand it all, but I know enough mathematics so that after a lot of help from Dick, I am convinced of the correctness of the derivation of his fundamental equation at the end of his Chapter 1. I have also followed many discussions between Dick and people like yourselves and I have been disappointed in the failures to communicate in both directions.

I have gotten to know Dick as a personal friend and he is a warm, caring, friendly, happy, guy. It saddens me to see how his language gives people the impression that he is arrogant, argumentative, rude, or impertinent. This, of course, invites rejoinders that quickly deteriorate any further meaningful dialog. Please try to look past his use of language and try to come to grips with the ideas he is presenting. Take another look at his previous post and try to take what he says seriously. Then, if you are competent in math, take a look at his paper and try to find a flaw in it.

I have tried many times to summarize Dick's discovery and Dick has consistently told me that my summary is close but not complete or precise. After reading his post above, I will try once more for the benefit of the readers here and hope that some more productive exchange might result between him and some of you.

Dick tackles the problem of making sense out of a set of totally unstructured and undefined information. He describes that set of information as a completely arbitrary set of numbers, since, as he explains, it is well known that any information can be encoded in numbers. He discovered that any consistent assignment of labels to subsets of these numbers, or to the numbers themselves, along with any description of relationships among these labels which remains consistent, must obey the laws of physics. In other words, if there is a God who created the universe, then as long as the universe remains consistent, it must obey physics as we are discovering it. God had no option.

In my view, the development of his fundamental equation in Chapter 1 is a mathematical theorem stating that consistency implies his equation which in turn has the fundamental equations of physics as solutions. His Chapters 2-5 explicitly show those solutions.

I hope that someone more competent in mathematics than I am will take a serious look at Dick's paper and either show where it is in error, or give me some reassurance that I have judged it correctly.

Paul

 

[Doctordick]

To Dick: IMHO, your last post here was about the best one you have written on this subject. You have described your discovery in plain English here so that I think I am finally catching on to what you have been saying. Thank you.

Thanks for your support Paul; but I really wish you hadn't given the URL to my website. It is my experience that reading that without understanding what I am talking about just convinces people I really am a nut (I am afraid they never read it, they just scan it and misinterpret almost everything).

Over the last few years, I have discovered a lot of reasons for that misinterpretation. People's responses to my posts have been very educational. I don't think that paper is a very a good presentation. To quote that "Beetlejuice" movie, it's sort of like reading stereo instructions: you have to know what I am talking about in order to understand what I am saying. I would rewrite it except for the fact that it is essentially something I wrote almost twenty five years ago and I really hate to alter it. I did make some minor additions when I first translated it to HTML in 2002 (it's hard not to when you have to retype something).

Forty years ago, physics was the only thing I worried about understanding but the discussions have had with you and others has convinced me that the solution goes far beyond physics. If I were to rewrite it now, I would have to add a lot of stuff. I have two reasons for not doing that; first, what is it worth if no one understands my opening stuff and second, my reasoning skills are no longer what they were twenty years ago. (You kids will find out about that someday; right Paul?) At any rate, I would have preferred leading someone gently thorough the deductions so I can catch and correct misinterpretation when it occurs. If I could get someone to understand that presentation, I think a young quick mind could carry the consequences to another plane.

Which brings me back your "minor" miss-perceptions.

He discovered that any consistent assignment of labels to subsets of these numbers, or to the numbers themselves, along with any description of relationships among these labels which remains consistent, must obey the laws of physics.

Close but not quite directly on the point. What I discovered is that any internally consistent explanation of anything can be interpreted in a way which guarantees the laws of physics are valid.

In other words, if there is a God who created the universe, then as long as the universe remains consistent, it must obey physics as we are discovering it. God had no option.

No, that is not quite true, consistency is not a concept necessarily required of God's creation: that creation could have been (and may be) absolutely anything. But, if you ask for an internally consistent explanation of what you know of it, there are some things which can be said. First, it turns out that an explanation always exists no matter how random the "knowable" information is. And second, two things are required for any coherent explanation: you must conceive of some hypothetical entities (fictitious things required or implied by the explanation) which connect the causality of that explanation to the things you are explaining and the rules everything must obey (both the things being explained and the hypothetical things implied by the explanation). Both causality and consistency are aspects of that explanation and not required in the underlying information. If the explanation can be communicated via a language (a collection of symbols) then, I have proved is that there always exist an interpretation of that language (that collection of symbols) such that all the entities required in that explanation obey my equation. If you study that equation and analyze the solutions, you will discover they are essentially the laws of physics. It turns out that Physics is just a very very complex tautology. And it follows that, if I have made no errors in my development, that tautology can explain anything.

