Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Doctordick

  1. Ok, Since you assert that "this is well known", I will direct you to the logical process required. My assertion is quite simple, conversion of the expression P(x1,x2,⋯,xi⋯,xn) together with the fact that P(x1,x2,⋯,xi⋯,xn) - P(x1,x2,⋯,xi⋯,xn) =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). 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
  2. 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. 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,⋯,xi,⋯,xn) (the probability the thought represented by (x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn) 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 "xi" 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,⋯,xi,⋯,xn) is converted to P(x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn,,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,⋯,xi,⋯,xn) into two specific representations P(x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn,,t1) and P(x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn,,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,⋯,xi,⋯,xn,,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,⋯,xi,⋯,xn,,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,⋯,xi,⋯,xn). 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
  3. In my opening post I commented that it should also be clear that P(x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn), 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 "xi" such that P(x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn) 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,⋯,xn) 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
  4. Yes I have. The attack and the problems involved are clearly laid out in my opening post on this thread.
  5. 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
  6. 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,⋯,xi,⋯,xn) where "P" stands for the probability the receiver considers the source holds the thought to be true. Please read my opening post carefully.
  7. "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! 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. 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. 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). So you agree with me that any language can be represented by lists of numerical labels. 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! Or perhaps any possible thing! 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? 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. 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. Pleas explain that flaw you wish presume without presuming the communication is understood!! 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
  8. In my opening post, I pointed out the fact that a numerical representation requires a rather surprising constraint: i.e., P(x1+c,x2+c,⋯,xi+c,⋯,xn+c)−P(x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn)=0 is absolutely required under such a representation. It is interesting because absolutely no presumptions were made: i.e., (x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn) can represent any thought expressed in any language. And I also assert that it is novel as I have never seen any such assertion made in any scientific article I have read and I have read a great number. 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. If you do not find that to be both interesting and novel, I suggest you (and all the other mindless readers) cease posting to this thread. I have already pointed out a rather trivial adjustment in the definition of those numerical indices which rids the problem of the fact that "n" varies from expression to expression (which is totally contradictory to the definition of mathematical functions). I have merely added ignorance to the representation! If this is totally beyond your mental comprehension, I apologize! Have fun ---- Dick
  9. I get the definite feeling that you entirely failed to read (or failed to comprehend my post of 7/26/2017 You should comprehend that adding "ignorance" to the representation (when I set "n" in every expressed thought to be the largest value required by the largest thought representation) adds elements (included concepts which are explicitly (undecidable). That was my first example of changes in the definition of those indices required to make it possible to view P(x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn) as a valid mathematics expression. A step designed to remove problem #2 in my opening post! If that step is incomprehensible to you why don't you just stop worrying about this thread. Just as an aside, can you come up with a change in my definitions which will remove the first problem? It is not actually a very difficult issue to fix. Have fun ---- Dick
  10. I have a couple quotes which might (or might not) clarify what I am talking about! "Too often it is said that there is no absolute truth, but only opinion and private judgment; that each of us is conditioned, in his view of the world, by his own peculiarities, his own taste and bias; that there is no external kingdom of truth to which, by patience and discipline, we may at last obtain admittance, but only truth for me, for you, for every separate person. By this habit of mind one of the chief ends of human effort is denied, and the supreme virtue of candor, of fearless acknowledgment of what is disappears from our moral vision. Of such skepticism mathematics is a perpetual reproof; for its edifices of truths stands unshakable and inexpungable to all the weapons of doubting cynicism." Bertrand Russell, 1872­-1970 "As a conscious being I am involved in a story. The perceiving part of my mind tells me a story of a world around me. The story tells of familiar objects. It tells of colours, sounds, scents belonging to these objects; of boundless space in which they have their existence, and of an ever-­rolling stream of time bringing change and incident. It tells of other life than mine busy about its own purposes. As a scientist I have become mistrustful of this story." Sir Arthur Eddington, 1934 These men have played a large roll in my thoughts. Thank you --- DoctorDick
  11. Yes, it is dammed near "Nothing" --- but not quite!!! And representing experiences without making any assumptions of any kind is quite a difficult thing to achieve. I would rather you comprehend that I used the word "language" to specify the means of communication without specifying exactly how that communication is achieved. My central point is the fact that any communication received from the universe is built from concepts which can be labeled. And using that numeric representation, any thought can be represented via collections of those concepts in a form (x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn). The existence of such a representation is my only assertion. If you disagree present me with a thought which cannot be so represented. You are simply not concerned with the issue of "explaining" itself. Explanations are the central issue of most all sciences and my point is the fact that John Cuthber's comment, "What can be deduced without making presumptions!" -- Nothing, (though quite close to right), is not absolutely correct! I am not concerned with the issue of "coming up with an explanation", I am concerned with "communicating an explanation"! I am looking at that communication as referring to what the receiving individual has to work with: i.e., the universe he (or she) experiences. And most all of our beliefs are built upon presumptions built on presumptions. The only real defense of those beliefs are self consistency with our experiences. The real issue I am concerned with is "do there exist explanations which we have not thought of?" Have you no interest in "truth"? I suspect "meaningful" is no more than requiring that self consistency I just referred to above. You are presuming I am talking about those beliefs being "true". I am not, I am concerned with the "receiving individual's" belief that they are true (that the source is not feeding them invalid information), an issue central to whatever conclusions are arrived at. No, my argument is not full of assumptions. Your reading of it is embedded in assumptions as to what you think I am saying and/or where you think I am going! Read what I have written carefully and if you can comprehend the constraints I want to work with let me know. My first step in redefining those indices is to add ignorance to the representation. I do this by setting n equal to the largest value required by the largest possible thought. This makes n the same in all represented thoughts. Thank you for reading this -- DoctorDick
