Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[Seafang]

I don't believe how there are 5 people that voted that religion can explain everything, if religion can't even explain religious topics... not even the people that live for religion believe that religion explains everything.

I voted multi-disciplinary, physics would be the biggest supporter, but there is biology, filosiphy...

Well I think this thread has long outlived its usefulness, since it has descended into the realm of philosophy, and is now unconcerned with physics at all.

I'm quite satisfied that between Heisenberg and Godel we can be sure that physics cannot explain everything, and moreover there will always be things which can never be explained by any means.

So pull the feeding tube on this brain dead thread.

 

[saviourmachine]

Hi DoctorDick! If this thread got closed I hope we can get space - open a new thread - to continue this discussion. Although others think it's a dead thread, I enjoyed many things, e.g. your explorations of the relation between:

• language & role of mathematics
• squirrel though & logical thought
• symmetry & conserved quantities
• symmetry & ignorance
• definitions & presumptions
• to identify & to relate with
• events & space time points
• rules & pattern matching
• reality & knowability

I hope we are allowed to continue.

¡Hasta luego!

 

[Doctordick]

If this thread got closed I hope we can get space - open a new thread - to continue this discussion.

Yeah, I think we can pull that off. For the time being I have stayed here because the number of views continues to rise; which means people are still reading it. In spite of the people who don't want to think about what I am saying, it seems some are still interested. I suspect a lot of people here suffer from attention deficit syndrome. Again, I am usually slow to respond to your posts because I want to be careful.

I was merely stating that there are at least two different ways to think (as a physician); I called one 'hypothetical' and I called one 'theoretical'. My connotation with these terms is as follows: a 'hypothesis' has to do with testing - as if it is possible to know reality*; and a 'theory' with embedding in a knowledge system**.

Communication is not nearly as easy as is generally presumed. When I spoke of "two modes of thinking", I was thinking of the difference between logical analysis and intuitive perception. Both modes provide serious answers to complex problems and history is full of people contending that one or the other is the "correct" attack. In fact, the history of human belief systems can almost be seen as a pendulum swinging from support for one to support for the other. My position is that objective rational thought must encompass both at once.

I'll quote you. Understanding has to do with seeing (the different) possibilities, isn't it?

Not quite. Later on in my post, I define what I mean by "understanding". If you "understand" something, it means that you have a mental mechanism which will provide you with answers to questions outside the actual data available to you.

To put it another way, knowing is having facts available to you (the facts come from the past, not the future) and understanding allows discrimination between good and bad answers (facts you might expect to become available to you in the future). Now the human race has become quite good at this discrimination since all we living things first crawled out of the sea. We are the undoubted leaders in the realm of "understanding" the world around us. And yet no one has come up with a good argument to dismiss the Solipsist position. The fact that we have come so far without being able to prove what is and what is not real should make it clear to you that understanding reality can not possibly require knowing what is real. This is why every serious scientist (I except myself of course) has vociferously argued against any rational consideration of the question. Their position is: if we don't know what's real, how can we possibly dream of understanding reality. They hold that we must assume we know what's real. You can see that position promulgated all over this forum! Why do you think they label me a crackpot?

Other than that, I get the distinct feeling that you understand what I have said so far. :!)

When I started this line of discourse, I stated that language, though it is our only mechanism of communication, is inherently vague. Langauge can be seen as a collection of symbols to which we have attached meaning. As such, the problem of understanding a language contains exactly the same difficulty brought up above. There exists no way one can be absolutely sure they understand exactly what another person means when they use a particular word. If you are rational, you have to admit that the meanings you attach to these symbols may not be the meanings intended by the writer/speaker you are trying to understand (it is always possible they are using a code unknown to you). So the problem of understanding an explanation is completely equivalent to that of understanding the universe.

If you are trying to understand a person, you have the option of (interacting with them) asking about the things they have said which don't make sense to you. If you are trying to understand the universe, you have the option of interacting with it in a way which will provide clarification of things you don't understand (those things which don't make sense to you). If the two procedures are equivalent, let us examine how one might logically attack the first while maintaining complete openness to all the possibilities. (Please follow this carefully as the effect is considerably outside the physicalist outlook.)

We are trying to "understand" something thus we are looking for "an explanation", a method of obtaining expectations from given known information. The first thing we need is a totally general way to represent anybody of information. Let "A" be what is to be explained and proceed with the primitive definition that A is a set! I want to leave the exact nature of A totally open and, from my knowledge of sets, A can pretty well represent anything. If anyone here can point out something which cannot be represented by the abstract concept of a set, please do so.

Now, the most serious problem confronting us is the fact that we do not know everything: i.e., A as defined is definitely not available to us. We must always presume there are aspects of A not yet available. We need another symbol for that portion of A which is available to us. Since what is available can change, we need a way of representing a change in that portion. For this reason, I begin construction of the portion of A available to us by defining the set B to be a finite unordered collection of elements taken from A. (This B will represent a change in our knowledge of A.) This allows me to define the set C to be a finite collection of sets B. It follows that any possible collection of information which can be used to construct our explanation can be represented by the set C: that is, the current state of our knowledge can be seen as a finite collections of changes since knowledge began to be acquired (whenever that was). It is the very definition of infinity which guarantees that the number of elements in both B and C are finite. Likewise, the same definition requires that we must consider the number of elements in A to be infinite. (I will explain that to anyone who does not understand.)

Since the number of sets B in C is finite, they may be counted and ordered and I may refer to the elements of C via the notation B_j. Since B was defined to be a finite collection of elements of A, I can refer to the elements of B as x_i. It should be clear that, looked at as a communication, B_j, representing a change in our knowledge, can be seen as fundamentally representing a "message", where x_i represents a label for a specific significant element of A and C represents the sum total of messages our understanding of the communication is to be based upon. (It is best here to look at the messages as being in a secret code as to do otherwise is to presume you already understand the meanings of the elements x_i while, in fact, all that information must be a part of C.)

Thus it is that we can view the changes in information available to us, B_j, as a list of reference labels (x_i). Likewise, all the messages available to us can be seen as the complete collection of all the lists we have received. If we are to understand and explain A based on nothing but C, we need to develop a procedure through which we may determine the acceptability of any specific set B_k which can be obtained from A. That procedure must be consistent with the distribution of B_j in C; as an absolute minimum, any explanation of A must be consistent with what is already known: i.e., C.

It is important to maintain a very important aspect of the problem not expressly stated in the previous paragraph. One must remember the fact that B was defined to be an unordered set of elements taken from A (if order between any two x's, is important they should be in different B_j's): i.e., clearly, if one occurs before the other, a change in information occurs between the two elements.)

A second important fact to take note of is the fact that our explanation explains C, not A. It is a presumption that an explanation of C (what we know of A) explains A. Since that is absolutely the best we can do, the assumption is not really unreasonable so long as we remember the fact of our assumption.