Sorry I always give you a hard time. It's just that you are so close I can't resist trying to correct you. But, I think you know that; at least I hope you do. Glad you didn't slip off that roof; I would never have guessed adding water would make it less slippery.

Have a good week end -- Dick

 

[Faust]

Thanks for your support Paul; but I really wish you hadn't given the URL to my website. It is my experience that reading that just convinces people I really am a nut

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[Doctordick]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Ah, a deep and thoughtful response. The overwhelming logical reasoning there just blows me away. I am utterly astonished by your intellect

It is good that you enjoy yourself -- Dick

 

[Faust]

Ah, a deep and thoughtful response. The overwhelming logical reasoning there just blows me away. I am utterly astonished by your intellect

OK, let's see if I can fare better according to your judgement:

What I discovered is that any internally consistent explanation of anything can be interpreted in a way which guarantees the laws of physics are valid.

Since we already know, to a certain extent, that the laws of physics are valid, what is your comment above supposed to mean? I can only take that to mean the fact that the laws of physics are what they are has nothing to do with the way the universe is, that the same laws would work just as well in completely different universe, or any conceivable universe for that matter.

Unless I misunderstood your comment, I find it not wrong but simply trivial and unimportant. There are no other conceivable universes. I can't conceive of an universe without matter, time, space, etc. So our universe already is the whole sum of all conceivable universes, the laws of physics explain it, and your quote above is just commonsense expressed in a cumbersome way.

an explanation always exists no matter how random the "knowable" information is.

Nonsense. You define an explanation as a method to yield expectations based on historical data, but you cannot have expectations about completely random events based on historical data. If you toss a coin 100 times and get 80 heads and 20 tails, the chances of getting heads on the 101st toss is 50%, not 80%. To expect anything different from 50% is to assume causality, to assume the coin is not really random.

Again, I will give you the benefit of doubt and admit I may have misunderstood your comment. But you'll have to clarify the issue; as it stands, it doesn't make sense.

This should be enough to satisfy your desire for "intelligence". I'm looking forward to a reply; let's see if you are as good at arguing as you are at throwing insults.

 

[Tournesol]

Because it makes utterly no difference. The problem is there whatever "level" you chose to examine. You just don't comprehend the problem.

I don't comprehend that there is a problem in rooting semantic information
in linguistic competency which is itself rooted in evolutionary behaviour.
You haven't shown that there is anything at all wrong with that aproach.

Simply learning to speak? If that is such a simple problem, how about giving me a detailed description of the procedure.

See CHomsky, Pinker. I never said it was simple, I am saying that at its
core is a hardwired competency; as individuals we have to learn *a* language,
not invent one from scratch.

Exactly how did "definition" come about? Either that fertilized egg knew the definition of something or it didn't. Totally undefined means it didn't know any definitions. If you say that is false, then tell me a "definition" it knew!
It appears you are saying we are hard-wired to figure out definitions for undefined things: i.e., it is possible to start with undefined information and come up with definitions allowing explanation of that information.. Which is exactly the problem I have solved and which you deny exists.

You are thinking in the box that all language is a) entirely semantic and b) abstract.
In fact, we learn, as individuals, to associate words things by interacting
with the concrete things in the world, and on the basis of a hardwired syntactical (or proto-syntactical) competency.

Either that or you are saying that some definitions are hard-wired in. If that is the case, exactly what definitions would that be?

A syntactical comptency is hard-wired.

No, I am not. I am saying that, prior to definition, the information lacks "meaning": i.e., is not defined.

What information ? ANyway, you seem to be missing that words can be defined 'ostensively', as philosphers grandly term it. Being told that
a dog is a canine ammal is admitedly no good if you do not know what 'canine'
and 'mammal' mean, which seems to create a chicken and egg situation.
But, in fact, we learn that that is a Doggie. Ostension.

The answer is that there is know-how (competencies) as well as know-that (symbolic information), and the
latter grows out of the former, and we are supplied with the former.

And, before the latter grows out of the former, the former is "undefined".

Category error. Competence is not semantic or symbolic, so it is neither
'defined' nor 'undefined'. You are clearly thiking in a box.

It follows that it must be possible to create defined structures which conform to significant relationships embedded in a body of undefined information, given enough undefined information.

It doesn't have to be possible for an entirely semantic process to bootstrap itself from nothing because the process doesn't have to be entirely semantic in the first place. You are obsessing about the "form nothing" part when you should be looking at the "entirely semantic" part.

 

[Doctordick]

I don't comprehend ... You are clearly thiking in a box. ... you should be looking at the "entirely semantic" part.

And who is thinking in a box? I guess if you throw enough trash you can obscure anything can't you.