  12. Latex seems to work fine now. The problem was apparently in my presumption that it would work in the preview mode!!
  13. Area 54 -- In a sense, (that is, with regard to my numeric representation) photographs are certainly a form of communication of presumed facts which can be represented by numerical references. Consider transmission of those photographs with a computer. They are certainly transformed into a numeric code. Think about it a little. John Cuthber, You have presumed you know what "I" means, what "think" means, what "therefore" and what "am" means. Those are all presumptions! I have no idea as to what "OP" refers to so I can not respond to that comment.
  14. 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. Please consider the following facts very carefully! Coming up with an explanation of anything requires comprehension of a language first. If there are readers who believe that is not a fact, I would have them please present an explanation without use of a language of any kind. My second fact is that any and all languages require symbols (think in terms of concept representations) to represent any specific collection of relevant concepts! If the reader believes this is false, please provide an explanation which requires no means of referring to any concepts relevant to that explanation. My third fact is, those symbols (if they are known) can be referred to by assigning specific numbers to each and every relevant symbol! The subtle issue of that fact is that, even when the actual assigned numbers are not known, it is still a fact that the concepts can nonetheless be represented by a "specific" collection of numbers and that issue by itself has significant consequences. Anyone who believes that is a false assertion please post a collection of symbols which can be used to represent a language which can not be numerically listed. The following constitute my opening assertions. First, presuming that "the language is known" is itself a direct violation of the constraint "without making assumptions"!! That is, learning the language must first be achieved before even thought of an explanation is possible. 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. An additional assertion concerns a numerical representation of thoughts, "without making any presumptions" as to the meanings of that specific collection of numbers. Once a specific label is assigned to each and every learned concept (essentially the relevant language elements) that label can be seen as a unique numerical reference (think of an unknown secret code). It follows that, given the specific numerical label for every relevant concept representation in that language, any thought which can be expressed in that language may be expressed by: [latex] (x_1,x_2 , \cdots ,x_i, \cdots ,x_n) [/latex] ) Note that this representation inherently includes what is commonly referred to "context". That is the fact that what those words actually mean can change from case to case depending on the associated meanings of other words in the thought being represented. (Jokes are built from such relationships!) My point is that such a representation, which makes utterly no assumptions as to what concepts those numbers refer to, must be presumed possible. The possibility of such a representation requires no actual knowledge of either the source of the information (what is quite often referred to as reality) or the actual language being represented! That fact itself has consequences. What follows is no more than pure logical analysis of the above proposed circumstance. The absolute first step in creating the circumstance I wish to analyze is to create a definition of the concept "understanding" without constraining what is to be understood in any way. I begin by defining two entities. The first entity I will refer to as "the receiver". The receiver is the entity receiving the relevant information from which he (or she) will attempt to learn (or deduce) both the language being represented and the thoughts necessary to explain the reality he (or she) will eventually perceive as standing behind those thoughts. It must be understood that the receiver stands in absolute ignorance except for the actual collection of thoughts, [latex](x_1 ,x_2 , \cdots ,x_i , \cdots ,x_n ) [/latex], he (or she) has presumed to be valid. The second entity is the source of the relevant issues. Absolutely no information is available about the source except characteristics presumed by the receiver as part of his (or her) deduced explanations of that received information. That is, the presumed truth, of the thoughts as the receiver perceives them to be. (The presumptions he (or she) makes.) Deducing fundamental consequences of the above constraints. I first define "understanding" to be the probability the receiver presumes the source holds a specific represented thought to be true. Note that this assertion is only meaningful within the representation the receiver creates; i.e., it is a consequence of the presumptions the receiver makes. In my analysis (since we are to make no assumptions) no judgements as to the actual truth of the solution the receiver creates can be made. None the less, in the analysis being presented, understanding can represented by the notation: [latex]P(x_1 ,x_2 , \cdots ,x_i , \cdots ,x_n ) [/latex] where "P" stands for the probability the receiver considers the source holds the thought to be true. In essence, that thought is presumed to be a true fact. It should be clear that learning the language represented by the indices xi is the very first part of the problem facing the receiver. The receiver must make presumptions as to what the thoughts being represented are. Internal consistency is the only underlying issue of any understanding achieved. That is, knowledge of the relevant information is represented by the supposed truth of the specific thoughts expressed by [latex]P(x_1 ,x_2 , \cdots ,x_i , \cdots ,x_n ). [/latex] What is important about my definition of understanding is the fact that adding a single specific arbitrary number (which I will represent by "c") to each and every index used to represent the underlying language makes utterly no change in the meaning of any specified thought. That meaning is deduced from patterns in the received information, not the actual numbers. Adding "c" to each and every index yields internal patterns of the numerically indexed concepts exactly as they were in the original assignments. Thus it must be absolutely true that, no matter what the value of c is, [latex]P(x_1 +c,x_2 +c, \cdots ,x_i +c, \cdots ,x_n +c) - P(x_1 ,x_2 , \cdots ,x_i , \cdots ,x_n ) = 0 [/latex] Now anyone who has any knowledge of mathematics will recognize the fact that if [latex]P(x_1 ,x_2 , \cdots ,x_i , \cdots ,x_n ) [/latex] were a mathematical function, the above assertion would, via standard interpretation, have some very significant consequences. However, it should also be clear that [latex]P(x_1 ,x_2 , \cdots ,x_i , \cdots ,x_n ), [/latex] 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. If there is anyone interested in conversion of the expression [latex]P(x_1 ,x_2 , \cdots ,x_i , \cdots ,x_n ) [/latex] 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. Thank you for your trouble -- Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics 1971. Sorry about my inability to get LaTeX to work!!!