In effect, I have laid out a universal representation of the problem confronting us. It is quite abstract, but anyone who has any facility with mathematics at all should be able to comprehend the representation. If you find any difficulties, let me know and I will do my best to clarify the circumstance. If I think you are with me, I will lay out an exact analytical solution to the problem; that is, I will lay out a universal procedure for designing a constraint which will constrain the sets B_j to exactly the collection in C. Note that, as the number of elements in the sets B_j and C are finite, the procedure I will describe will be an exact finite procedure; however, if you actually attempt to implement it in something other than an extremely trivial case, you will find it complex beyond reasonable calculation. It turns out not to be the end of the problem (as it actually results in an infinite set of possibilities) but it does provide an insight which will yield a fundamental universal relationship which is quite valuable.

Let me know if anything I have said bothers you. And, anyone else is invited to make any comments that occur to them.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[hypnagogue]

Let's keep the discussion civil, shall we? There is never any excuse to descend to the level of ad hominem insults.

 

[Canute]

DoctorDick

The fact that we have come so far without being able to prove what is and what is not real should make it clear to you that understanding reality can not possibly require knowing what is real.

Is this your position? If so it's a very odd one imho. In what sense can one be said to understand something if one does not know whether it is real or not?

 

[Doctordick]

To Canute on the notion of "understanding" reality. Yes, I would agree that my position is quite odd as I am aware of no one else who holds that position; however, IMHO this is strong evidence that they have not thought the issue through.

As I said in an earlier essay, intuition (or squirrel thought) is always your best bet on any serious issue. As such it must be taken as a serious contender for the basis of any argument; however, we have a power not supposed to be possessed by the squirrels. We can use conscious logical analysis. That is, so long as the problem to which are efforts are to be applied can be reduced to a small enough number of concepts that we can handle them on a conscious level.

It has come to be that we have all sqought (squat??) up these related concepts "real", "understanding" and "explaining". Clearly, as almost everyone sees these terms as very meaningful, they can be held up as very probably useful. It behooves us to make a serious effort to cleanse these concepts of implied relationships which can not be proved. Once we have done that, they become reasonable foundations for logical deduction. Now you are complaining about my statement that understanding reality does not require knowing what is and what is not real and you are quite right, the solution of the conundrum lies in the definition of understanding.

First of all, if you peruse the historic record, you will find a number of explanations based on the assumption something was real which is no longer held as real, phlogiston being my favorite example. The existence or reality of phlogiston was not what was being explained; what was being explained was the release of heat in circumstances which we now recognize as chemical reactions. It should be clear to you that thinking something is real is not equivalent to it being real. And secondly an explanation explains what one thinks they know not necessarily what is actually true.

Ever notice how the idea of "truth" is avoided? Truth bears the same relationship with knowing as reality bears to your world view. One can no more prove they know the truth than they can prove their ontology is correct. But to conclude that requires there be no truth or no reality (the solipsist position) is also a rather undefendable position. The only defendable position is that we do not know anything for sure. If you make "knowing what is real" a prerequisite to explaining reality you will never be able to explain any aspect of reality.

So I define an explanation as a defined method of yielding expectations of events not yet experienced based on information presently available to us. Notice that the definition does not require the information be correct nor does it say those expectations are valid. This is entirely consistent with the common use of the terms explain and understand. How do you come to the conclusion that you understand something? Does that decision not arise when the thing no longer surprises you?

Take my writings for example, the great majority of the "authorities" on this forum have reached the conclusion that I am a crackpot. That is their explanation of my writings and, possessing that explanation, they feel that they understand me. They feel confident in their position because nothing I say surprises them (that is, from their perspective, what I say has no bearing on the issue other than the fact that it is something they would not say). So they find their expectations consistent with their experiences.

On the other hand, if you are explaining something to someone else, how do you determine that they understand your explanation? Is that result not achieved by asking questions? When their answers are in alignment with the answers you would give to the same questions, do you not come to the conclusion that they understand what you are talking about? I think all of this is very strong evidence that the best definition of an explanation is that it is a mechanism for producing expectations. And understanding is achieved when surprise no longer occurs. We can talk about "good" explanations once we agree as to what qualifies as an explanation.

If you disagree, give me a better definition of explanation and/or understanding.

Have fun – Dick

 

[Doctordick]

Is this your position? If so it's a very odd one imho. In what sense can one be said to understand something if one does not know whether it is real or not?

And I responded with what I thought was a rational response which I ended with the comment,

If you disagree, give me a better definition of explanation and/or understanding.

I can only presume that either you do not disagree, cannot think of a better definition or have decided to accept the "crackpot opinion" and concluded nothing I say is worth listening to. It would be nice to know your position. Even if you have decided I am a crackpot, one would think you would have the civility to at least let me know.

Have fun – Dick

 

[Daminc]

I started reading this thread this morning because I've thought about this subject for a long time. At about page five figured that I'd just skip to the end so I appologise if anything I write has been covered to death.

A long time ago my friends and I used to discuss anything and everything and I put on the table the words "Reality is what we perceive it to be, and hence reality is subject to ones own perception". What resulted from that discussion is that it is very unlikely that we can ever explain our Universe by physics alone.

One of the reasons I came to that conclusion was based on the premise that everything is connected or relates with everything else. Therefore, to know something is absolutely True we would have to know everything that relates to it...which is Everything. Since this is not practically feasible then we cannot ever know anything is an absolute fact. We can only surmise based on current observation evidence (i.e. Best guess senario).

When I read about 'dark energy', 'dark matter' and the 'speed of light' I can think of viable alternatives to current speculations and theories that could fit observational evidence, but I have no way of varifing them, so I just play with the ideas in mental experiments.

Similarly, our current ideas with regards to Physics is just a 'best guess senario'. We do have only limited observational data, and it is highly unlikely that we will ever gather enough data to surpass that.

I won't put my ideas down about how this would relate to a 'God' as I found my views tend to upset those people who actually believe God exists in the form of an Metaphysical superbeing type entity.

if you have decided I am a crackpot

In the past I have been described as "Mad" but I just reply "I'm not mad, I just think differently".

 

[Daminc]

I defined infinity as:

'limits of perceivable quantities'

My person take on infinity is 'Beyond the limits of perceivable quanties'.

I hate the word when it is used to describe something in Physics:

e.g.
Infinite Universe
Infinite Density
etc

It's a cope out. Take the 'Big Bang' theory which supposedly starts of with a point of Infinite Mass of Infinite Density blah, blah.

1) If there was 'Infinite Density' then the gravitation forces would be so great that there never would be a 'Big Bang' and if there was 'Infinite Mass' and it did expand somehow then there would be no space anywhere because the 'mass' would fill everything.