I have a sign above my desk which says, in large letters, "Knowledge is Power", and in small letters underneath, "and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity!"

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Faust]

And who is thinking in a box? I guess if you throw enough trash you can obscure anything can't you.

Ah, a deep and thoughtful response. The overwhelming logical reasoning there just blows me away. I am utterly astonished by your intellect.

I have a sign above my desk which says, in large letters, "Knowledge is Power", and in small letters underneath, "and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity!"

Who cares?

 

[Tournesol]

I have invented a method of developing specific definitions to apply to undefined information such that expectations consistent with that undefined information are easy to specify. My solution to the problem of creating a valid model (an explanation = a method of quickly generating valid expectations from any given undefined information 100% consistent with that given information) is actually quite straight forward and I think anyone with a decent high school education could follow it.

You may have a solution to the abstract problem of guessing which data follow on from a partial dataset, but it is only going to muddy the waters if you insist there is a real, concrete problem of "absolute ignorance".

 

[Tournesol]

Faust,

Thanks, that saved me some typing!

 

[Doctordick]

Hi Faust,

Sorry that I didn't notice your post earlier. I went to "Last Page" and got Tournesol's post. The lack of thought in that post so annoyed me that I didn't look back and I missed your post entirely. I apologize for my impatience.

Since we already know, to a certain extent, that the laws of physics are valid, what is your comment above supposed to mean?

The critical phrase in your response is that "to a certain extent". That element is not in my presentation.

I can only take that to mean the fact that the laws of physics are what they are has nothing to do with the way the universe is, that the same laws would work just as well in completely different universe, or any conceivable universe for that matter.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying; however, I wouldn't put it exactly that way as that way of phrasing the thing is a bit misleading.

Unless I misunderstood your comment, I find it not wrong but simply trivial and unimportant. There are no other conceivable universes. I can't conceive of an universe without matter, time, space, etc. So our universe already is the whole sum of all conceivable universes, the laws of physics explain it, and your quote above is just commonsense expressed in a cumbersome way.

I can only conclude that you have misunderstood my comment. If what I said is true, it is neither trivial nor unimportant. (And I would also comment that the fact that you cannot conceive of something does not prove it is not possible. My grandmother (bless her soul) could not conceive of the world being round but that didn't prove it wasn't.)

It turns out that Physics is just a very very complex tautology.

I don't think there exists a single professional physicist who would agree with that or even consider looking at a proof of it were such a proof offered. Why do you think everyone presumes I am a crackpot without any discussion of the details of my work?

Nonsense.

Case in point.

You define an explanation as a method to yield expectations based on historical data, but you cannot have expectations about completely random events based on historical data. If you toss a coin 100 times and get 80 heads and 20 tails, the chances of getting heads on the 101st toss is 50%, not 80%. To expect anything different from 50% is to assume causality, to assume the coin is not really random.

I see the word "assume" in there. That's a very important word. You are missing a subtle but serious point about "historical data". Your example, "If you toss a coin 100 times and get 80 heads and 20 tails, the chances of getting heads on the 101st toss is 50%, not 80%." is based on what? What you appear to be assuming is that the term "historical data" is limited to that 100 coin tosses. Think about that for a moment. If an event (which you call a coin toss) has only occurred 100 times in the history of the universe (as far as you know) and the outcome was 80 heads and 20 tails, would you seriously set forth that your expectations for the 101st trial would be 50/50? It should be clear to you that such an expectation is based on some theory as to what is going on. Either your theory is based on those 100 events (and nothing else) or you have conceptually short changed us with regard to what is included in that "historical data". What I am trying to point out is that the historical outcome must be consistent with your theory of what is going on.

Again, I will give you the benefit of doubt and admit I may have misunderstood your comment. But you'll have to clarify the issue; as it stands, it doesn't make sense.

Fifty years ago (god it is hard to believe it was that long ago), when I was college student taking German as a "foreign language requirement", I had a lot of trouble with gender identity of nouns (in English the answer is pretty clear) . The idea that one was supposed to use a different word for "the" depending upon the sex of an inanimate object was, to say the least, "foreign to me". I had great difficulty trying to remember the sex of different objects (factories are female, stools are male, days are neutral, etc., etc., ... ). I commented about my problem to a friend who seemed to have no difficulty with the issue. He said, "Oh that's easy, most everything can be seen as male, female or neutral." And he began to rattle off the characteristics which determined that gender. A factory was female because it was more important what went in it than what came out. A stool was male because it had three legs. A pasture was female because it was pleasant to go out and lay down on top of it. And on and on. Some of his sexual images could not be put here. A person would have to be pretty dumb to think that the reasons he gave were the real reasons behind the identifications ;though, as he was of German decent, he might have known something I didn't know. The real issue was that he had established a complex memory aid to make the identifications easy. What had he done? He had created imaginary characteristics which he associated with these objects that fulfilled their sexual identity. Once he had those attached, his intuition told him what gender to use without thinking about the question.