  15. [math] y = \int f(x) dx [/math] [LaTeX] y = \int f(x) dx [/LaTeX] \] y = \int f(x) dx \] How do I get latex to work???
  16. And my position is to analyze the information communicated without making any assumptions whatsoever: i.e., all possible assumptions must be embedded in the deduced interpretation of the communication. I will make minor adjustments of the definitions I have provided where these adjustments universally require absolutely no presumptions. Everyone here wants to know the assumptions I am presuming. The answer is "NONE". That position seems impossible for anyone here to comprehend. Following is my reaction to a number of posts on this page. Some comments on page 4 posts I find I have read! To Delta 1212, isn't presuming the source of an experience (the communication you refer to) an aspect of "understanding" that communication: i.e., something you are required to learn? You also comment that you think it is possible to come up with a probability of the source of a communication believing their statement to be true without having understood it. You miss the point that I am defining "understanding" to be placing a probability the sender believes the thought being expressed to be true. The point being that, if one cannot conceive of that circumstance they certainly cannot apply the concept of understanding to the event. At no point do I suggest that the understanding is valid. I am simply putting forward a concept which I want defined. I call it "understanding" because that English word has the closest relationship to what I want to talk about that I am aware. If you refuse to use my definition then the consequences of that definition are not available to you. To Strange -- That is all I mean!! And I didn't say the communication was true; I said the primary character (the one trying to comprehend the communication) would place a probability the sender would perceive the truth to be: (consider "truth" to be analogous to "valid", "correct" or some other English word you would like to use. If the primary character cannot come up with any such conclusion, they certainly could not claim to understand the message. And they certainly cannot possibly learn the language without making such presumptions as to the meaning of the individual received information. "And the receiver must understand the grammar of the language"?? That is what the receiver is trying to learn and just because he thinks he has learned it does not mean that he has. Delta 1212 said, "but you don't strictly have to do it that way!" So what? Are you trying to comprehend what I am saying or do you have some other purpose in mind? If you want to do it some other way then you clearly have no interest in the conclusions I deduce. To Strange, all I am doing is setting down an extremely short list of specific definitions. If you are mentally capable of working with the definitions I give, I have some interesting deductions to show you. If not, you might as well forget what I have to say. Please do not try to overlay those definitions with presumptions you would like to make! The object here is to make "No Presumptions". Once again, in essence everyone here appears to concern themselves with interpreting the language, not with representing it. Representing a concept with the written expression such as "demarcate" is just as arbitrary as representing it with "3459". Learning what it means is a problem the communicator faces in both cases. The collection of all possible interpretations must be deduced from all the variations used in the entire battery of communications. I appologize if what I am saying is just beyond your comprehension. I think the problem is simply that "you want something you can interpret" and interpretation is something way down the street. Not at all in the first few communications. Again Delta 1212 says "You could have multiple versions of verbs to demarcate their presence in sub-clauses." So what!! Those are explanations imbedded in the language you must learn, all I am concernd with is representation of the communication mechanism. I have no concern at all as to what they mean. That issue is exactly what the primary charcter is required to learn. The significance of my representation is that it makes absolutely no presumptions whatsoever on what the communication actually communicates. Absolutely every issue is "something to be learned". The only requirement I set up is that every communicable concept must be represented by a defined number. The receiver applies a numerical identification to what he (or she) identifies as a fundamental concept. Perhaps some communication he (or she) has seen a number of times. I make utterly no constraint whatsoever on the "second party of that communication". That is an issue the receiver may make down the road but he may or may not be correct! The actual validity is an open issue. The "second party" could be an individual identical to the receiver or a multiple number of such entities. Or perhaps an entity totally alien to the receiver. Get that, "No Presumptions". All I ask is that it be possible that communications can be translated into a language: that any specific fundamental element of that communication can be represented by a specific number, any complex collection of those concepts can be represented by [latex](x_1,x_2, \cdots ,x_i , \cdots ,x_n)[/latex] (a finite ordered collection of those numbers) and lastly, that the intended truth (or proposed validity) of a specific communication is "defined" to be a probability expressed by the notation [latex]P(x_1,x_2, \cdots ,x_i , \cdots ,x_n)[/latex]. If you are willing to work with those definitions (and the implied constraints) simply indicate you support this specific post and I will start another post on the "speculations" forum. Thank you -- Dick