Similarly, with 'Zero'. It is also a mathmatical concept not found in the Physical universe. Something is either there of not. If it is there, then it's value would be different than Zero.

I think the definition of Zero is the amount of elements in a 'Null Set' but I'm not quite sure.

 

[Pensador]

In the past I have been described as "Mad" but I just reply "I'm not mad, I just think differently".

The only difference between a madman and a sane person who "thinks differently" is that mad people believe in themselves.

Feel free to explore the universe of ideas, but make sure you do all your businesses back home

 

[Daminc]

but make sure you do all your businesses back home

And I'll sure I that I have enough toilet paper

 

[Pensador]

And I'll sure I that I have enough toilet paper

This reminds me of a funny but also wise joke. The head of the physics department in a university was complaining that they didn't have enough money to buy all equipment necessary for their research. The president of the school asked him then, "why don't you do like the guys in the math deparment? They only need pens, paper, and waste baskets".

After thinking for a while he said, "even better, why don't you do like the guys in the philosophy department? They only need pens and paper!"

 

[Philocrat]

I started reading this thread this morning because I've thought about this subject for a long time. At about page five figured that I'd just skip to the end so I appologise if anything I write has been covered to death.

A long time ago my friends and I used to discuss anything and everything and I put on the table the words "Reality is what we perceive it to be, and hence reality is subject to ones own perception". What resulted from that discussion is that it is very unlikely that we can ever explain our Universe by physics alone.

One of the reasons I came to that conclusion was based on the premise that everything is connected or relates with everything else. Therefore, to know something is absolutely True we would have to know everything that relates to it...which is Everything. Since this is not practically feasible then we cannot ever know anything is an absolute fact. We can only surmise based on current observation evidence (i.e. Best guess senario).

When I read about 'dark energy', 'dark matter' and the 'speed of light' I can think of viable alternatives to current speculations and theories that could fit observational evidence, but I have no way of varifing them, so I just play with the ideas in mental experiments.

Similarly, our current ideas with regards to Physics is just a 'best guess senario'. We do have only limited observational data, and it is highly unlikely that we will ever gather enough data to surpass that.

Well, the standard cosmology model says that the universe consists of:

(a) 70% of Dark Energy
(b) 25% of Dark Matter
(b) 5% of Normal Matter

where Baryons = Normal Matter
Baryons = (Hydrogen, Helium, Heavy Elements)
= (stars, planets, galaxies and gas)

Puzzle: What happens to 40 - 45% of the missing normal matter?

Source: NATURE vol 433, Feb. 2005, Pages 465 - 466

When physics claims to have explained the universe, the fundamanetal epistemological question is : How Much of the Universe has it successfully explained, let alone everything? Give it a concrete number: 10%? 25%?...100%?. To say that you can explain everything, is it not right that physics should advise the world on how much it has succesfully explained to date?

I won't put my ideas down about how this would relate to a 'God' as I found my views tend to upset those people who actually believe God exists in the form of an Metaphysical superbeing type entity.

God is logically not ruled out in the grand scale of things. It depends on which versions of Logic and Mathematics you are versed in. The current logic and mathematics account only for 'STAGNATION' and 'CIRCULARISM'...they awfully fail to account for PROGRESS in the strictest sense of the word. CIRCULAR CONTINUITY is another name that I habitually call it and the logic and the mathematics that account for it create at the metaphysical level a 'FALSELY CONSTITUTED SENSE OF CONTINUITY, which in turn metaphysically and epistemologically enforces in our minds a 'FASELY CONSTITUTED SENSE OF NORMALITY.

The only Logic and matheamtics that can adequatly and materially describe the universe are the ones that take account of progress and not the ones that predict an 'ENDLESS SERIES OF BIG BANGS in a non-progressive way. As far as I am concerned the 'BIG BANG - BIG CRUNCH' model of the universe circularly continues and is metaphysically and epistemologically devoid of PROGRESS in the strictest sense of the word. This resembles fiction! Logic and mathaematics should not be fictionally attempting to explain a world that has been created, finished and in circularly continuous state, instead it should account for a world that is still being created and in progressively continuous state. They must account for progress. This is what the PRINCIPLE OF CONTINUING CAUSATION that I defined at the beginning of this thread is all about. Any logic and mathematics that cannot account for Progress proper is metaphysically and epistemologically useless.

In the past I have been described as "Mad" but I just reply "I'm not mad, I just think differently".

You are not a crack pot ...there is nothing wrong with you ...at worse your are 'parafused' ...and at worst you are 'paraceptic'!

---------------------------
Think Nature ...Stay Green! And above all, think of how your action may affect the rest of Nature. May the 'Book of Nature' serve you well and bring you all that is Good!

 

[Philocrat]

My person take on infinity is 'Beyond the limits of perceivable quanties'.

I hate the word when it is used to describe something in Physics:

e.g.
Infinite Universe
Infinite Density
etc

It's a cope out. Take the 'Big Bang' theory which supposedly starts of with a point of Infinite Mass of Infinite Density blah, blah.

1) If there was 'Infinite Density' then the gravitation forces would be so great that there never would be a 'Big Bang' and if there was 'Infinite Mass' and it did expand somehow then there would be no space anywhere because the 'mass' would fill everything.

Similarly, with 'Zero'. It is also a mathmatical concept not found in the Physical universe. Something is either there of not. If it is there, then it's value would be different than Zero.

I think the definition of Zero is the amount of elements in a 'Null Set' but I'm not quite sure.

The Job of Metaphysics is to categorise things into fundamental types for every intellectual discipline so that they can be easily explained. But unfortunately, this process is currently not working well, partly because people do not even understand what metaphysics is, let alone know what the fundamental metaphysical categories are. Even physicists themselves do not even know that Metaphysics is also a tool for them too. Every time someone mentions it, the first thing that they cast their minds to is religion or philosophy. This problem dates back to Galileo in the 17th Century who, for example, dumped the so-called 'Secondary Qualities' for the scientifically convenient 'Primary Qaulities'. Since that time philosophy has been trying tirelessly to account for them and metaphysically reconcile them. Now, categorising the world into easily accountable or explainable fundamental categories is an issue that physics can no longer escape.

The point is that you cannot pick and choose fundamental metaphysical catories of the world. Well, they may be metaphysically vexing and epistemologically hitting us in the face, yet this is no license for us to escape them. We need to find a way of accommodating all of them in our explanatory projects. This is the very problem that physics is facing with the explantions of such categories as 'Nothing', 'Infinity', 'Finiteness', 'Something', etc. The problem is that some of these categories, even though we are aware of them, are difficult to explain because we do not want to be flexible about them in our categorisation process, let alone be prepared to take account of the natural limititions in the perceiver's frame of reference. This idea that we are physically fully equiped to sense and perceive everything accurately is fictitious. Yes, we can see and explain a wide range of things in the world, but we must equally be prepared to admit our physical limitations as well.