The point being, if one is bright enough, one can come up with an explanation for anything. And secondly, when it comes to creating an explanation, what do you have to go by other than the past ("historical data")? The first requirement of any "explanation" is that, what you experienced in the past, must be what you would have expected if you had known the explanation was correct. If the "explanation" is inconsistent with the "historical data" no scientist on Earth would accept it as a valid explanation. Two very important ideas are embedded in that statement: explanations are destroyed by adding data to that "historical data" (new information amounts to adding future events to what is already known) and the description of "historical data" often changes when that new information becomes part of the "historical data" (for example, the fact that you could lie down on a field was an important issue). By the way, "random" is a word for a particular explanation: if something is "random" it means that the specific outcome is not predictable. I didn't say the explanation yielded the specific events (though I did prove there exists one which will), I said the explanation (which you accept) predicts your expectations, quite a different thing.

The fact that a specifc exact solution exists does not imply that is a solution you want. The problem with any explanation which yields exactly the specific "historical data" is that it will most probably be disproved with the next piece of data added. If you would take a serious look at my work, I think you would understand that. Fundamentally, a power series fit can fit any finite set of available data. In fact there always exists a power series solution which will fit any finite data plus one new point exactly (for any given value of that "new" point). Since there are an infinite number of possibilities for that "new" point, it should be clear that there are an infinite number of power series solutions which will fit the original finite set. If the requirement is to be that the "explanation" produces the entire historical record specifically and exactly, then the probability that the next piece of data will not destroy that explanation is exactly zero: obtained by dividing that one correct result by the infinite number of possible erroneous results.

This should be enough to satisfy your desire for "intelligence". I'm looking forward to a reply; let's see if you are as good at arguing as you are at throwing insults.

I never meant to throw any insults and I apologize if you felt insulted by what I said. If you would present more reasoned responses, I would be more considerate in my answers. I presume your response is based on a cursory examination of the URL Paul Martin referred to. As I said in my reply to Paul, "I am afraid they never read it, they just scan it and misinterpret almost everything". What I presented is not trivial and understanding what I am saying takes careful thought. If you really want to make an attempt to follow it logically (and point out any errors in my presentation) I would be willing to help you understand my arguments. But, if you just want to obscure the thoughts presented there (which seems to be Tournesol's sole purpose), I really wouldn't be interested.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Faustus]

Sorry that I didn't notice your post earlier. I went to "Last Page" and got Tournesol's post. The lack of thought in that post so annoyed me that I didn't look back and I missed your post entirely. I apologize for my impatience.

I think it's really bad when you accuse people of doing things you often do yourself. But that's a personal thing, it doesn't really matter.

The critical phrase in your response is that "to a certain extent". That element is not in my presentation.

I said "to a certain extent" because it's possible that our current laws of physics might break down in some specific situation, just like Newtonian mechanics breaks down at relativistic speeds, and all that yada-yada. The fundamental issue is that science does not make claims to absolute truth, only to working models. If you want to claim the absolute truth of modern physics, I'm OK with it as long as you can provide proof, which you say you do. I'm only clarifying what I meant anyway.

I can only conclude that you have misunderstood my comment. If what I said is true, it is neither trivial nor unimportant. (And I would also comment that the fact that you cannot conceive of something does not prove it is not possible. My grandmother (bless her soul) could not conceive of the world being round but that didn't prove it wasn't.)

Misunderstanding abounds... I'm sure you didn't understand what I meant by "conceivable universe". It was certainly not to be taken as something as naive as your grandmother's beliefs about the shape of the earth.

It seems to me you placed too much emphasis on "universe", when to me the important point was "conceivable". I did not say it is impossible for unconceivable universes to exist, all I said was that it is impossible for us to conceive of an unconceivable universe. It's an almost silly statement put that way, but the bottom line is we can't avoid the concepts we have already conceived to describe whatever it is that we describe with those concepts. It's true not only of the physical universe, but also of economics, history, geography, and any intellectual endeavor.

One could go even further and say that the science of physics is a logical consequence of the concepts we use to describe the physical universe.

I don't think there exists a single professional physicist who would agree [that Physics is just a very very complex tautology] or even consider looking at a proof of it were such a proof offered.

I don't know about that. In what way do you think Newton's three laws of motion are not tautologies?

