What can be deduced without making presumptions!

[John Cuthber]

5 minutes ago, Doctordick said:

My conclusions are quite astounding;

Quite possibly, but as they are based on a premise which is, at best unsupported, (and probably wrong) they mean nothing.

I have pointed out the error of your claims already but, just to refresh your memory.

On 8/8/2017 at 9:36 PM, John Cuthber said:

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.

 

You can stop now.

[Doctordick]

On 8/28/2017 at 4:01 PM, John Cuthber said:

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.

No, I do not assume "experiences exist" Per Se. I am attacking the problem of creating explanations a rather different issue. If you are asserting that in your concept of reality there exists nothing which needs explaining then you clearly have no interest in the problem. 

Secondly, if you insist that explanations exist which cannot be represented in any language then explain to me your need for such explanations.

You apparently lack the ability to think!

Have fun -- Dick

[Area54]

28 minutes ago, Doctordick said:

No, I do not assume "experiences exist" Per Se. I am attacking the problem of creating explanations a rather different issue. If you are asserting that in your concept of reality there exists nothing which needs explaining then you clearly have no interest in the problem. 

Secondly, if you insist that explanations exist which cannot be represented in any language then explain to me your need for such explanations.

You apparently lack the ability to think!

Have fun -- Dick

It seems to me that if something needs explaining then there must be an experience to explain, which is exactly what John has recognised in noting your assumption of experiences. If there are no experiences then there is nothing to explain. You assert explanations are needed therefore you must have assumed that experiences exist.

Now I'm pretty sure that John and you and I all agree that experiences exist. What is in dispute is your denial that you have assumed it in your argument.

Perhaps I am missing something, so, would you care to explain how one would require an explanation if there is nothing to experience?

[Strange]

On 28/08/2017 at 10:53 PM, Doctordick said:

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.

You have yet to show how this can be done. All we have so far is an assertion that it can be done. 

[John Cuthber]

23 hours ago, Area54 said:

It seems to me that if something needs explaining then there must be an experience to explain, which is exactly what John has recognised in noting your assumption of experiences. If there are no experiences then there is nothing to explain. You assert explanations are needed therefore you must have assumed that experiences exist.

Now I'm pretty sure that John and you and I all agree that experiences exist. What is in dispute is your denial that you have assumed it in your argument.

Perhaps I am missing something, so, would you care to explain how one would require an explanation if there is nothing to experience?

Yes, that was exactly the point that I made and that Dick missed, possibly because he was busy being rude about my ability to think.

Dick assumes experiences exist- which is entirely plausible, but an assumption.
He also assumes that representations of experiences exist; and the same issues apply.

Essentially, Descartes had a good point.

[Doctordick]

On 8/30/2017 at 4:27 PM, Strange said:

You have yet to show how this can be done. All we have so far is an assertion that it can be done. 

Yes I have. The attack and the problems involved are clearly laid out in my opening post on this thread.

[beecee]

On 7/26/2017 at 11:35 PM, Doctordick said:

The critical issue everyone seems to miss is that the meaning of the phrase "without making presumptions". Apparently it is something no one on this forum seems to comprehend.

 I am opening this thread because it seems that responses to my earlier post, "Understanding Reality", have totally degenerated to into silly meaningless garbage without any sign of thought at all. If no one here is capable of comprehending what I am saying I will stop posting my thoughts.       

I believe the above from the OP in this thread, says all I need to know about the poster and the futility of replying. 

have fun

beecee

[John Cuthber]

What's the timescale for the underlined bit?

[Area54]

1 hour ago, Doctordick said:

Yes I have. The attack and the problems involved are clearly laid out in my opening post on this thread.

No. You claimed this: " A version of modern physics (which conforms to all experiments) can be directly deduced in its entirety." If you have done this you have not presented your findings, you have simply insisted it can be done.

Please either shit or get off the pot.

[Strange]

10 hours ago, Doctordick said:

Yes I have. The attack and the problems involved are clearly laid out in my opening post on this thread.

Perhaps you are not aware that your original post is still visible so anyone can see for themselves whether this is true or not.

The final few paragraphs of your post are:

On 26/07/2017 at 3:35 PM, Doctordick said:

If there is anyone interested in conversion of the expression P(x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn) into a valid mathematical expression I will continue this thread. Note that the proposed conversion, though quite simple, is not a trivial process at all.

If the above is totally beyond your comprehension, don't bother commenting. However, if you can comprehend the problem I have presented, let me know and I will present the details of the required alternate definitions of my indices.