  17. Imatfaal, it appears that you want to bring in a third party into this "communication"! That brings in an assumption which you have apparently not considered. I start with one individual and then discuss information being presented (what I call communication) to that individual without making any assumptions as to where that communication comes from. That is, I have defined the individual who is trying to comprehend (think "learn the language") the meanings of the communications he is attempting to understand). I have made no definition of the source of that communication. It could be a party similar to himself (of course, before he learns anything, he can have no concept of what he actual is as he has learned no concepts) or that source could consist of a number of different entities. If you don't leave the issue open, you are making unjustified assumptions. And, Lord Antares, I am in no way proposing any improvement to the clarity of language at all. What I am setting forth is a means of representing a language which makes absolutely no presumptions as to the actual structure of that language. I have defined a thought to be represented by a collection of underlying concepts, each concept being represented by a different numerical label. The first issue of significance is that the actual number of concepts standing behind the communicated thought can not be infinite. If it were infinite, communication could not exist. In a sense, I am using English as numbers are indeed a collection of concepts defined under "English". More important is my definition of "understanding" as being able to come up with the probability that the communicator (the source of the thought) believes it is a valid truth. If anyone here finds fault with that definition please give me an example of an understood communication where the receiver has utterly no knowledge of the truth presumed by the source of that communication. If the reader accepts the two issues I have just presented as facts then they should take the trouble to read my post (on this thread) #32 made on 23 May 2017 at 2:58 PM. If you can find a fault in that post, please explicitly explain the fault you have found. Thank you --- Dr Dick
  18. Daedalus, you once again totally fail to comprehend what I am saying. You repeat that, "as Strange has clearly stated, this is nothing new and is definitely an incomplete system for translating one language to another." You apparently can't comprehend that I have utterly no interest in translating anything. All I want is to get the readers to admit that absolutely any thought in any language can be represented by the expression [latex](x_1, x_2, \cdots,x_i , \cdots , x_n)[/latex]. In fact, you apparently agree with me. In your post you say. "Because all computers work entirely using numbers, the characters or symbols from any language can be and most likely are defined by Unicode, which is a numerical system that allows a computer to display words using the font that provides the symbols for a particular language." Yes, it is just another language. In fact even secret codes can be seen as "secret" languages. Those facts have nothing to do with being able to translate that code into something "you" understand. In fact, secrete codes are designed to make the communication as difficult as possible to understand. But then you say, "However, that alone isn't enough to translate from one language to another." That is something you and Strange (and perhaps most all the other readers here) are interested in. That is what you want to talk about but it has absolutely nothing to do with what I want to talk about. How does assigning numbers to words help one understand reality? That I will explain to you if you will agree that absolutely any thought in any language can be represented by the expression [latex](x_1, x_2, \cdots,x_i , \cdots , x_n)[/latex]. That is my opening step of the argument I am trying to present. All I want from the reader is that they accept that as a fact and stop bringing up all these other issues they want to talk about. The second step of my argument is fact that "understanding" a communication can be seen as a phenomena which occurs between two communicating individuals which can be defined by the probability the the "listening" individual knows the "truth" the other individual places on the specific thoughts being communicated. Learning the language is a consequence of many communications. Understanding only begins when issues being communicated begin to be understood by the relevant communicators. If the readers can comprehend the truth of these two assertions, I will show that some very interesting consequences logically follow. Consequences which have absolutely nothing to do with what is communicated but none the less have some very important consequences on what can be understood. I am asserting that "understanding" any thought may be represented by the expression [latex]P(x_1, x_2, \cdots,x_i , \cdots , x_n)[/latex] where "P" is the probability the thought [latex](x_1, x_2, \cdots,x_i , \cdots , x_n)[/latex] is taken to be true. Is anyone here interested in the issue I am presenting? If you are, please start another thread where the issues under discussion are the two "facts" I have brought up. This thread contains so much trash outside my interests that everything I say is totally buried. Thank you --- Dr Dick