Why do you think everyone presumes I am a crackpot without any discussion of the details of my work?

People usually don't bother examining extraordinary claims unaccompanied by extraordinary evidence. If you are right, what does it mean and how can we verify it?

You are missing a subtle but serious point about "historical data". Your example, "If you toss a coin 100 times and get 80 heads and 20 tails, the chances of getting heads on the 101st toss is 50%, not 80%." is based on what?

Based on the fact that there can only be two outcomes, and that I don't know what determines a particular outcome. If I say future outcomes are a function of the past, I'm assuming there is a reason why I get more heads than tails. I'm assuming causality.

I don't think you understood my point. I was trying to address your notion of "completely random" as opposed to causal. If you believe you're getting 80 heads and 20 tails as a result of chance, you must state the probability of the next toss as 50-50. If you believe you're getting 80-20 because there is a reason for it (real or imaginary), then the outcome is not completely random and you are, essentially, implying causality.

What you appear to be assuming is that the term "historical data" is limited to that 100 coin tosses. Think about that for a moment. If an event (which you call a coin toss) has only occurred 100 times in the history of the universe (as far as you know) and the outcome was 80 heads and 20 tails, would you seriously set forth that your expectations for the 101st trial would be 50/50? It should be clear to you that such an expectation is based on some theory as to what is going on.

Any expectation is based on some theory of what you think you know about what is going on. It's as much an assumption to think the chance is 80-20 as it is to think it's 50-50, and the assumption has nothing to do with the phenomenon being observed. The key issue here is that you are making a prediction about the future - a statement about what you don't know - an assumption! To predict the future, by any means, is to assume. You can't avoid that.

What I am trying to point out is that the historical outcome must be consistent with your theory of what is going on.

If a toin coss is completely random, the probability of getting 80 heads and 20 tails in 100 tosses is small but still higher than zero. Any probabilistic explanation that doesn't exclude real possibilities cannot be proved wrong, no matter how many times the coin is tossed.

if one is bright enough, one can come up with an explanation for anything.

Which is why the world is full of crackpots. Most explanations are useless, even if they are true.

And secondly, when it comes to creating an explanation, what do you have to go by other than the past ("historical data")?

Logic. You can create a tautology which is always true no matter what the historical data is.

Well, that is a lot already and I think I covered the most important points.

I never meant to throw any insults and I apologize if you felt insulted by what I said. If you would present more reasoned responses, I would be more considerate in my answers. I presume your response is based on a cursory examination of the URL Paul Martin referred to.

It wasn't a response, I didn't even check the url before writing it. I was just laughing at something you said in your post. You probably didn't mean it, but it sounded funny nonetheless.

 

[Doctordick]

Well, I will put some serious thought into this response.

I think it's really bad when you accuse people of doing things you often do yourself. But that's a personal thing, it doesn't really matter.

We all go off half cocked occasionally. At least I admit it and apologize for my acts when they are not well thought out.

The fundamental issue is that science does not make claims to absolute truth, only to working models.

To quote myself:

It is extremely difficult to find errors in our presumptions because presumptions are, almost by definition, what we assume to be true and "truth" is an issue no "hard" scientist generally wants to discuss. Why not? For a very simple reason! It is a problem he does not know how to solve thus, in his mind, a waste of time to consider. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that there is one basic truth which can be considered absolute: that which is true by definition is absolutely true. The issue of truth by definition rests on two very straight forward points: (1.) we either agree on our definitions or communication is impossible and (2.) no acceptable definition can contain internal contradictions.

If you want to claim the absolute truth of modern physics, I'm OK with it as long as you can provide proof, which you say you do. I'm only clarifying what I meant anyway.

I am not claiming absolute truth of modern physics. I am claiming absolute truth for the conclusions of my paper (unless I have made an error which is certainly possible as no one has ever made a competent examination of my work or, if they have, they haven't pointed out any errors to me not attributable to "failure to agree on definitions").

To quote myself again, from "The Foundations of Physical Reality", Chapter 1. A Mental Model of Reality, Part I -- The Situation:

What follows from here are truly "the consequences of defining reality". Fundamentally, what I will present is often referred to as a tautology: strictly, "a needless repetition of the same idea in a different word, phrase or sentence". It would indeed be needless repetition were everyone brilliant enough to see those consequences; however, any decent education in mathematics will assure one that the consequences of definition can easily far outstrip the capabilities of common intuition.

It was certainly not to be taken as something as naive as your grandmother's beliefs about the shape of the earth.

My only comment to that is that I have never met anyone who understood just how naive there personal beliefs were. Their beliefs are their beliefs. That those beliefs are "naive" is a judgment (often poorly thought out) made by others. It seems the word is most often used for its connotations and not for its actual meaning. We are all naive and should recognize the fact.

