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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

This thread explores Dr. Richard Stafford's paper 'The Foundations of Reality', focusing on the definitions and constraints surrounding concepts of knowledge, explanation, and self-consistency within mental models of reality. Participants engage with the theoretical implications and definitions presented in the paper, raising questions and clarifications regarding the foundational ideas discussed.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question how 'self-consistent' is defined, particularly whether quantum theory can be considered a self-consistent model despite its inherent contradictions.
  • There is a discussion about the definition of 'explanation', with some participants noting that physics often presents explanations that are incomprehensible, raising concerns about the adequacy of the definition provided in the paper.
  • One participant suggests that the definition of 'knowledge' should align with the Justified True Belief (JTB) model, while another argues that the definition of knowledge is intentionally left undefined in the context of the paper.
  • Concerns are raised about the assumption that a perfect explanation can be achieved at the outset, with some participants arguing that understanding typically evolves over time as new information is integrated.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of mathematics as a precise language for defining concepts, contrasting it with the vagueness of natural language in achieving self-consistency.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions and implications of key concepts such as self-consistency, explanation, and knowledge. There is no consensus on these definitions, and the discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the definitions provided, particularly regarding the assumptions underlying the concepts of knowledge and explanation. The discussion reflects a range of interpretations and conditions that influence the understanding of these foundational ideas.

  • #61
Doctordick said:
.. 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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
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?
 
  • #63
Rade said:
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?
Rade said:
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.
roamer said:
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.
roamer said:
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
 
  • #64
Doctordick said:
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 74 ·
3
Replies
74
Views
15K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
9K
Replies
36
Views
5K
Replies
15
Views
4K