The end result turns out to require exactly the relations standing behind modern physics: i.e., no information whatsoever about actual reality is required to show modern physics is (for the most part) essentially valid.

It also points out a few minor errors in modern physics not realized by the professionals. Those errors clearly arise from invalid presumptions in their hypotheses. In the deductions I produce, quantum mechanics is essentially valid from the word go. Relativity as per Einstein's mathematical relationships falls out implicitly; however, physical interpretation of the results turns out to be quite different. The difference in in interpretation turns out to revolve around some specific solutions to the electromagnetic theory (which also falls out implicitly in my presentation). The specific solutions of interest are rather surprising. As far as I know, those specific solutions have never been examined by the scientific community.

So you clearly say that you are willing to explain how all of physics can be derived from your equation. But you haven't actually done it. Despite making 94 posts across two threads. 

Now is the time to either explain how you derive physics from your indexing system or admit that it was all an elaborate joke.

[Area54]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Perhaps you are not aware that your original post is still visible so anyone can see for themselves whether this is true or not.

The final few paragraphs of your post are:

So you clearly say that you are willing to explain how all of physics can be derived from your equation. But you haven't actually done it. Despite making 94 posts across two threads. 

Now is the time to either explain how you derive physics from your indexing system or admit that it was all an elaborate joke.

I thought my version was more concise.

[Doctordick]

On 9/4/2017 at 1:52 AM, Strange said:

So you clearly say that you are willing to explain how all of physics can be derived from your equation. But you haven't actually done it. Despite making 94 posts across two threads. 

Now is the time to either explain how you derive physics from your indexing system or admit that it was all an elaborate joke.

In my opening post I commented that it should also be clear that P(x₁,x₂,⋯,x_i,⋯,x_n), as defined in this post, could not possibly be a mathematical function for a number of very important reasons.

   #1 - To begin with, the relevant numbers are not variables; they are constants representing specific concepts in the relevant language.

   #2 - A second problem arises because, in a mathematical expression, "n" would be a fixed number which would be exactly the same in each and every represented thought.

In addition, there are a number of other very serious problems which arise if one attempts to create a representation which can be seen as a mathematical function. However, I will show how a very straight forward conversion in the representation can be made by redefining those indices in a manner which totally avoids making any presumptions whatsoever as to what those indices represent.

Right there is the solution of the problem (subtle redefinition of those indices) but absolutely no one seemed to even comprehend the problem to be solved but instead posted comments about the idiocy of my proposition. That is why I gave up on the entire group except for you. Though you also seemed to have failed to comprehend the direction I wished to proceed I got the impression that perhaps you were perhaps interested. At least you didn't try to specify the idiocy of my propsition.

I put #1 and #2 in there because they are relatively easy to comprehend and to solve but no one even suggested a solution (and I presumed they simply did not comprehend the necessity). I kept coming back only because I was looking for some comprehension of the issue I was bringing up and I made the comments I made because the people I answered had proposed difficulties which simply didn't exist. I had hoped to find someone curious about issue I brought up (which never occurred).

Contrary to your post I did explain "HOW" I derive physics.  I merely redefine  the indices "x_i" such that P(x₁,x₂,⋯,x_i,⋯,x_n) can be seen as defining a mathematical function. Those altered definitions end up yielding exactly the relationships required by modern physics.

#1 is easily converted out by the fact that a number "c", if added to absolutely every index in every possible expression, changes those indices without altering the meaning of the represented thought at all. And setting P=0 for any expression which fails to represent a valid truth for some collection of indices essentially converts the relevant numbers to variables.

And #2 can be easily handled by adding indices to every thought such that "n" is the same in every expression (choose n to be the number of indices in the "longest" required thought. The only issue which arises is that these added indices are not known. Essentially, when "P" is to be evaluated for some collection of known indices, one must integrate the expression  P(x₁,x₂,⋯,x_n) over the entire range of those undefined indices: issue #2 no longer disqualifies P as a mathematical function. 

If you understand the problems introduced by the above two issues and the solution I have specified I will go on to specify the other problems and my proposed solutions.

Thank you for your attention --- Dick

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, Doctordick said:

If you understand the problems introduced by the above two issues and the solution I have specified I will go on to specify the other problems and my proposed solutions.

Yep. You have said this before. Multiple times. Can we finally move on to your claims that this somehow tells us something about physics? Please.

(Preferably without any more of your diversions and insults. That is getting very tedious.)

[John Cuthber]

32 minutes ago, Doctordick said:

Though you also seemed to have failed to comprehend the direction I wished to proceed

Did it occur to you that  we may have been misled by the title you gave the thread?