It seems to me you placed too much emphasis on "universe", when to me the important point was "conceivable". I did not say it is impossible for unconceivable universes to exist, all I said was that it is impossible for us to conceive of an unconceivable universe. It's an almost silly statement put that way, but the bottom line is we can't avoid the concepts we have already conceived to describe whatever it is that we describe with those concepts. It's true not only of the physical universe, but also of economics, history, geography, and any intellectual endeavor.

Can't is a pretty absolute statement. Right in line with "man can't fly". You can't do anything if you do not try.

One could go even further and say that the science of physics is a logical consequence of the concepts we use to describe the physical universe.

Here you make it quite obvious that you have put little time into what I have said as that is exactly the conclusion reached in my work. The only difference between your assertion and my work is that my work is an exact analytical deduction and yours is apparently little more than an opinion.

I don't know about that. In what way do you think Newton's three laws of motion are not tautologies?

In answer to that, I can only quote myself again, from Chapter II, Part IV -- Examination of Our Conclusions:

In effect, I have shown that all conceivable universes may be seen as a three dimensional space occupied by objects which are required by definition to obey classical mechanics in the classical limit. What I have shown can be taken in two different ways. One can see the result as demonstrating that our classical view of the universe (a three dimensional space occupied by objects which obey classical mechanics) is entirely general and capable of representing any conceivable universe or one can view my results as demonstrating that the fact that classical mechanics is true by definition and that no classical experiment tells us anything about the universe except perhaps that our definitions are self consistent.

The phrase, "all conceivable universes", is not intended to be limited to that which "we can conceive ". The critical phrase is "no classical experiment tells us anything about the universe"! That pretty well puts off any professional physicist I have ever talked to. As I said, "Why do you think everyone presumes I am a crackpot without any discussion of the details of my work?"

People usually don't bother examining extraordinary claims unaccompanied by extraordinary evidence. If you are right, what does it mean and how can we verify it?

Start with my definitions and follow the logic! What I find funny here is that first you say my claims are "trivial" and then talk about people not bothering to examine "extraordinary claims". I get the distinct impression that you just have no interest in thinking about it and will throw up whatever cavil seems appropriate at the moment: "period". If that is the case, we really have nothing to talk about.

... I'm assuming there is a reason why I get more heads than tails. I'm assuming causality. ... then the outcome is not completely random and you are, essentially, implying causality.

Thank you for that admission. My point is that "causality" is required by explanations, not by the data. All one can really say about a "valid" explanation (naive or otherwise) is that the observed data is consistent with the explanation. To presume that the fact that the data is consistent with that explanation proves the explanation is correct is naive in the extreme. And that is a naivety attributable to almost everyone from the most educated scientist all the way down to a kindergarten class. I am not using that term for its connotations but rather because I want you to understand the fundamental naivete of the human race.

Any expectation is based on some theory of what you think you know about what is going on. It's as much an assumption to think the chance is 80-20 as it is to think it's 50-50, and the assumption has nothing to do with the phenomenon being observed. The key issue here is that you are making a prediction about the future - a statement about what you don't know - an assumption! To predict the future, by any means, is to assume. You can't avoid that.

You are absolutely correct. One can not make any prediction without making an assumption; fundamentally, that the theory upon which the prediction is based is valid. Now, independent of any proposed theory, it should be clear to you that underlying every possible theory is one very fundamental assumption. That assumption is that the future will resemble the past; or, to put it another way, any explanation which does not conform to the known past is to be rejected without question. If you were to go carefully go through my work (which I very much doubt you will), you would discover that the only assumption my predictions are based on is the assumption that the future will resemble the past. My point is the fact that without that assumption prediction itself can not occur or, more particularly, without that assumption, the past has nothing to do with the future and nothing is meaningful at all.

Which is why the world is full of crackpots. Most explanations are useless, even if they are true.

Now this, taken against what we had apparently agreed upon is a rather extreme statement. I can only conclude little thought was put into it; it seems to be a very emotional proclamation. "Most explanations are useless"? I think you would find few people successful in applied technology who would agree with that one.

Logic. You can create a tautology which is always true no matter what the historical data is.

Well, that is certainly a starting point and, as a matter of fact, a concise statement of what I have done. My problem is that the professionals believe that they can depend upon their intuition to do that for them and only a crackpot would think a close examination of the process would be worthwhile.

I didn't even check the url before writing it.

Then I presume you would agree with me that little thought was put into your post?

I have put careful thought into each comment I have made here and if you find any of it insulting or stupid, I can only presume you did not understand what I was trying to say.