We therefore have to categorise things at the metaphysical level into those that can be known to the limit of our physical limitations and those that can be known if we change or scientifically eliminate our physical limitations. What I really meant by 'limits of perceivable quantities' is that infinity is knowable if we eliminate perceptual limitations in humans, which as you may have noticed neally every scientist believes that we do not have such limitations. This has been my battle ground to correct this misconception.

 

[Doctordick]

The Job of Metaphysics is to categorise things into fundamental types for every intellectual discipline so that they can be easily explained.

How can you expect to categorize things before you know their behavior? How can you know their behavior before you examine what you know? How can you know what you know you are able to categorize what you know? My impression is that I am the only person who has ever even seriously considered that problem objectively. Certainly those who have "developed" the field of metaphysics have made no effort to think seriously about it. No one will ever solve a problem they are unwilling to examine.

The point is that you cannot pick and choose fundamental metaphysical catories of the world.

Now I would certainly deny that assertion. That's about the only option we have. That act is the basis of language itself and without the establishment of categories we cannot even think on a conscious level. (You should at least make a careful read of my post on thought.)

We need to find a way of accommodating all of them in our explanatory projects.

I couldn't agree more and you should read the second post on the "knowledge..." thread. You are most obviously failing to recognize that the use of language itself is the first violation of your presumed objective approach.

What I really meant by 'limits of perceivable quantities' is that infinity is knowable if we eliminate perceptual limitations in humans, which as you may have noticed neally every scientist believes that we do not have such limitations.

And, apparently, you suffer from exactly the same belief. I am the only person on Earth I know of who has proposed a scheme around that very difficulty.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Pensador]

The Job of Metaphysics is to categorise things into fundamental types for every intellectual discipline so that they can be easily explained. But unfortunately, this process is currently not working well, partly because people do not even understand what metaphysics is, let alone know what the fundamental metaphysical categories are.

It appears to me metaphysics was given a bad name because of its close relationship with mysticism. The problem is, there is no other way. It seems to me the modern denial of metaphysics comes out of fear of supporting a less materialistic worldview, rather than any intellectual reason per se. That is, we swung from dogmatic religion to dogmatic materialism, apparently as a result of social forces rather than scientific progress.

Even physicists themselves do not even know that Metaphysics is also a tool for them too. Every time someone mentions it, the first thing that they cast their minds to is religion or philosophy. This problem dates back to Galileo in the 17th Century who, for example, dumped the so-called 'Secondary Qualities' for the scientifically convenient 'Primary Qaulities'.

It's quite interesting to notice how physics is chock-full of metaphysics even as physicist deny it, simply because they arbitrarily chose which metaphysics concepts they are comfortable with, and discarded the rest.

The point is that you cannot pick and choose fundamental metaphysical catories of the world. Well, they may be metaphysically vexing and epistemologically hitting us in the face, yet this is no license for us to escape them.

Relating to your post on the other thread, I think it's just the (pseudo) formalists who do that. As, in my understanding, you pointed out, NL implies a certain view of the world which is far less problematic than those formalistic theories, and that view includes all those metaphysical entities missing in physics.

We need to find a way of accommodating all of them in our explanatory projects. This is the very problem that physics is facing with the explantions of such categories as 'Nothing', 'Infinity', 'Finiteness', 'Something', etc.

Surely, but how do you think those could be incorporated within the formalism of physics? Isn't formalism the whole problem to start with?

The problem, as I see it, is the notion that an explanation restricted to logic and mathematics can account for the whole of NL (as Doctordick seems to be proposing), even as, from an NL perspective, it can't since logic and math is but a subset of it. And of course from a formalist perspective, the formalist perspective itself cannot be justified other than by force. We sure live in dictatorial times.

 

[moving finger]

How true is the claim that everything in the whole universe can be explained by Physics and Physics alone? How realistic is this claim? Does our ability to mathematically describe physical things in spacetime give us sufficient grounds to admit or hold this claim? Or is there more to physical reality than a mere ability to matheamtically describe things?

As long as physics remains a 3rd person objective science (ie a science where there is an "observer" and an "observed"), which it has been up to now, then I believe the answer is clearly "no".

"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And it is because in the last analysis we ourselves are part of the mystery we are trying to solve." Max Planck

If we can find some way of opening up physics so that it is not always constrained to an assumption of 3rd person objectivity, then we may have a better chance of explaining everything with physics.

MF

 

[Doctordick]

"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And it is because in the last analysis we ourselves are part of the mystery we are trying to solve." Max Planck

If we can find some way of opening up physics so that it is not always constrained to an assumption of 3rd person objectivity, then we may have a better chance of explaining everything with physics.

Think about those two comments for a moment. In my opinion they certainly make the assumption that our solution can not include "us". Objective inclusion of the observer in the analysis clearly solves the difficulty. It follows, "as the night the day" , that the real problem is the assumption that we, the problem solvers, are not part of the problem to be solved: i.e., the assumption the thinker "knows what is being talked about. A fundamental assumption that is being made in every post on this forum (except mine).

There exists a way around that problem and I have been to the other side of the mountain. And any of you could go look too; if you would take the trouble to follow my thoughts. I had hoped saviormachine had the wherewithal to stick the issue through but he has apparently dropped out. I am looking forward to rudimentary interest in thinking things out logically. :zzz:

Have fun -- Dick

 

[moving finger]

A fundamental assumption that is being made in every post on this forum (except mine).

not in the least bit arrogant, are we?

I am looking forward to rudimentary interest in thinking things out logically. :zzz:

the "zzzzzzz" at the end suggests your comment that you are looking forward to interest may be less than genuine

MF

 

[Doctordick]

Ignorance is bliss!

not in the least bit arrogant, are we?

arrogant: adj. [ME.; OFr.; L. arrogans, ppr of arrogare; see ARROGATE], full of or due to unwarranted pride and self-importance; overbearing; haughty.-- see SYN proud.

arrogate: v.t. [< arrogatus, ppr of arrogare, to claim < ad- to, for, + rogare, to ask], 1. to claim or seize without right; appropriate (to oneself) arrogantly. 2. to ascribe or attribute without reason.

I believe what you are putting forth is called an "adhominem" (latin for "to the man") argument. Thus it is invalid on the face of it. Secondly, I claim what I claim with very good reason and you would be well aware of that had you seriously read much of what I have said.

the "zzzzzzz" at the end suggests your comment that you are looking forward to interest may be less than genuine

No, I would rather suggest it represents my expectations of a rational response: I am not going to lose any sleep waiting for one.

