What can be deduced without making presumptions!

[Area54]

1 hour ago, Doctordick said:

Now, if that assertion can be converted into a mathematical expression (which it certainly is not as originally defined) by redefining those indices without constraining what is expressed, some rather astounding results can be obtained.

So what are these astounding results? It really should not require us agreeing with your preamble before you present them. That is not the way science works. Mendel didn't withold his findings on the ratio of pea chracteristics until his audience agreed that some were smooth and some were wrinkled. He stated such was the case and relayed the pertinent observations.

I accept that you are no Mendel, but many modest achievers have been known to follow the same approach.

[Manticore]

On 31/07/2017 at 11:54 PM, Doctordick said:

 (and all the other mindless readers)

Pot, kettle.

[tar]

Doctordick,

"My opening assertion is that there exist relationships within those facts which can be deduced without making any assumptions as to what those facts actually are."

There is meaning behind language that is not actually contained in the language itself.  Consider your misspelling of role.  SwansonT knew what you meant, even though the numbers you put on the page would have added up to roll.

A language is a kind of secret code established between two or more "minds".  One thing standing for another.   You said your breakdown works because everything can be labeled and numbered.  Thing is, you have to know what is standing for what, and that can only be done with some prior understanding having had occurred between the two minds.  Even the IKEA pictures are based on "watch me, I'll show you" and the photos are standing for the arrangement the pieces of furniture  scattered on you floor, should take, if you want to build an arrangement similar to the one conceived by the designer.

So a label is already language.  The thing the label stands for, is a thing existing in reality, or in the other mind, quite unlike the number that is standing for the thing.  Your xs in your equation could stand for anything.  Therefore  your formula stands for no particular thing, or any particular thing, and therefore, in my mind, no particular thing.

So take the ASCII code for roll and add the numbers together and give a stranger, not privy to this thread that number and see if she can deduce what fact you wished to represent.

Regards, TAR

 

[tar]

or consider a dream, a kind of communication is going on within a dreamer, in their own private language talking to themselves, where a door could be standing for an opportunity or whatever...how you going to label that

or take the ASCII code for yuki and show me where studying the relationship between those numbers, one can gleen the meanings cold and white.   And where in the labels, in the numbers do you see exactly the same facts, the same meaning that taking the ASCII code for snow, would yield 

[John Cuthber]

On 26/07/2017 at 2:35 PM, Doctordick said:

My opening assertion is that there exist relationships within those facts which can be deduced without making any assumptions as to what those facts actually are.

And who knows- you may even be right.

But you have presumed that  at least some facts exist, and that there are relationships between them.

You can stop now.

[tar]

Doctordick,

 

Perhaps you are trying to say that the world fits together flawlessly without our help, and one can presume that the world will work and fit together, and one can just make this presumption and think through what then makes sense, given the total collection of evidence by experiencing the place directly, making no other predictions or assumptions.

This is what I have been arguing off and on for quite  a few years on this board.  That reality can carry its own weight and does not require our labeling.  But here your labels are not proof of you thesis, they are an example of your thesis being flawed. 

In science a good deal of how we proceed is off an agreement on the assumptions.  The presumptions are already set, together as to what we are calling what. And as Kant figures out in  Critique of pure Reason, all our judgements, all out thoughts are a synthesis of other thoughts, things we put together and build upon based on earlier judgments.  There are things we understand at once, and things we understand over time.  Things we compare and things we understand in terms of relationship between items.  A whole list, or labels, for various things we can say about the world or about any thing in particular,  types of judgements, or categories of thought.  The whole bunch is thought about and thought through based on two primary a priori   assumptions that can not be broken down into any more simple component thoughts or judgements.  Two things that have no definition.  Two things that are not made up of component ideas.  One is time.  And the other is space.  With these two presumptions we can construct every other consideration we make.  Everything we say about a thing in general.

And in all cases, what we say about a thing is what we can say about a thing, and does not imply a knowledge of the thing in itself.   So I think your thesis is defeated because you figure you can know the thing in itself without talking about it, when in reality, talking about a thing is all we can together do.

Regards, TAR

[Doctordick]

"tar" I have pretty well given up on reaching anyone on this thread. However, on looking at the thing again it came to me that you might possibly be reachable.