If you want to redefine physics, go ahead.

But don't be shocked if people think you were aiming for a discussion on what you can deduce without assumptions.

 

Also, given that you failed to deduce anything without making assumptions, don't be too shocked if people think you are not very clever.

 

On 8/31/2017 at 9:31 PM, John Cuthber said:

Dick assumes experiences exist- which is entirely plausible, but an assumption.
He also assumes that representations of experiences exist; and the same issues apply

You can now add "the assumption that physics exists" to the list.

Edited September 7, 2017 by John Cuthber

[Area54]

Why is this thread in OtherSciences? Surely it should have opened in Speculations and by now have been consigned to the Trash Can.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Doctordick]

On 9/7/2017 at 7:40 PM, Area54 said:

Why is this thread in OtherSciences? Surely it should have opened in Speculations and by now have been consigned to the Trash Can.

 

Because nothing I say constitutes speculation in any way. It is straight out logical analysis of the fact that any communication may be represented by a digital sequence.

On 9/7/2017 at 3:16 PM, Strange said:

Yep. You have said this before. Multiple times. Can we finally move on to your claims that this somehow tells us something about physics? Please.

(Preferably without any more of your diversions and insults. That is getting very tedious.)

I didn't know I was insulting anyone. As a matter of fact, I perceived the thread to be exactly the reverse.  In fact, I only continued to respond because Strange at least seemed to be perhaps interested. I note that even at this point Strange has made no posts which had any indication that they understood anything I said. And that includes this latest post.

But Strange insists I respond so I will. I am still hopeful that you comprehend my solution to problems #1 and #2. If you don't think my presentation was logically valid, let me know what difficulties you see.

Meanwhile I will present what I refer to as problem #3. In my definition of P(x₁,x₂,⋯,x_i,⋯,x_n) (the probability the thought represented by (x₁,x₂,⋯,x_i,⋯,x_n) is taken to be true) the specific order of the represented comments is a significant issue. In the standard definition of a mathematical function, the subscript "i" simply represents the position of the represented variable in the function definition; and has nothing to do with the actual value of the represented index. In a mathematical function "x_i" is a variable and not a fixed value as it is in an element of a thought representation (consider for example, a sentence). This difference is a significant problem in the transformation I am proposing.

Actually, the required transformation is quite obvious if one thinks about it for a moment. Communication is a temporal phenomena and as such the time that element of the communication is recognized is an important aspect. This suggests that a new parameter should be introduced to represent that temporal component. I will propose handling the problem by adding a parameter "t" to my representation. But please note that my "t" is no more than an ordering parameter: i.e. the common concept of time can not be presumed as it includes ideas not required here.

Thus P(x₁,x₂,⋯,x_i,⋯,x_n) is converted to P(x₁,x₂,⋯,x_i,⋯,x_n,,t).  Since we must include all possibilities (that order of specific indexes may or may not be significant within a specific representation) one can divide P(x₁,x₂,⋯,x_i,⋯,x_n) into two specific representations P(x₁,x₂,⋯,x_i,⋯,x_n,,t₁) and P(x₁,x₂,⋯,x_i,⋯,x_n,,t₂). In this new representation, the identical specific indices convert to exactly the same point (the same position on the "x" axis). If, in this new representation, there are additional indices which require such order, additional divisions can be performed. Thus we now have a collection of representations of the form P(x₁,x₂,⋯,x_i,⋯,x_n,,t) which include all the possibilities so far discussed: i.e., n is the same in every representation and the collection of represented indices include both known and unknown values.

It is important to realize that the parameter "t" I have introduced is absolutely nothing more than an ordering parameter: i.e., for every specified value of "t" there exist some collection of indices presumed to be known. If all of the indices making up P(x₁,x₂,⋯,x_i,⋯,x_n,,t) are unknown, "t" is also unknown. It should also be recognized that the actual value of "t" is unspecified; it is actually nothing more than an ordering parameter for all known expressions (x₁,x₂,⋯,x_i,⋯,x_n). 

If you comprehend my handling of problems #1,#2 and #3 and agree that they handle the issues I brought up I will proceed to the next issue (which, if you are actually following my presentation, should be quite obvious).

I would appreciate any rational comments.

Thanks --- Dick

    

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Doctordick said:

I would appreciate any rational comments.

Still not seeing any physics. How long are you going to drag this out? 96 posts so far to explain something that could probably be done in two tweets.

2 minutes ago, Doctordick said:

I note that even at this point Strange has made no posts which had any indication that they understood anything I said.