By the way, the thread has gotten a bit off from Paul Martin's original opening,"Implications of a single consciousness". In the interest of reestablishing that thought, let me point out an interesting consequence of my definition of time (the past is what we know and the future is what we don't know and "we" are not outside the universe). First, just a quick reference to something I said to saviormachine:

I wouldn't say evolution destroys 'owners' of a set C less adapted to their environment. The set C possessed by a rock is probably quite minimal if it exists at all and the rock isn't "destroyed"; it just lays there. What was C again anyway? All the information about the universe it has to work with wasn't it? Or at least that which "it" can "remember". I guess for a rock that would be the collection of interactions it has had with the rest of the universe and it's memory would be in the vibrations and/or make up of the chemicals which are part of it. Really, I think this aspect of the problem is better left to later, after you understand the solution I have discovered.

From that respect, "we" can refer to anything from a fundamental particle to a galaxy itself. For a fundamental particle C apparently consists of very little data (mass, spin, charge etc.); for a galaxy, one might suspect it is quite more than what it is for a human. However, a human seems to do more with what he "knows" than does a galaxy.

But that's not the reason I extended this post. What I was getting to was the fact that, if one accepts reincarnation as a possibility, since time is a creation of the human mind and not a fact of the universe itself, there is no need to hypothesize that reincarnation occurs in the future. Since future and past are defined by what we know or don't know and reincarnation usually includes a reduction in knowledge (otherwise reincarnation would include a memory of both death and re-conception). At any rate, if one accepts reincarnation as a possibility, there is no evidence that we are not all the same person.

Since our memories are a function of our incarnation, previous carnations and/or future carnations have no bearing on ones current carnation (in fact, one could say that "previous" and "future" have no meaning in that context. Paul's "driver" (that awareness under discussion) could indeed be but one "thing". My only disagreement with Paul resides in the fact that a very fundamental dilemma underlies any understanding of anything: i.e., the things upon which that "understanding" is based. I have an excellent name for that particular dilemma, the "Great Original Dilemma".

Just a thought and little more.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Faustus]

We all go off half cocked occasionally. At least I admit it and apologize for my acts when they are not well thought out.

I suspect the real problem is that you think you need to think out everything you do or say. People don't expect that; they usually expect civility and respect. Those, you seldom offer.

To quote myself

I have never seen someone quote himself. Sounds like a very narcissistic thing to do.

I am not claiming absolute truth of modern physics.

Nonsense. You are claiming physics is a tautology. Tautologies are absolutely true.

I am claiming absolute truth for the conclusions of my paper (unless I have made an error which is certainly possible as no one has ever made a competent examination of my work or, if they have, they haven't pointed out any errors to me not attributable to "failure to agree on definitions").

Your paper may well be correct, but what does it mean? You haven't said a thing so far.

To quote myself again...

:zzz:

My only comment to that is that I have never met anyone who understood just how naive there personal beliefs were. Their beliefs are their beliefs. That those beliefs are "naive" is a judgment (often poorly thought out) made by others. It seems the word is most often used for its connotations and not for its actual meaning. We are all naive and should recognize the fact.

That is just a play with words to evade the real issue. Your grandmother believed the Earth was flat out of ignorance, since it was common knowledge then that it was round (unless she was really old - like 800 years old :rofl:).

There are a lot of people today who believe in astrology, and that is naive. Your comment is just, as you say, a cavil.

Can't[/color] is a pretty absolute statement. Right in line with "man can't fly".

Nonsense again. And can't you think about something other than this "man can't fly" childishness? Besides, it's not even true that man can fly; so far only airplanes do.

All I said was that I cannot conceive of things that cannot be conceived. That is a pretty absolute statement because it is a tautology.

You can't do anything if you do not try.

And I suppose your next claim is that I can do anything if I try! Watch out, for this thread may be moved to Skepticism and Debunking...

Here you make it quite obvious that you have put little time into what I have said as that is exactly the conclusion reached in my work. The only difference between your assertion and my work is that my work is an exact analytical deduction and yours is apparently little more than an opinion.

Translation: I am intellectually lazy and believe in something I can't prove.

The thought doesn't even cross your mind that I may have as much reason to think that way as you do. No, you are the great thinker who writes a paper no one bothers reading, I am just a fool who dares criticize your great genius... :zzz:

In answer to that, I can only quote myself again

Do that one more time, and I won't bother replying to your post anymore.

I get the distinct impression that you just have no interest in thinking about it and will throw up whatever cavil seems appropriate at the moment: "period".

Stop thinking about what my intentions are and address the issues! I don't care for your demeaning comments!