In answer to Strange, I posted the essence of my assertion on July 30, 2017 at 3:54 PM. That post reflects the essence of my thoughts. You should think about that post carefully!

 

On 8/2/2017 at 7:54 AM, tar said:

Doctordick,

"My opening assertion is that there exist relationships within those facts which can be deduced without making any assumptions as to what those facts actually are."

There is meaning behind language that is not actually contained in the language itself. 

        ....

Regards, TAR

That meaning is something you have put into the language as part of the process of learning it: i.e. it is an assumption that you understand the language.

On 8/2/2017 at 7:54 AM, tar said:

A language is a kind of secret code established between two or more "minds".  One thing standing for another.  

I agree; however I disagree in your presumption that errors can not exist within your interpretation of that code. You have to first learn the language and you should comprehend that your belief that you understand the language is a presumption you make. You cannot claim to understand the language without eventually making such a presumption.  

On 8/2/2017 at 7:54 AM, tar said:

You said your breakdown works because everything can be labeled and numbered.  Thing is, you have to know what is standing for what, and that can only be done with some prior understanding having had occurred between the two minds.

You miss the significant issue. I am not discussing the communication of information; I am discussing the mechanism which stands behind that communication. The significant issue is that "it can be labeled and numbered" not that relevant labels and numbers are either available or understood. That they must be understood is just another presumption "YOU" want to make. There are many written examples of ancient languages which are no longer understood. Those writing may none the less be represented by numeric graphic representations. That in no way requires the language be understood!

Even pictures can be represented as a collection of three dimensional points (x,y designating the relevant points and z designating the color of those points). On the other hand if you know anything about computers you should comprehend that those self same pictures can just as well be represented by a specific list of numbers (binary numbers are what computers use to communicate). 

On 8/2/2017 at 7:54 AM, tar said:

So a label is already language.

So you agree with me that any language can be represented by lists of numerical labels.

On 8/2/2017 at 7:54 AM, tar said:

The thing the label stands for, is a thing existing in reality, or in the other mind, quite unlike the number that is standing for the thing.

The point is that "if you knew the language" you could create such an appropriate list. That is the only issue of interest to me.  If you do not believe that is a fact, create for me a language which could not be communicated via a computer!

On 8/2/2017 at 7:54 AM, tar said:

Your xs in your equation could stand for anything.  Therefore  your formula stands for no particular thing, or any particular thing, and therefore, in my mind, no particular thing.

Or perhaps any possible thing!

On 8/2/2017 at 8:39 AM, tar said:

or consider a dream, a kind of communication is going on within a dreamer, in their own private language talking to themselves, where a door could be standing for an opportunity or whatever...how you going to label that

Again, you want to make the presumption you understand what the code stands for. This is an issue of no interest to me whatsoever!

If you are serious, consider the possibility of enumerating the brain cells which are firing. Do you think that being able to do that would imply understanding what that brain is thinking?

On 8/2/2017 at 8:39 AM, tar said:

or take the ASCII code for yuki and show me where studying the relationship between those numbers, one can gleen the meanings cold and white.   And where in the labels, in the numbers do you see exactly the same facts, the same meaning that taking the ASCII code for snow, would yield

Again you insist on PRESUMING THE CONCEPTS BEING LABELED ARE KNOWN. An event which can not have occurred until after the code has been interpreted: i.e. learned.

On 8/4/2017 at 11:39 AM, tar said:

Perhaps you are trying to say that the world fits together flawlessly without our help, and one can presume that the world will work and fit together, and one can just make this presumption and think through what then makes sense, given the total collection of evidence by experiencing the place directly, making no other predictions or assumptions.

No I am not making any such presumption. I am not saying a thing about how the world works. I am concerned only with our communication techniques. Understanding what is represented is clearly a presumption you insist on making!!!  I am concerned only with the rather surprising constraints which exist on those communication techniques without making any presumptions as to the actual techniques at all.

 

On 8/4/2017 at 11:39 AM, tar said:

This is what I have been arguing off and on for quite  a few years on this board.  That reality can carry its own weight and does not require our labeling.  But here your labels are not proof of you thesis, they are an example of your thesis being flawed.

Pleas explain that flaw you wish presume without presuming the communication is understood!!