Despite all the times I have said "yes, this is well known" or "you are not saying anything new" ... The fact I am asking you to get on with this instead of dragging it out over hundreds of posts is because everything you have said so far is trivial and could be understood by a bright 12 year old. 

I have stated a few minor objections and quibbles with your argument so far, but they are hardly relevant. I assume the "interesting" bit is when you actually get to show how this relates to physics. I may have some more penetrating questions then. If I live that long.

Quote

I didn't know I was insulting anyone.

Your repeated insistence that no one can understand your simple posts is pretty insulting.

[Mitch Bass x]

In terms of the first entry to this post, one challenge was to put forth an example where understanding could be done without language. One example of understanding without language, is what certain animals exhibit when they notice cause and effect in the physical world. Consider the Skinner Box and the mice that "understood" that certain behavior resulted in negative consequences and so avoided them "understanding" that certain activity they engaged in during the past would result in certain negative experiences in the future.

[John Cuthber]

34 minutes ago, Doctordick said:

I would appreciate any rational comments.

It's rational to point out that your assertions are wrong

 

On 9/7/2017 at 9:33 PM, John Cuthber said:

Dick assumes experiences exist- which is entirely plausible, but an assumption.
He also assumes that representations of experiences exist; and the same issues apply

 

On 9/7/2017 at 9:33 PM, John Cuthber said:

You can now add "the assumption that physics exists" to the list.

I guess you appreciate those comments.

It's a pity you don't address them.

[Area54]

16 hours ago, Doctordick said:

Because nothing I say constitutes speculation in any way. It is straight out logical analysis of the fact that any communication may be represented by a digital sequence

You say you can derive all the rules of physics from your process. You have not demonstrated that you can, despite enormous patient questioning from Strange, therefore your thesis is speculative.

[Doctordick]

On 9/11/2017 at 3:00 PM, Strange said:

Despite all the times I have said "yes, this is well known" or "you are not saying anything new" ... The fact I am asking you to get on with this instead of dragging it out over hundreds of posts is because everything you have said so far is trivial and could be understood by a bright 12 year old. 

I have stated a few minor objections and quibbles with your argument so far, but they are hardly relevant. I assume the "interesting" bit is when you actually get to show how this relates to physics. I may have some more penetrating questions then. If I live that long.

Ok, Since you assert that "this is well known", I will direct you to the logical process required.

On 9/11/2017 at 2:53 PM, Doctordick said:

If you comprehend my handling of problems #1,#2 and #3 and agree that they handle the issues I brought up I will proceed to the next issue (which, if you are actually following my presentation, should be quite obvious).

My assertion is quite simple,  conversion of the expression P(x₁,x₂,⋯,x_i⋯,x_n)  together with the fact that P(x₁,x₂,⋯,x_i⋯,x_n) - P(x₁,x₂,⋯,x_i⋯,x_n) =0 into a valid mathematical expressions will yield each and every mathematical relationship held to underlie modern physics. I have already shown you three fundamental problems which exist in such a conversion. There are at least three more which must be satisfied before that expression can be seen as a mathematical function. Presuming you are an authority on that "well known" problem, I will leave it to you to specify what you think the next problem might be. If you cannot specify at least one of those problem I will seriously presume you do not comprehend the problem itself and I will cease posting on this forum (something most people here would seem to prefer).

On 9/11/2017 at 3:24 PM, Mitch Bass x said:

In terms of the first entry to this post, one challenge was to put forth an example where understanding could be done without language. One example of understanding without language, is what certain animals exhibit when they notice cause and effect in the physical world. Consider the Skinner Box and the mice that "understood" that certain behavior resulted in negative consequences and so avoided them "understanding" that certain activity they engaged in during the past would result in certain negative experiences in the future.

Then you would assert that these animals you refer to understand reality? According to you they "notice cause and effect in the physical world"? They do that without any concepts whatsoever. You have just named those concepts as "cause" and "effect". If I were trying to deduce the consequences of significance would I have to use the words "cause" and "effect'? In effect, are you refusing to allow me to use numerical indices to refer to the specific concepts their understanding is based upon?

The issue I am examining is "explaining an understanding of reality" (the central issue of modern physics) not "surviving the impact of reality"! Do you really believe that common animals could produce a publishable document explaining their beliefs?  In addition, would you please explain how you would explain a universe where no experiences exist? What the devil would you call what you are explaining?

There is a strong possibility this will end up being my last post on this forum!

Have fun --- Dick

 

[Area54]

7 minutes ago, Doctordick said:

There is a strong possibility this will end up being my last post on this forum!

Christmas arrived unexpectedly early that year and there was much rejoicing.