  19. Apparently no one here can comprehend my post. Everyone confuses "representation" with what is being represented. They are very different concepts! Jun 20th Strange said "Perhaps you should carry on anyway. Further explanation might clarify any confusion about your initial assertions." If they cannot comprehend those assertions, to continue is little more than adding to their to their confusion (a rather waste of time). Learning a language is developing an idea as to what a collection of specific representations means. What is important here is the fact that the symbols used for the specific required representations is arbitrary. That fact stands behind the many different languages mankind has managed to invent. If you know a language (English for example), you know what the words mean. In essence, a "dictionary" constitutes a collection of words with a presentation of their meanings (expressed with exactly that same set of words). As a simple example, consider the thought (This is a cow!) or perhaps (That car went by.). In some other language, those thoughts would be represented with a totally different collection of symbols. My central interest is in the arbitrary nature of the symbology itself. If one understands a specific language, they should be capable of constructing a "dictionary" of the words they wish to be understood. The point being that the number of words required must be finite as construction of an infinite dictionary is simply not possible. The second significant point is that the representation of those words is a totally open issue. (Consider for example, the range of possible secrete codes.) In essence, any secrete code can be seen as an unknown language. It should be clear that the actual range of possibilities here is infinite. Considering the complete misunderstandings I have run into regarding my thoughts here (as expressed in common English) I will present a short example of what I am talking about. Specifically, the comments (This is a cow! or That car went by.) can be expressed if one were aware of the following entries of a dictionary (plus the knowledge of the words used in that relevant dictionary). This -- [plus the definition of that word!] is -- [plus the definition of that word!] a -- [plus the definition of that word!] cow -- [plus the definition of that word!] That -- [plus the definition of that word!] car -- [plus the definition of that word!] went -- [plus the definition of that word!] by -- [plus the definition of that word!] ! -- [plus the definition of that symbol!] . -- [plus the definition of that symbol!] a space -- [plus the definition of that facet!] This collection of "seven words and three symbols" is clearly only a minute fraction of what any useful language requires; however the representation of those words is a rather straight forward issue. If I were presenting a different language, those "representations" would be different. My point being that the representations themselves are absolutely arbitrary! If one decided to represent the relevant words with numeric labels (which I usually refer to as "indices" in my presentations), a dictionary representation of the above concepts (plus the required indices to specify that dictionary) could easily be: 223 -- [plus the definition of that word!] Originally "This" 16 -- [plus the definition of that word!] " "is" 2237 -- [plus the definition of that word!] " "a" 1 -- [plus the definition of that word!] " "cow" 756 -- [plus the definition of that word!] " "that" 39 -- [plus the definition of that word!] " "car" 256 -- [plus the definition of that word!] " "went" 99 -- [plus the definition of that word!] " "by" 242 -- [plus the definition of that symbol!] " "!" 12 -- [plus the definition of that symbol!] " "." 6094 -- [plus the definition of that facet!] " "a space" and the two thoughts, "This is a cow!" and "That car went by." could then be represented by (223,6094,16,6094,2237,6094,1,242) and (756,6094,39,6094,256,6094,99,12) It follows that, if one comprehended the language (and was capable of following and/or constructing a dictionary), absolutely any thought, in the language of interest, could be represented by a fixed expression of the linear form of a finite collection of such indices where each and every index was specified by the required dictionary. If the representation of ideas via such a construct beyond the ability of the reader to comprehend then I am afraid your intellect is far below what is required to follow my thoughts. I am speaking of representation and am not at all concerned with interpretation! Determining the interpretation of such a collection is the final result of learning the language. I will comment that there exists evidence that there exist a number of languages (together with representations) constructed by humanity which are no longer understood because we lack sufficient information to deduce the meanings of those representation. If what I am saying is simply beyond comprehension of everyone here I will stop bothering you. Have fun -- Dick
  20. Well, I don't believe anyone really understood what I was trying to say and I suspect very strongly that the failure was not my fault. I suspect the real issue is that no one (other than perhaps Strange) had even the first idea as to what my interest was. They all made presumptions as to what I was trying to say along the lines of their common thoughts. Strange did make the comment, "perhaps you could explain what these profound consequences are!" I can, but only if my opening assertions are understood. The first problem I have is that this thread is in a category called "Speculation". The first thing any reader must comprehend is the fact that I have utterly no interest in speculation of any kind. I want to discuss the consequences of absolutely exact constraints. I specify (and/or define) what I am talking about the way I do because of the profound consequences of those specific definitions. The first error everyone seems to make is to presume the word "representation" has something to do with what is being represented! I have utterly no interest whatsoever in what is represented! My only interest is that it can be represented. Discovering what is being represented by the specific language of interest is a consequence of learning the represented language. Can you describe the precise tensile strength... , describe how rough an object feels... , ball is red or the ball reflects the wavelength of light we see as red--- All these comments presume the language being discussed is understood (actually without even bringing up the issue as to what "understanding" is). Mordred's comment that "in order to understand reality you must be able to as precisely as possible describe reality" has absolutely nothing to do with what I am talking about. I am talking about the fact that understanding reality requires a language. I am at no point defining that language; in fact that issue is to be left absolutely unconstrained so that absolutely all possibilities are included. On 23 May Strange said, "You do know that this has all been done before? You