On 8/4/2017 at 11:39 AM, tar said:

In science a good deal of how we proceed is off an agreement on the assumptions.  The presumptions are already set, together as to what we are calling what. And as Kant figures out in  Critique of pure Reason, all our judgements, all out thoughts are a synthesis of other thoughts, things we put together and build upon based on earlier judgments.  There are things we understand at once, and things we understand over time.  Things we compare and things we understand in terms of relationship between items.  A whole list, or labels, for various things we can say about the world or about any thing in particular,  types of judgements, or categories of thought.  The whole bunch is thought about and thought through based on two primary a priori   assumptions that can not be broken down into any more simple component thoughts or judgements.  Two things that have no definition.  Two things that are not made up of component ideas.  One is time.  And the other is space.  With these two presumptions we can construct every other consideration we make.  Everything we say about a thing in general.

And in all cases, what we say about a thing is what we can say about a thing, and does not imply a knowledge of the thing in itself.   So I think your thesis is defeated because you figure you can know the thing in itself without talking about it, when in reality, talking about a thing is all we can together do.

Regards, TAR

Oh I agree, most everything science does is based on PRESUMING THE ASSUMPTIONS made by others are correct.  My issue is, what can be proved valid due to that very procedure, quite a different issue which is clearly not being examined by anyone besides myself.

If what I am saying is beyond your comprehension please don't bother to respond.

Thank you -- Dick

[Manticore]

"...The name of the song is called 'Haddocks' Eyes'!"
"Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?" Alice said, trying to
feel interested.
"No, you don't understand," the Knight said, looking a little
vexed. "That's what the name is called. The name really is, 'The Aged
Aged Man.'"
"Then I ought to have said "That's what the song is called'?"
Alice corrected herself.
"No, you oughtn't: that's quite another thing! The song is
called 'Ways and Means': but that's only what it is called you know!"
"Well, what is the song then?" said Alice, who was by this
time completely bewildered.
"I was coming to that," the Knight said. "The song really is
"A-sitting on a Gate": and the tune's my own invention."
--Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass"

[John Cuthber]

2 hours ago, Doctordick said:

"tar" I have pretty well given up on reaching anyone on this thread. However, on looking at the thing again it came to me that you might possibly be reachable.

In answer to Strange, I posted the essence of my assertion on July 30, 2017 at 3:54 PM. That post reflects the essence of my thoughts. You should think about that post carefully!

 

Much of what you said then ( July 30, 2017 at 3:54 PM) was a quote from what you had said earlier.
"On 26/07/2017 at 7:57 PM, Doctordick said:"

And, among other things, what you said there was "And representing experiences without making any assumptions of any kind is quite a difficult thing to achieve. "

Which makes no sense because, in making any such representation, you tacitly assume that 

• experiences exist and
• they can be represented.

You keep assuming stuff, yet complaining when others make different assumptions.

 

[Strange]

4 hours ago, Doctordick said:

In answer to Strange, I posted the essence of my assertion on July 30, 2017 at 3:54 PM. That post reflects the essence of my thoughts. You should think about that post carefully!

That is just yet another repetition of your idea and of replacing words with numbers. 

This is neither novel nor especially interesting. You seem to think it leads to something interesting. I am still waited no for you to explain what (and why) that is. 

[Strange]

4 hours ago, Doctordick said:

If what I am saying is beyond your comprehension please don't bother to respond.

This attitude that people are too stupid to understand your rather trivial idea is pretty offensive. 

Also, people are guessing what you are talking about because you refuse to get to the point. 

Edited August 8, 2017 by Strange

[tar]

On ‎7‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 9:35 AM, Doctordick said:

Comprehending the relevant language is part and parcel of understanding itself. What I wish to discuss are the underlying facts the solution to any collection of information MUST obey. 

My opening assertion is that there exist relationships within those facts which can be deduced without making any assumptions as to what those facts actually are.