There does exist a quite simple way around the difficulty of including ourselves in the problem; but, apparently everyone here prefers to stew in the stalemate! I guess I shouldn't be surprised, I have always been told that ignorance is bliss.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Canute]

To Canute on the notion of "understanding" reality. Yes, I would agree that my position is quite odd as I am aware of no one else who holds that position; however, IMHO this is strong evidence that they have not thought the issue through.

Maybe, but there is another possibility.

It has come to be that we have all sqought (squat??) up these related concepts "real", "understanding" and "explaining". Clearly, as almost everyone sees these terms as very meaningful, they can be held up as very probably useful. It behooves us to make a serious effort to cleanse these concepts of implied relationships which can not be proved. Once we have done that, they become reasonable foundations for logical deduction. Now you are complaining about my statement that understanding reality does not require knowing what is and what is not real and you are quite right, the solution of the conundrum lies in the definition of understanding.

True. It also depends on the definition of every other word you've used. So what is your defintion of understanding?

It should be clear to you that thinking something is real is not equivalent to it being real. And secondly an explanation explains what one thinks they know not necessarily what is actually true.

That seems true.

Ever notice how the idea of "truth" is avoided? Truth bears the same relationship with knowing as reality bears to your world view. One can no more prove they know the truth than they can prove their ontology is correct. But to conclude that requires there be no truth or no reality (the solipsist position) is also a rather undefendable position. The only defendable position is that we do not know anything for sure. If you make "knowing what is real" a prerequisite to explaining reality you will never be able to explain any aspect of reality.

There is a profound difference between understanding reality and explaining it. Explanations require the use of formal systems of symbols and rules. Thus to explain something one must symbolise it, and ones explanation is limited in its reach by the incompleteness theorems and so on. But to understand something does not necessarily require the use of symbols and rules. This is an issue that lies at the heart of the difference between scientific/philosophical approaches to knowledge and experiential/mystical approaches. It is perfectly possible to understand something that one cannot explain.

I agree that it is not possible to prove (demonstrate) that one knows something. But that has no bearing on whether it is possible to know it.

The view that the phenomenal universe (the universe of corporeal and mental phenomena) is (strictly speaking) not real, does not necessarily imply solipsism. It also implies Buddhism, Sufism, Taoism, Theosophy, Advaita and all equivalent cosmological doctrines.

So I define an explanation as a defined method of yielding expectations of events not yet experienced based on information presently available to us. Notice that the definition does not require the information be correct nor does it say those expectations are valid. This is entirely consistent with the common use of the terms explain and understand. How do you come to the conclusion that you understand something? Does that decision not arise when the thing no longer surprises you?

Yes, that is one test. But I know precisely and exactly, can understand and explain, why prime numbers occur where and when they do, yet I have no way of predicting exactly where they will occur.

On the other hand, if you are explaining something to someone else, how do you determine that they understand your explanation? Is that result not achieved by asking questions? When their answers are in alignment with the answers you would give to the same questions, do you not come to the conclusion that they understand what you are talking about? I think all of this is very strong evidence that the best definition of an explanation is that it is a mechanism for producing expectations. And understanding is achieved when surprise no longer occurs. We can talk about "good" explanations once we agree as to what qualifies as an explanation.

I see roughly what you mean, but find it a strange way of defining an explanation.

If you disagree, give me a better definition of explanation and/or understanding.

If an explanation is a mechanism for producing expectations then a good explanation is one that produces correct expectations. This is ok by me as far as it goes, but it does not seem to go very far. All it says is that a good explanation is one that is in accord with what is the case. This seems a rather empty definition. On both explanation and understanding I'm happy to stick with what the dictionary gives as their meaning. Of course those definitions are woolly, but I don't think we should start changing the meaning of long used terms. If they are the wrong terms in some context it would be better to use different ones.

In this context, on the question of the ability of physics to explain everything, this seems a useful comment, and more in line with how I view explanations :

"What other properties should the physicalist’s relation of determinational dependence have? According to Kim, the relation involves not only ontological directionality but explanatory. "That upon which something depends is … explanatorily prior to … that which depends on it." The lower-level or base property on which the higher-level depends is explanatorily prior because a thing’s "having the relevant base property explains why it has the [higher level] property." It is because, or in virtue of the fact that, the thing has the base property that it has the higher level, supervenient property. Thus if properties of kind B determine those of kind A, then a thing’s having certain B-properties is that in virtue of which, is the sense of explaining why, it has certain A-properties."

L.C.Pereira and M. Wrigley
‘Is Supervenience Asymetric’

This says, rightly in my view, that when we explain things we do so by reference to things other than what it is we are explaining. When we are trying to explain everything we cannot do this, so cannot explain everything (except self-referentially or tautologically). However this has no bearing on what can or cannot be understood or known, since to understand or know something it is not necessary to be able to express an explanation of it.

 

[Doctordick]

Hi again Canute,
Going by the time stamp on your posts, your answer on the other thread preceded your post here so I answered it first. You might read that one first.

Maybe, but there is another possibility.

That may be but, if so, I am unaware of it. All I have to go on is the fact that they are still bothered by issues which in my paradigm are quite straight forward while all the issues they bring up to support their paradigm also support mine.

True. It also depends on the definition of every other word you've used. So what is your defintion of understanding?

If you understand it, you can explain it. (See how I subtly shifted that over to another word ; one I feel is considerably more important and one we should do our best to define exactly.) Note that the dictionary listing for "understanding" is quite long. This implies the common definition is more vague than the average. Secondly, since there is no easy way to prove anyone understands anything (it's pretty well a qualia isn't it ) there can't be much use for the term in an exact science, at least not at the moment. What I need to do in order to make my definition correct is to make sure that my definition of "explain" accommodates the vague implications of "understanding". As you say, if I don't do that then I should probably invent a new word and I really don't want to do that as my thoughts are abstract enough without it.

There is a profound difference between understanding reality and explaining it.

I wouldn't put it that way. I would agree that "there is a profound difference between feeling you understand reality and explaining it. As I said above, understanding is often taken to be a very personal feeling and, as such is not really something which can be nailed down in an exact manner. However, in usage, it is very commonly used to express the idea that one can explain something and that issue is much easier to test. So I will leave "understanding" as a (currently anyway) vague term.

This is an issue that lies at the heart of the difference between scientific/philosophical approaches to knowledge and experiential/mystical approaches.

I don't think that is true. I think it is at the heart of the difference between exact language and common language, but the idea that exactness of expression forever blocks one from philosophical analysis is an unwarranted assumption.

It is perfectly possible to understand something that one cannot explain.

If you had said, "it is perfectly possible to feel one understands something that one cannot explain". I would have agreed with you directly; however, used alone, the word "understand" usually carries the connotation that the understanding is valid and we are deep into philosophical basics here and such connotations have to be questioned. Explanation, however, doesn't carry such strong connotations. In the common usage, we have all heard explanations which are far from valid (if you have ever had a child you have anyway ). And explanations are very easy to examine; as you said they are communicable things.