have yet to say anything novel." She (or he) could not possibly comprehended the consequences or the results I have deduced would be in the scientific publications somewhere. When I say that the number "xi" is to specify the representation of a specific concept within that language, I am making no constraints whatsoever on what the meaning of that concept is to be. The actual meaning is something acquired by means of learning the language and, learning any language requires extensive experience in presumed communication via that language. On 23 May Strange also said, "There is a serious problem with this idea (which is not novel, Boole and others wanted to do the same thing). Mainly this is to do with the fact that concepts are not discrete things. They are fuzzy, overlap, have changing meanings, and mean different things to different people in different contexts." I have no complaint with that issue at all. What a specific "representation" actually means is something which must be learned before understanding of a specified thought represented by may be comprehended. Does "xi" stand for "big", "large", "huge", "small" or "tiny"? Those are different language representations! Knowing what they mean is deduced from their usage (helped out by a dictionary) and they can actually have meanings not specified in the dictionary. Jokes can be built by meanings never found in the dictionary but only from presumed meanings deduced from usage (something acquired by learning the language and its usage). The actual meaning of any specific representation may shift depending upon the other representations presented in such a thought representation (that is the issue of "context"). The issue of concern to me is that any thought represented in any language may be represented by the numerical representation I have presented. Everyone here apparently wants the translation of the specified thought when the actual issue is representing the thought, not translating that thought into something they understand. If they knew the language being represented, they could preform the translation but that is not the issue I want to discuss. What I have just presented are facts and nothing more. If the reader finds these assertions not to be facts then let them present a language which cannot be so represented! I would comment that the fact that thought in any known language representation may be transformed into specific points on a computer screen (or in a printed book for that matter) seems to pretty well defend my assertion. If anyone here can comprehend this post, let me know and I will continue my deductions. Thank you -- Dr Dick Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics 1971
  21. Well, it has been a while since I posted here. My biggest problem is the absolute ignorance of the others who post here. I had some hope that someone here would have some comprehension of thoughtful analysis of their beliefs. I was apparently totally misunderstood by absolutely everyone. As a matter of fact, I still have some hope for "Strange" as she (or he as it may be) seems to have at least some comprehension of the issues standing behind understanding. Meanwhile, I will take the trouble to explain the errors in their responses. To my comment regarding "establishing a mechanism for representing any conceivable language", Lord Antares responded with "Which is language itself!" He clearly misses the point that without a mechanism for "representing" a specific given language, the language is totally worthless. He makes the mistake of aligning the concept of understanding with representation, two very different concepts. Further down the line, dimreepr totally misconstrued my assertion which clearly led to confusion everywhere. Now Mordred's comment that "scientists use the universal language of mathematics to understand reality" seems to make some sense, he misconstrues the difference between "representation" and "understanding" (two very different concepts). Studiot's assertion that there exist concepts in one language which are not easily translated into another is of absolutely no significance here as I am no where talking about "translation" my issue of interest is "representation" only. What needs to be understood by the reader that understanding is an achievement reached through "learning" and that relevant state is achieved with whatever representation is used if the language is ever actually understood. Then "Strange" responded with "Yes. Without symbols (words and morphemes) a language does not exist." This again struck me as showing some comprehension of what I was saying. Actually, instead of "symbols", "words" and "morphemes" she (or he as it may be) could have used the reference "representations" which I used and I really missed the significance of the change in representation. Delta 1212 seemed to think the central issue was translation which has utterly nothing to do with my presentation. At that point Strange also began to see translation as a central issue and began to deviate from his or her earlier posts. Strange's further presumption on 20 May that I was presenting a linguistics course clearly indicated a total lack of comprehension of what I was talking about. At that point the whole community seemed to have descended to exactly the same presumption of a linguistic course and the point of my presentation seemed to be totally beyond their comprehension. So on May 21, I posted the representation I wanted to use in the hope that someone here would comprehend.what I was saying. Strange's response was simply beyond me. "Yawn.... I don't have a problem understanding what you are saying, just why..." I didn't think that indicated any understanding at all. If she (or he) understood what I said, acceptance of it as a simple fact was all that was necessary. There are real consequences of that fact apparently invisible to anyone reading this forum. Strange's comment on May 23, "You do know that this has all been done before? You have yet to say anything novel." was totally beyond me. If indeed this were "all been done before" then someone with half a brain should have noticed the implied differential implications on my definition of "understanding" would have profound consequences. How come I have never seen any references to those subtle consequences?? If you could comprehend what I have put forth, I can show that the entirety of modern physics can be directly deduced from my definition of understanding. Clearly, ignorance is bliss and I will leave you all to enjoy that profound ignorance! Barring some intelligent response, I won't bother you again ---- Have fun -- Dick
