What are the constraints for definitions in The Foundations of Reality?

[Rade]

.. What this means is that I can find no evidence of any truth in science above and beyond the constraint that it be consistent with our definitions...

Yes, I agree, but of course definitions can evolve (as do laws and thus scientific truth) whereas knowledge of those concepts linked to definitions is the task of science, e.g., science is defined as search for uncertain knowledge of concepts--not definitions--and of course concepts are a mathematical construct formed by the calculus (e.g., differentiation and integration) within the mind. Thus, imo, if your equation concerns only the constraint of definitions and not the constraint of concepts defined, it would seem to me your equation misses the point of truth in science--but perhaps I just do not understand your logical argument.

 

[roamer]

Doctordick,
Are you saying the only solutions to your differential equation are laws of physics?? This would leave the conclusion that only physics has produced or discovered internally consistent explanations, right??

I didn't review your math nor could I, but it seems that if we accept your definition of an internally consistent explanation we at this point would have accept that the only known internally consistent explanations are those offered by the laws of physics. Do you forsee that there might be some more complicated solutions to this equation, do you think that these solutions or explanations would be new laws of physics?

 

[Doctordick]

Thus, imo, if your equation concerns only the constraint of definitions and not the constraint of concepts defined ...

Just exactly what are the constraints of definition if they are not constraints on the concepts defined?

but perhaps I just do not understand your logical argument.

I have thought about it for several days and I cannot come up with another explanation for your response.

Are you saying the only solutions to your differential equation are laws of physics??

I am saying that, each and every solution that I have found correspond to the known laws of physics and that the set includes all the laws of physics I am aware of. And yes, this would seem to lead to the conclusion that physics has produced or discovered nothing more than a collection of internally consistent explanations. But there is a very subtle consequence beyond that which no one seems to have picked up on.

Do you foresee that there might be some more complicated solutions to this equation, do you think that these solutions or explanations would be new laws of physics?

I do not know. That is for others to determine. I am an old man and I do not foresee my discovering much more than what I have already discovered. Discovery is for the young.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Rade]

Just exactly what are the constraints of definition if they are not constraints on the concepts defined?

I think of the constraints for the concepts as being the number of units subsumed to form the concept (e.g., 2 units, 3, 4, etc.), whereas the constraints for the definitions are the contextual ways that the units can be mentally united. Thus two different types of constraints--those dealing with number of units, and those dealing with units united. It would appear (please correct me if I error) that your equation deals only with how units that form concept are united.