 

Doctordick,

I do not agree with you, that nobody understands your question.  I think everybody here understands.  Your question is flawed in the manner already explained.   You cannot pretend you can understand any facts without a language.  You cannot pretend you can label anything without prearranging with someone else, or your alter ego, what is going to be standing for what.  Hence you cannot label anything without labeling it.  The number you can get that represents a graphic location, even three dimensional representation, with the color and the x, y coordinates can not be understood or transformed into another mind or paper or computer chip. or monitor or memory location without a plan that can be copied.  This I meant to prove to you, by mentioning the ASCII code.  Yes you can make a plan to represent anything, but someone has to know the plan to understand what you meant.  And the number 32 standing by itself does not mean a darn thing.  You have to tell somebody what language you are speaking before you open your mouth, or the sounds coming out will be grunts and hums and groans with no meaning whatsoever behind them.

Regards, TAR 

[tar]

you can take a piece of paper with E=mcsquared written on it and throw it against the wall and it will not create a nuclear explosion.   The labels do no work as the thing they represent, do.  So no, you can't deduce a darn thing from the number 32.

[tar]

another flaw in your logic is something I don't know if you are aware of, not knowing your age

When I was growing up, we lived in an analog world.

A sound was recorded in an analog fashion on some vinyl, to where the vibrations of the needle that made the impressions in the wax that were transferred to the vinyl would cause a needle riding in the hardened grove to vibrate in the same analog fashion.  You needed no encoding and uncoding.   Microphones similarly vibrated and the signal was amplified directly in an analog voltage with could be carried on a wire to an electromagnet that vibrated a sinew in a speaker in an direct analog manner.    

Now we don't do much in computers and electronics without analog to digital and digital to analog conversion.  This labeling takes one, one step further away from the actual facts you wished to record.   So with a vinyl record, you could make some deductions as to what creature was uttering the sounds, and what emotions and thought were being recorded.  Now, with digital enhancement and synthesizers you don't know if its real or if its Memorex, or if it is computer generated.

 

[tar]

and you cannot represent an analog voltage in an exact manner in ones and zeros you are always limited (wrong) because you could have been more exact had you had an additional bit

[tar]

was talking to my friend's son the other week and he told me the funny story of having his dad take him to a Seahawks game and he had asked his Dad where the first down line was

[Area54]

11 hours ago, tar said:

You have to tell somebody what language you are speaking before you open your mouth, or the sounds coming out will be grunts and hums and groans with no meaning whatsoever behind them.

I don't find much that makes sense in DrDick's argument, but this particular counter of yours seems flawed. My parents didn't tell me they were speaking English, but over time the peculiar grunts and groans they were making began to make sense. I think that process may be part of Dr.Dick's argument.

[Strange]

Indeed, babies learn language by analysing the probabilities of certain sounds and words appearing together, and their relationship to events in the world. 

[tar]

Area54,

But DoctorDick says this.

 "You miss the significant issue. I am not discussing the communication of information; I am discussing the mechanism which stands behind that communication. The significant issue is that "it can be labeled and numbered" not that relevant labels and numbers are either available or understood. That they must be in derstood is just another presumption "YOU" want to make. There are many written examples of ancient languages which are no longer understood. Those writing may none the less be represented by numeric graphic representations. That in no way requires the language be understood! "

And I don't think you discuss the mechanism behind the communication as having the same intrinsic meaning as what was being encoded.  Or that the numbers and labels would fit together flawlessly and have attributes that you could gleen from the labels that were more important  or more meaningful than the meaning behind the language.  The mechanism is a sterile carrier of meaning, the meaning is real and full and holistically understandable.  True in more than one way.  A number or a label is a place holder, a carrier of meaning, and one code system could use 32 to signify a space and another could use it to mean you are just 10 digits away from 42, the answer to life, the universe and everything...depending on the code system you are using.    To a Japanese person yuki means snow, or happiness or a girls name, and they don't even usually use our characters they use Kanji or Hirigana or Katakana.  Distilling this to a number, as DoctorDick suggests is possible and meaningful is not notably helpful, unless you mention first the language you are speaking, the code system you are using, and then, only after the code is stated and the code is learned by both parties, can two parties proceed with communicating an idea between them.   The number 32 by its self is sterile and free from any meaning.  Much like the equation DoctorDick suggested with the xs.   It means nothing until you define the terms.

When I was little I spoke in a language that only my sister understood.   It was goobledygook,  nonsense, babytalk to my Dad, but my sister knew what I was saying, before I could speak English.   But my sister knew what I was saying because I knew what I was saying, and she learned my language.