I agree that it is not possible to prove (demonstrate) that one knows something. But that has no bearing on whether it is possible to know it.

You are exactly correct and that is the very issue I hold to be central to an exact analysis of reality (or any isolated component of reality).

The view that the phenomenal universe (the universe of corporeal and mental phenomena) is (strictly speaking) not real, does not necessarily imply solipsism. It also implies Buddhism, Sufism, Taoism, Theosophy, Advaita and all equivalent cosmological doctrines.

I think you are wrong there but I don't want to argue the issue as I know little of those doctrines. If they do hold that everything is a figment of your imagination then they are solipsistic doctrines. However, I think, for the most part, they are religions in that they hold things which they cannot prove are true. That is, in fact, the realist's position and the exact reason why academies tend towards becoming religions.

Yes, that is one test. But I know precisely and exactly, can understand and explain, why prime numbers occur where and when they do, yet I have no way of predicting exactly where they will occur.

And tell me, does that surprise you? If not, then that fulfills exactly my definition of an explanation. You are confusing something which predicts your expectation (which are in fact, "you have no way of predicting exactly where they will occur") with the act of predicting where they will occur. I never said anything about what your expectations were. What I said was, "I define an explanation as a defined method of yielding expectations of events not yet experienced based on information presently available to us."

I see roughly what you mean, but find it a strange way of defining an explanation.

If it is not exactly what you mean by an explanation, either give me an example of something you regard to be an explanation which does not fit the definition or give me an example of something which fits my definition which cannot be regarded as an explanation. I think that exhausts the possibilities doesn't it? The dictionary definitions are not "wrong"; they are simply inexact (or woolly as you say). If I am going to "explain" the universe, I just better have an exact idea of what my goal is.

This seems a rather empty definition.

And empty is good. Without making any assertions, I have a clear exact definition of what I am going to do. Having that, I can lay out a detailed procedure for reaching that goal without fear that I have made an unwarranted assumption. Without it, I am just stirring the pot of vague representations cast up to me by my subconscious mind hoping something of use might float to the top.

On both explanation and understanding I'm happy to stick with what the dictionary gives as their meaning.

I see utterly no difference between my definition and the dictionary. The only difference is that their's is vague and "wooly" and mine is exact. If this isn't the case, you need to give one of those examples sited above.

In this context, on the question of the ability of physics to explain everything, this seems a useful comment, and more in line with how I view explanations :

"What other properties should the physicalist’s relation of determinational dependence have? According to Kim, the relation involves not only ontological directionality but explanatory. "That upon which something depends is … explanatorily prior to … that which depends on it." The lower-level or base property on which the higher-level depends is explanatorily prior because a thing’s "having the relevant base property explains why it has the [higher level] property." It is because, or in virtue of the fact that, the thing has the base property that it has the higher level, supervenient property. Thus if properties of kind B determine those of kind A, then a thing’s having certain B-properties is that in virtue of which, is the sense of explaining why, it has certain A-properties."

L.C.Pereira and M. Wrigley
‘Is Supervenience Asymetric’

Talk about woolly? It certainly isn't empty. My problem with it is that it is so complex that it might very well contain internal relationships which have not yet been proved valid. But more important than that, can you prove that every possible explanation of reality is included under that definition: i.e, is the correct explanation included? What if Budda were correct, is his position included there or are you presuming he was wrong? I am afraid that I can come up with a lot of explanations which don't fit under that definition at all – it utterly fails the dictionary test! And as a final comment, it is clearly included in my definition. So why do you feel so strongly that my definition not be used?

This says, rightly in my view, that when we explain things we do so by reference to things other than what it is we are explaining. When we are trying to explain everything we cannot do this, so cannot explain everything (except self-referentially or tautologically).

Then, by your own admission, an explanation constrained to your definition cannot explain the universe as nothing is outside. This certainly implies the correct explanation of reality is not included there.

However this has no bearing on what can or cannot be understood or known, since to understand or know something it is not necessary to be able to express an explanation of it.

I would say very simply, if you feel you understand something which you cannot explain, it is certainly of no significance to me, my children, your children or anyone else for that matter. Why should I take any interest in it at all. If you want the feeling that you understand the universe, there are a great number of methods of achieving that goal; none of which are worth much to the rest of us.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Canute]

Hi again Canute,
That may be but, if so, I am unaware of it.

I should have been more clear. The "other possibility" is that you might be wrong.

If you understand it, you can explain it.

Again you state this this with no supporting argument.

Secondly, since there is no easy way to prove anyone understands anything (it's pretty well a qualia isn't it ) there can't be much use for the term in an exact science, at least not at the moment.

Here you have it. Understanding is qualia. This is why/how one can know a thing without necessarily being able to explain it.

I wouldn't put it that way. I would agree that "there is a profound difference between feeling you understand reality and explaining it. As I said above, understanding is often taken to be a very personal feeling and, as such is not really something which can be nailed down in an exact manner. However, in usage, it is very commonly used to express the idea that one can explain something and that issue is much easier to test. So I will leave "understanding" as a (currently anyway) vague term.

Fine. Understanding is certainly a vague term (as are so many terms that relate to consciousness). But you have argued for a strong link between understanding and explanation so must have a particular meaning in mind. Personally I feel that you're right when you suggest that understanding is a personal feeling that cannot be nailed down in an exact manner. However, this is not true of explanations.

I don't think that is true. I think it is at the heart of the difference between exact language and common language, but the idea that exactness of expression forever blocks one from philosophical analysis is an unwarranted assumption.

I'll stick by what I wrote. (I'm not sure what exactness of language has got to do with anything here, and a common language is not necessarily a different thing to an exact language).

If you had said, "it is perfectly possible to feel one understands something that one cannot explain". I would have agreed with you directly; however, used alone, the word "understand" usually carries the connotation that the understanding is valid and we are deep into philosophical basics here and such connotations have to be questioned.

The word 'feel' is superfluous. If you start down that road then you get into the endless regression of "feel I know I feel I know I know I feel ...", the equivalent of Goedel's regression of meta-systems. The truth is that we have no idea how we know things. This is related to the topic here because it is another aspect of the fact that we have no idea how we know what anything means. 'Knowing' is something to do with consciousness, and is therefore part of the 'problem of consciousness'.

To put this another way, in order to know what a word (or anything else) means, (or know that it has a meaning) we must be able to know. The only entities that can know anything are sentient beings. Thus sentience/consciousness/phenomenality seems a prerequisite for meaning.

It seems to me that you are muddling the concepts of knowledge, understanding and explanation. Although these things relate to each other in all sorts of interesting ways as words they have quite different meaning.