  22. There are some subtle consequences of the fact that, given a numerical identification of each and every concept specifically defined within a language, any conceivable thought in that language may be represented by a specific list of those numerical indices: i.e., [latex](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_i,\cdots,x_n).[/latex] That fact implies some rather significant symmetries embedded in all languages. If one were to multiply each and every numerical index (including all dictionary entries) by a given constant (which I will refer to here as alpha) no change whatsoever would occur in the thought represented by [latex](\alpha x_1,\alpha x_2,\cdots,\alpha x_i,\cdots,\alpha x_n).[/latex] Likewise adding a given constant to each and every numerical index also yields absolutely no change in the actual thought being represented. This leads to some rather profound symmetries which must be valid in any conceivable communication in any conceivable language. There is a single specific issue embedded in any language. That is the issue of communication. It seems to me that central to idea of communication is the underlying idea of understanding. Thus it is that I would like to define "understanding" to represent the following relationship: if party #2 understands party #1 then he (or she) must have some idea as to the truth party #1 places on the thought being communicated: i.e., thus it is that I want to define understanding to be represented by [latex]P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_i,\cdots,x_n).[/latex] where "P" stands for the probability the party #1 believes the represented thought constitutes a valid assertion. I am not asserting that party #2 believes party #1 I am merely asserting that party #2 (the receiver) must have an idea of the probability party #1 assigns to the thought. This allows for the existence of miscommunication and a number of other subtle effects which may very well be serious issues. (Issues I will bring up later if anyone is capable of following my thoughts. Note that the notation looks like a mathematical function (which it certainly is not). If the expression, [latex]P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_i,\cdots,x_n)[/latex] were a mathematical function and the above symmetries were valid, it would lead to some very interesting relationships within all communications worth serious examination. If there is anyone here who can follow what I have just said, I will show them a way of transforming the definition of [latex]P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_i,\cdots,x_n)[/latex] into a valid mathematical function. That result will say a lot about the constraints on "Understanding Reality". Have fun -- Dick To Strange!!!! You are clearly failing to include the issue of learning which I brought up earlier: Every human (including the most brilliant scientist who has ever lived) can be seen as beginning his (or her) life as a child born without a language. During his (or her) life he (or she) will experience many interactions with what he (or she) supposes to be reality. It is the need to reference those experiences which stand behind the language he (or she) will eventually learn to use to express any understanding of his (or her) experiences. That includes the relevant interpretation of the meanings attached to the elements of that language (essentially the information contained in a dictionary). "Is "size" a concept? What about "big"; is that the same concept or a different one? Is "huge" the same concept as "big", or some sort of super-concept?" Size is a word and that word is a concept of which that brilliant scientist is aware (I suspect). So are the words "big" and "huge" (they are listed as different words in most all the dictionaries I have. His experiences will certainly include occurrences which will lead him to various accepted interpretations of the usage of those words. "Is a mountain "big"? Well, compared to a pebble it is, but compared to the planet it is "small" or even "tiny"." Once more you totally omit the learning standing behind that "brilliant scientists" interpretation of what is meant and you omit the context of the usage. "So building your dictionary is only practical if you have an AI which already knows all about the world and can, effectively, build the dictionary itself." To my knowledge no computer yet exists which can accumulate the knowledge and understanding that "brilliant scientist" might possess. Certainly it would be difficult to write down a dictionary which gives every possible interpretation of every possible word that "brilliant scientist" might choose to use. He doesn't require that dictionary and, for the most part, neither do I. Yet we both regularly us our personal language to communicate our thoughts and usually manage to understand one another. When I was a child, I knew people who couldn't read or write who could still manage to communicate one hell of a lot of information. Five thousand years ago, most people who existed could not read or write. Yet they thought they knew what was meant by a great number of words they heard and used. To make a dictionary of the kind I am talking about. all one needs is to attach a number (essentially a different mark or perhaps a different sound to each element used by those attempting to communicate). Understanding what is meant is a function of the experiences of the speaker or the listener. A dictionary is a rather new invention and quite beneficial when the essential experiences required to understand what is meant exceed the direct experiences of the listener. What you apparently fail to comprehend is the issue of "context". Context has a very important roll in any communication and the differences you refer to are, for the most part, resolved by context. There are many other issues which depend quite seriously on experience to interpret. Jokes often depend on relationships existing in the language you will never find in a dictionary. When I first tried to communicate my ideas, I used to use "words", "ideas", "sounds" and many other concepts to talk about these numerically labeled entities. I am currently using the idea of a dictionary as dictionaries you commonly used to translate other languages. The central issue of my opening position is the finite nature of these things. I make no attempt to put forth the specific language just the consequence of the finite nature of the offerings we can make. Have fun-- Dick