Regards, TAR

 

Consider how physicists can talk to each other about Hilbert space and transforms and such and the sounds coming out of their mouths are just grunts and groans to some of us.

Einstein's field equations are very full of meaning and understandable to many who know the language, but to me, they don't mean anything until you tell me what is standing for what, and what relationships you wish to show me...in English.

There is much in many fields that is esoteric and can not be "figured out" logically.  I have never been good at learning any languages other than my native one, because languages don't make sense, in and of themselves.   You have to learn what is standing for what, the tone and context and all, by seeing it in operation and using it, with a native speaker.  Otherwise you are very likely to get it wrong.

 

 

[tar]

DoctorDick,

Or consider another human way of thinking.  Another part of language and thought.  Grain size shifts.   We often take a whole collection of stuff and call it one thing so we can manipulate it and collect a bunch of the new collection into a third entity in our minds.  We can thusly conceive of an entire universe inside a relatively tiny skull using a 100 billion brain cells.  But what you can deduce by fitting ideas together on one level, at one scale, may or may not be completely transformable to another scale.  And a number or label is not going to work or fit together in the exact same manner as the "fact" you wished to represent by the label.   You can't for instance deduce that if a cow gives a gallon of milk a day, that half a cow will give two quarts. Cause a half cow would be a side of beef, not giving any milk at all.

The assumptions and presumptions and definition of terms are required for communication of a thought between two minds, a nd information does not exist as a thing, it is more of a process.   It requires a form and the moving of this form from without to within.

So I think you can deduce information, but you do it by analogy, saying that if this aspect is like this other, and it must logically have meant this other thing was required and this other thing existing would mean this third thing was needed, then you can deduce a fact, or in essence presume a fact.  So your OP is defeated in one direction or in the other, depending on your presumptions.

Either you are saying we cannot communicate which is obviously a false statement, or you are saying we cannot think, which is obviously a false statement, or you are saying we are not capable of sensing the world and recording it in an analogous fashion in amongst our neurons, which is obviously a false statement.  So in which manner, from which direction is your thesis faulty?

Regards, TAR

 

Edited August 10, 2017 by tar

[Strange]

Tar, none of that seems relevant as all Dick has said is that you can replace words with numbers (and the use these numbers in a probability function). That is all.

He claims that this leads to some novel conclusions. But he is unwilling or unable to tell us what these are. 

[tar]

Strange,

Perhaps not relevant, but to me exactly relevant, because the meaning of the numbers is lost once the two minds sharing a common language are lost.  His example of the lost language is a good example of my point.  It does not matter that you can come up with a number to graphically represent the characters of the language, that number has no relationship to the thought the symbol was representing.

Regards, TAR

 

[tar]

Strange,

 

Consider what Doctordick is implying.  Two opposite things.  

One, that there is information to be gleaned from the analysis of a dead language's characters.

The other that the information content of the dead language is not as important as the fact that it can be reduced to a number.

While I can agree that every person that ever existed on the planet has left some signature on the planet that can be discovered if the right investigation is performed, that fact is similar to deducing that a deer has passed by seeing its footprints in the mud, or by recognizing a deer path had to be created by the repeated passage of deer, both deductions requiring assumptions, the overall process requires that the world be very complex and interrelated and therefor the actual information or facts to be gleaned must be similarly complex and interrelated and not reducible to a probability equation.

Regards, TAR

Edited August 10, 2017 by tar

[tar]

I could say the probability of something that does exist, of existing, is 1.  That would give me very little information.

[Doctordick]

On 8/10/2017 at 6:54 AM, Strange said:

Tar, none of that seems relevant as all Dick has said is that you can replace words with numbers (and the use these numbers in a probability function). That is all.

He claims that this leads to some novel conclusions. But he is unwilling or unable to tell us what these are. 

That is untrue. I have tried but you have refused to consider my presentation. My conclusions are quite astounding; A version of modern physics (which conforms to all experiments) can be directly deduced in its entirety from the simple fact that the explanations of our experiences must be transformed into a collection of facts which can be represented by the notation: P(x₁,x₂,⋯,x_i,⋯,x_n) where "P" stands for the probability the receiver considers the source holds the thought to be true. Please read my opening post carefully.