My point is that "causality" is required by explanations, not by the data.

My point is that so is "randomness". But that went way over your head.

All one can really say about a "valid" explanation (naive or otherwise) is that the observed data is consistent with the explanation.

Nonsense. Sometimes an explanation reveals why the observed data is not consistent with it. All one can really say about a valid explanation is that it is logical. Logic plays a more important role in science than observations, and everyone claiming to have a PhD in physics is supposed to know that.

To presume that the fact that the data is consistent with that explanation proves the explanation is correct is naive in the extreme. And that is a naivety attributable to almost everyone from the most educated scientist all the way down to a kindergarten class.

Everyone in the world but yourself, right? Oh well...

I am not using that term for its connotations but rather because I want you to understand the fundamental naivete of the human race.

What "fundamental naivete"? This is nonsense. You are just playing with words and making no intellectual argument whatsoever.

One can not make any prediction without making an assumption; fundamentally, that the theory upon which the prediction is based is valid.

More word games. "One cannot make any prediction without making an assumption; fundamentally, that the theory upon which the prediction is based can be used for making predictions".

You keep making those arguments as if they had any meaning, when in fact they are simply tautologies in disguise. Reading your posts is like peeling an onion; when one gets to the essence of what you are talking about, one discovers you are talking about absolutely nothing! The only really meaningful sentences in your posts are the insults and the self-aggrandizing statements; everything else is just a bunch of tricks devised to misdirect the reader's attention.

If you were to go carefully go through my work (which I very much doubt you will)

And why should I, when you said you "don't think that paper is a very a good presentation" (your words! apparently you only quote yourself when you find it convenient!)

Now this, taken against what we had apparently agreed upon is a rather extreme statement. I can only conclude little thought was put into it; it seems to be a very emotional proclamation

Here you are again, insulting me to avoid the issue...

"Most explanations are useless"? I think you would find few people successful in applied technology who would agree with that one.

This forum is full of explanations. From the origin of the universe to the workings of consciousness, there are myriad explanations posted here for your reading pleasure. If you don't find those explanations useless, I can only say you are naive.

Then I presume you would agree with me that little thought was put into your post?

I will never agree with you that I'm stupid. Stop trying to convince me I don't think carefully about what I say; it's always easier for me to think you don't understand what I'm saying.

For someone supposedly so well-acquainted with human psychology, doing that is just silly.

I have put careful thought into each comment I have made here and if you find any of it insulting or stupid, I can only presume you did not understand what I was trying to say.

Ha ha! What did I just say? :rofl:

let me point out an interesting consequence of my definition of time (the past is what we know and the future is what we don't know and "we" are not outside the universe).

Why should I care about the interesting consequences of your definition of time when I don't agree with it? Whatever you say about your "time" has no meaning to me as it doesn't relate to my "time".

What I was getting to was the fact that, if one accepts reincarnation as a possibility, since time is a creation of the human mind and not a fact of the universe itself, there is no need to hypothesize that reincarnation occurs in the future. Since future and past are defined by what we know or don't know and reincarnation usually includes a reduction in knowledge (otherwise reincarnation would include a memory of both death and re-conception). At any rate, if one accepts reincarnation as a possibility, there is no evidence that we are not all the same person.

Thanks for that. I'll just add your explanation above to the pile of useless explanations I know.

I have an excellent name for that particular dilemma, the "Great Original Dilemma".

So now you also explain what God is, and turns out He is an acronym? Excuse me the laughter, I can't help it :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I'm sorry Doctordick, I probably shouldn't be laughing at you. It's clear to me you have some sort of linguistic disorder, which is not bad enough to prevent you from being functional, but it definitely impairs your ability to have meaningful conversations with ordinary people.

By the way, people like you tend to obsess with activities that require little social contact, like mathematics, computer programming, and the exact sciences. Perhaps you are right and you really discovered something important, but if that is the case then you'll have to take that discovery to your tomb. More than likely, though, I think you are just a confused fellow.

Sorry if you think this post is not well thought out. I know it appears that way to you. I wish you better luck with saviourmachine, but I suspect he'll find out sooner or later, if he hasn't already.

Good bye!

 

[Doctordick]

I suspect the real problem is that you think you need to think out everything you do or say. People don't expect that ... I am intellectually lazy and believe in something I can't prove.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Do that one more time, and I won't bother replying to your post anymore.

Thank god; the end is near! :tongue:

Stop trying to convince me I don't think carefully about what I say; it's always easier for me to think you don't understand what I'm saying.

Well, pick the easy route then. :rofl: Say something intelligent and I will take you seriously. For the moment, my only serious comment to your deep and profound retort, read this.

Have fun -- Dick