I think you are wrong there but I don't want to argue the issue as I know little of those doctrines. If they do hold that everything is a figment of your imagination then they are solipsistic doctrines. However, I think, for the most part, they are religions in that they hold things which they cannot prove are true.

Yes, they are solipsistic in a way, but not in a way that would make it correct to say that solipsism is what they are. And yes, of course practitioners of these disciplines hold things which they cannot prove are true. We all do. This is because it is possible to know things that one cannot prove to be true. Cogito ergo sum, for instance.

... Without making any assertions, I have a clear exact definition of what I am going to do. Having that, I can lay out a detailed procedure for reaching that goal without fear that I have made an unwarranted assumption. Without it, I am just stirring the pot of vague representations cast up to me by my subconscious mind hoping something of use might float to the top.

I can't follow that one. However one defines 'explanation' it is possible to make unwarranted assumptions.

Talk about woolly? It certainly isn't empty. My problem with it is that it is so complex that it might very well contain internal relationships which have not yet been proved valid. But more important than that, can you prove that every possible explanation of reality is included under that definition: i.e, is the correct explanation included? What if Budda were correct, is his position included there or are you presuming he was wrong? I am afraid that I can come up with a lot of explanations which don't fit under that definition at all – it utterly fails the dictionary test! And as a final comment, it is clearly included in my definition. So why do you feel so strongly that my definition not be used?

As I said, I feel your definition is ok as far as it goes. I'll go along with any definition you like for the purposes of this discussion. (As a point of interest the Buddhist etc. view is that there cannot be a complete and consistent explanation of reality, that it can only be understood first-hand).

Then, by your own admission, an explanation constrained to your definition cannot explain the universe as nothing is outside. This certainly implies the correct explanation of reality is not included there.

I said that I was happy with the dictionary definition, so don't know what leads you to talk about 'my' definition. The dictionary definition of the term 'explanation' covers all instances of explanations, it's defined as covering them all.

I would say very simply, if you feel you understand something which you cannot explain, it is certainly of no significance to me, my children, your children or anyone else for that matter. Why should I take any interest in it at all.

Whether you take an interest is entirely up to you, and not a relevant issue. I'm saying that we can know things that we cannot explain, not that you have to take an interest in what I know that I can't explain. To take a simple case, you know what 'red' looks like. Perhaps it would be right to say that you understand what red looks like. But you cannot explain what it looks like.

If you want the feeling that you understand the universe, there are a great number of methods of achieving that goal; none of which are worth much to the rest of us.

Methods of understanding the universe are of no use to you? I don't think you meant to say that. They are worth a great deal to you, but only if it is you who is applying the method and doing the understanding. Of course it goes without saying that I cannot do the understanding for you, or you for me. As you say, understanding is a quale.

 

[Doctordick]

I should have been more clear. The "other possibility" is that you might be wrong.

I am sincerely bothered by the fact that you thought I was unaware of that possibility. It leaves me strongly questioning your intentions.

Again you state this this with no supporting argument.

You didn't ask me for support; you asked me for my definition of "understanding". And I went on to explain that I held the word as rather vague and (at the moment) unimportant. I can conceive of little reason for you to be concerned about support for an issue I make clear I have no real intention of depending on. Again it leaves me strongly questioning your intentions.

This is why/how one can know a thing without necessarily being able to explain it.

Back to more dogmatic statements about what you are confident you know. I am sorry but if you are so sure about these things, I don't think you are open to rational thought.

But you have argued for a strong link between understanding and explanation so must have a particular meaning in mind.

I had just given you exactly what meaning I had in mind for understanding and I certainly did not make any argument for a strong link between understanding and explanation. I made it very clear that I regarded "understanding" to be a vague and uncommunicable term not worth using in an exact analysis. I can not understand your desire to waste our time on such trivial issues.

I'm not sure what exactness of language has got to do with anything here, and a common language is not necessarily a different thing to an exact language.

If you believe the common language can be held as "exact" then you just haven't thought about the issue or don't understand the meaning of the term "exact" commonly held by the scientific community. And it has everything to do with this thread if this thread is concerned with the issue "Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?"

The word 'feel' is superfluous.

If it's superfluous than there is no difference between what you know to be true and what you think is true. I thought the Pope was the only infallible person around. ;rofl: You certainly make it clear you don't want to discuss the issue of your own fallibility. Yeah, you could be wrong, but certainly not about that.

If you start down that road then you get into the endless regression of "feel I know I feel I know I know I feel ...", the equivalent of Goedel's regression of meta-systems.

I don't! You only stick that excuse out there because you don't want to talk about the possibility that your beliefs are wrong. It's an intellectually dishonest position.

The truth is that we have no idea how we know things.

Well, I am glad you admit there is something you don't know.

'Knowing' is something to do with consciousness, and is therefore part of the 'problem of consciousness'.

but jump right back in with a dogmatic assertion. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't; I personally am going to leave the issue open. Go argue with someone else if your beliefs are that important to you.

Thus sentience/consciousness/phenomenality seems a prerequisite for meaning.

I note the use of the word "seems" there! I have no interest in what "seems" to be true! What I am interested in is what "has" to be true.

It seems to me that you are muddling the concepts of knowledge, understanding and explanation.

Now how can I be muddling these concepts when I want to avoid them entirely. To this point, I have put forth only a small number of definitions I would like to work with rationally . I have been attacking the seemingly impossible task of getting you to understand what I mean by these few terms. The first is the difference between what we really know and what we only think we know (categories which I have labeled "knowable" and "unknowable") and second is my abstract definition of an "explanation" (given several times directly above in this thread). You are apparently convinced that the first two are absolutely unnecessary abstractions and that the second does not agree with what you feel an explanation is. Sorry, if that's the end of the road, it's the end of the road; but it is a rather dogmatic method for ending the discussion.

I can't follow that one. However one defines 'explanation' it is possible to make unwarranted assumptions.

I was referring to unwarranted assumptions embedded in the definition itself. How can you complain about a definition being "empty" and having the quality of "making unwarranted assumptions" simultaneously. If anyone here is trying to muddy the waters, I think it is you.

As I said, I feel your definition is ok as far as it goes.

Well if it doesn't go far enough, please give me an example of a explanation which is not included: i.e., either not based on what is known or does not yield any expectations. Or give me something which fits my definition which can not be seen as an explanation. My arguments would be defeated right there and I would go quietly away, bowing to your superior intellect.

I said that I was happy with the dictionary definition, so don't know what leads you to talk about 'my' definition.

Then what was that Pereira and Wrigley thing all about and why was it there?

Whether you take an interest is entirely up to you, and not a relevant issue. I'm saying that we can know things that we cannot explain, not that you have to take an interest in what I know that I can't explain.