  23. Well, I apologize for being unable to communicate with anyone here. I had thought that there might be someone here who might comprehend what I said yesterday but apparently I was wrong. I will add one more assertion which, in my mind, is an obvious consequence of that post. I restate the central issue of that post in hopes that someone might reread the assertion made there and perhaps comprehend where that idea leads. ---------- (My previous post): Every human (including the most brilliant scientist who has ever lived) can be seen as beginning his (or her) life as a child born without a language. During his (or her) life he (or she) will experience many interactions with what he (or she) supposes to be reality. It is the need to reference those experiences which stand behind the language he (or she) will eventually learn to use to express any understanding of his (or her) experiences. That includes the relevant interpretation of the meanings attached to the elements of that language (essentially the information contained in a dictionary). Of significance is the fact that the actual language is an arbitrary construct. It can be seen as a secret code required to communicate any collection of ideas. Before communication can occur, definitions of the elements must exist. Bit codes on computers are an excellent example. Without a specific translation of those bit codes to the relevant language, they are arbitrary elements to be defined and that has some significant consequences. ---------- If one has a list of the concepts expressed via the language of interest and a dictionary yielding the meaning of those concepts expressed via those self same concepts and understands that language then they may create an arbitrary numerical list of those concepts. Possessing that list, any thought which can be expressed in that language can be represented by the specific notation: [latex](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_i,\cdots,x_n)[/latex] where the x entries constitute the appropriate numerical index of the relevant concept. (Note that this is essentially the transformation required to convert the language representation to a computer presentation). If anyone here believes that assertion is false please give me an example of an expression of a thought (presented in any language) which can not be transformed into such a format: i.e., cannot be communicated via a computer. If this is beyond comprehension to everyone on this forum, I will cease posting. Have fun -- Dick
  24. My point is quite simple. If you have any thoughts you wish to communicate to another party you need to have a language presumed to be understood by both parties plus some means of referring to the specific concepts necessary to that language. In essence, all you really require is a means to refer to each and every concept essential to expressing your thoughts to the second party (words fulfill an important aspect of that need, an aspect normally referred to as "language"). The issue of knowing the representations of those concepts is essentially being aware of the definitions of the relevant concepts: i.e., what is commonly embedded in the idea of a dictionary. A dictionary is essentially a list of the relevant concepts together with a sufficient representation of the possible meanings of that specific concept expressed via other concepts within that language. Prior experience is the only mechanism which actually yields the knowledge required to "understand the language". Once you have learned the language, the actual abstract representation of the concepts is essentially immaterial (consider computer representations with collections of binary codes). That fact has real logical consequences! Have fun -- Dick
  25. Well, I am led to make a few comments. First of all, there is the idea of speculation (an issue I have little interest in). It should be clear that modern science essentially amounts to those specific speculations made earlier which have been defended by successful experiments. What they seem to fail to comprehend is that almost all aspects of modern science are in fact still speculations. There always exists the possibility of alternate concepts which would yield those known experimental results. To think otherwise would move the current concepts into the classification of religion. In essence I get the impression the readers of this thread are confused by their inability to comprehend the "speculations" I am attempting to put forward. I say again, if anyone sees an assertion I make which is not a cold hard fact, please bring it up so we can discuss the issue. To Delta1212, who said "there is no such thing as an idea that cannot possibly be wrong, I would love to see his proof of that assertion! At this moment, only "Strange" who said, "without symbols (words and morphemes) a language does not exist" and "that without numbers, a number system doesn't exist", who seems to have some comprehension of what I am talking about. I will attempt to expand on the issue here! Every human (including the most brilliant scientist who has ever lived) can be seen as beginning his (or her) life as a child born without a language. During his (or her) life he (or she) will experience many interactions with what he (or she) supposes to be reality. It is the need to reference those experiences which stand behind the language he (or she) will eventually learn to use to express any understanding of his (or her) experiences. That includes the relevant interpretation of the meanings attached to the elements of that language (essentially the information contained in a dictionary). Of significance is the fact that the actual language is an arbitrary construct. It can be seen as a secret code required to communicate any collection of ideas. Before communication can occur, definitions of the elements must exist. Bit codes on computers are an excellent example. Without a specific translation of those bit codes to the relevant language, they are arbitrary elements to be defined and that has some significant consequences. Have fun -- Dick
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.