I don't think you payed any attention to what I said, "I would say very simply, if you feel you understand something which you cannot explain, it is certainly of no significance to me, my children, your children or anyone else for that matter". The issue is, if you can't communicate it, you can't communicate it! How can you worry about communicating something which cannot be communicated? The issue is a complete non issue. I suspect the fact is that you "feel" there are aspects of it which can be communicated and that is what you are trying to talk about: i.e., you are stirring that pot to see if something valuable floats up. :zzz:

Methods of understanding the universe are of no use to you?

No, I said I wasn't interested in acquiring the "feeling" that I understood the universe. I am much more interested in being able to explain the universe. If you are not interested in being able to explain the universe then you cannot possibly have any interest in listening to what I have to say. I hope you at least have an inkling of what I am trying to get across to you.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[George Prokos]

The study of history has shown that it was not so much man's logic that was in error but his limited grasp of the width, breadth, and sheer complexity of reality.A mathimatical formula can no longer encompass the full measure of reality than I.B.M.'s Balance Sheet can tell you everything there is to know about I.B.M. Formulas are a language, symbolism, they are not the actual thing in itself. The map is not the territory.I trust that some day we will see far clearer and we will have far better ways of classifing, categorizing, and integrating reality both experientially and cognitively. Until then let us strive not to show too much of our ignorance by trying to fit everything into one grand theory or formula and take a leap from doubt to dogmatic certitude.Besides all of this, I don't think man has evolved enough to contain ,percieve, and process the vastness of information inherent in the Universe.

 

[Canute]

I hope you at least have an inkling of what I am trying to get across to you.

I have no idea at all what you are trying to get across. I was trying to find out. No matter. As you likewise have no idea what I'm trying to get across let's call it quits.

 

[saviourmachine]

There exists a way around that problem and I have been to the other side of the mountain. And any of you could go look too; if you would take the trouble to follow my thoughts. I had hoped saviormachine had the wherewithal to stick the issue through but he has apparently dropped out. I am looking forward to rudimentary interest in thinking things out logically.

Sorry DoctorDick, it's difficult at the moment to find time for this topic. I'm busy with my master thesis, my girl-friend, deconversion from xianity, 'praeses' of a student society, and work as student assistent to make the money I need. I hope I can return to you some months later. The matter does interest me much.

 

[Tournesol]

I don't think you payed any attention to what I said, "I would say very simply, if you feel you understand something which you cannot explain, it is certainly of no significance to me, my children, your children or anyone else for that matter". The issue is, if you can't communicate it, you can't communicate it! How can you worry about communicating something which cannot be communicated?

By commuicating the fact that you cannot communicate it.

 

[moving finger]

arrogant: adj. [ME.; OFr.; L. arrogans, ppr of arrogare; see ARROGATE], full of or due to unwarranted pride and self-importance; overbearing; haughty.-- see SYN proud.

yep, as I said. Take an open-minded look at the content of your posts. And no need to be grumpy.

I believe what you are putting forth is called an "adhominem" (latin for "to the man") argument. Thus it is invalid on the face of it.

Nope, it's an observation, and very pertinent.

Secondly, I claim what I claim with very good reason and you would be well aware of that had you seriously read much of what I have said.

Most arrogant people do feel that way. Strange isn't it?

No, I would rather suggest it represents my expectations of a rational response: I am not going to lose any sleep waiting for one.

That's good, because I didn't lose any sleep composing one (see below).

There does exist a quite simple way around the difficulty of including ourselves in the problem; but, apparently everyone here prefers to stew in the stalemate! I guess I shouldn't be surprised, I have always been told that ignorance is bliss.

And this is the kind of "rational comment" that you think is deserving of a rational response? Give me a break.
MF

 

[Doctordick]

If none of you can comprehend that you could be wrong about something and not know it, then you are beyond my intellectual reach.

Enjoy your games – Dick

 

[Doctordick]

I don't think man has evolved enough to contain ,percieve, and process the vastness of information inherent in the Universe.

And you think that is a good reason for not thinking about the problem?

Well have a ball not thinking about it -- Dick

 

[Canute]

If none of you can comprehend that you could be wrong about something and not know it, then you are beyond my intellectual reach.

Enjoy your games – Dick

Please explain what you mean. Who has said that it is possible to "comprehend that you could be wrong about something and not know it". I'm not even sure what the sentence might mean.

I'm sorry you feel that we are beyond your intellectual reach. It may be because you are so quick to attempt to patronise anyone who disagrees with you that don't give yourself time to understand what they are saying.

 

[Aurino]

I'm sorry you feel that we are beyond your intellectual reach. It may be because you are so quick to attempt to patronise anyone who disagrees with you that don't give yourself time to understand what they are saying.

Canute,

I've known this Doctordick for years and I can tell you he's not trying to patronize anyone; it's actually much worse than that.

What I gathered, after exchaning countless forum posts and about 100 emails with him, is that he has some sort of cognitive impairment. This causes him a great deal of frustration, yet the same impairment that makes it impossible for anyone to understand what he's talking about, also prevents him from understanding a single word anyone else says.

It's useless to scream at deaf people, and it's silly to blame them for not being able to hear. God knows why some people are born that way, but then there's nothing we can do about it, other than hope one day they'll clearly see what is second-nature to most people.

In his case, he appears to be able to communicate, for he writes a lot, but on a closer look it becomes obvious that he cannot say much that is intelligible, other than insults, and cannot understand most things he is told.

By the way, I don't post here but I like to follow some of the discussions. I find it really bad that Doctordick joined this forum, after being kicked out of the physics section, for he tends to dominate the debate. I hope my interference prevents this interesting forum from going the way other forums have gone, when he used to be a member of them.

(I also find it ironic that he seems to go wherever I go, or the other way around. I certainly don't look for him, yet I find him in the most unexpected places; must be a small world after all)

 

[Doctordick]

Please explain what you mean. Who has said that it is possible to "comprehend that you could be wrong about something and not know it". I'm not even sure what the sentence might mean.

I'm sorry you feel that we are beyond your intellectual reach. It may be because you are so quick to attempt to patronise anyone who disagrees with you that don't give yourself time to understand what they are saying.

That is exactly the issue I have been trying to communicate: "it is possible to be wrong about something and not know it". I do not know what part of that sentence you do not understand. I am at a total loss as to how to make it any clearer.

I think it is a serious issue, not to be ignored -- Dick

 

[medium]

On considering whether "everything can be reduced to pure physics", I have a question. Question: What if I had the power to create something from nothing. Well first there would be nothing, but say in further considering my options, I decided to use what was available to me in the physical world. So then what I would in essence be creating, is time and space. Seems to me though that this is what engineers do all the time. With the constant threat of deadlines and limited resources(smile). It occurs to me that if I were to believe in the question, it would be the one not yet asked. The one that would be worthy of making me stop and think. Does this make any sense?, Please comment>.....MEDIUM.......>