Subject: Re: Belief Statements

On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 Russell Standish wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 06:01:08PM -0500, John M wrote:
> > Dear Russell, you wrote:
> > >"This sounds like a terminological difference. To me, "data" >>>refers
to mere differences. Information has meaning. Observation >>>attaches
meaning to data, creating informations from that data."
> > WHAT do you "observe" if you have to create the meaning? I find >>it a
reverse route, to learn the quantities (data) and then enrich >>them with
meaning to make it 'information'.
> Yes, that is what I've been saying.<

I formulated it poorly. What I meant: the way to 'sense' quantities and THEN
find out what they refer to is against my logic, I find qualities sense-able
and a
quantitative arrangement is the secondary. You cannot compare 2 with 3 if
the 2 are apples and the 3 are punches in the mouth. Quantities can be
in their given association to wht thet refer to, otherwise it is 'pure math'
no reference, just numbers. In this realm I accept "math" as a separate
a "life" itself, without meanings attached to numbers. Once you attach
it enters the world of limited models since the 'quantities' have defined
limitations. A comparison is feasible only in at least one identical
I think (don't know if I am right) meanings with unlimited connotations
be computed, with their unlimited variability by unlimited variables. When
the undefinable, unrestricted 'wholeness' enters, comp loses its
(bit-representation). 'Natural' systems (unlimited) are not computable, only
their (reductionistically) defined models.
> Not sure what you mean by "unquantizable". Both data and meanings >can be
mapped into the set of natural numbers, and are countable.
> Perhaps where we differ is that you seem to think "meanings" are out
> there as disembodied ideals, rather like Platonic forms, whereas as
> for me, meanings cannot be detached from the observers interpreting
> the data.<

Example meaning: validity of a legal opinion, or the beauty of a sunset
Would you deem these quantizable?
> No sure what you mean by non-quantitative. Data is simply a bunch
>of bits - differences if you like. It needs meanings attached to become

I am not sure what you mean. Do 'numbers' have meaning? IMO:
only in the so called 'applied math' as quantities of <something>.
Then again "data" are poorly identified, in the sense you apply them
they are numbered connotations, while more generally they may refer
to qualifiers unattached to numbers. A "datum" is 'added to something'.
If 'data' are a bunch of bits, as you qualified: differences, they HAVE the
mening already attached, to arrive at those 'differences'. Otherwise the
bits are just waiting for a sense they refer to.
A datum needs 'meaning attached' not to become "number", but info.
> How can you compare two things without bringing them together?
>Perhaps we should say "connecting" them?

If they 'are' together - connected, if you like, without "us" bringing them
together. Like: projected overlapping graphs (unequal components).
Or a bifurcaion (trivially: a road-fork, one going up, one down).
Of course you may say that you look at them one part after the other,
to prove your time-relatedness. I may evaluate the composite image,
looking at the picture in one, to make MY (atemporal) point.

> > (JM earlier):
> > First I find it an 'out-of-bounds' argumentative twist to change my
> >term"human representational way of OUR world model" into your
> > "accidental feature of our world".
> Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by
>"human representational way of OUR world model".

I meant 'thinking about it', (as WE perceive it upon our limited skills
of observation-understanding) - while your expression refers to the
'it' itself as if we had a way to learn as it is indeed - what we have not.
> Linearity of QM and nonlinearity of classical dynamics are not
> actually related to each other. The mathematical term "orthogonal" is
> a good metaphorical description of this. And yes, QM's linearity is a
> feature of the world. The world need not be linear in the way QM
>says it is, but experimentally it is known to be linear to some
>extremely high fidelity.

Let me pass on discussing QM (especially Liouville equation(?) with you.
Your 'feature' that 'need not be' is based on experimental high fidelity -
in theory laden and slanted experiments of course, to proove a point.
With explanations formulated in the same spirit. No repetitive chance,
because the Q-measurement destroys the substrate. (Similar models?)
And assigning "meanings" to the bits as required for the theoretical fit.
Now this may seem exaggerated and unfair, - dismissable as such.
SNIP ...
> there would be a "hidden variable" theory - and this, as much as is
> possible, has been ruled out by experiment.

Hidden variables can only be ruled out with a complete epistemology.
We are far from that. Our models are limited, the 'out of boundary'
connotations are cut off, we do not encompass the wholeness into our
thinking. Besides the 'world' is in a ceaseless function of change. How
can we 'rule out' hidden (not yet discovered?) variables on the basis of
the model-experiments we chose to observe - and their evaluation on
the basis of the applied part of contemporary knowledge?
> > (Skip the rest, 'religious' etc.connotations all the way to the
Anthropic Principle remark)*
> That is not the AP at all. The AP, in effect, says that the world is
> consistent with our existence within that world. It says nothing about
> importance - it is merely a contraint.

I put it in reverse: WE (as products of this world) are consistent with
the world however that evolved. In 'different' universes different "us"
may be, with characteristics beyond our earthbound imagination.
> --R.St.

> *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
> is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
> virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
> email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
> may safely ignore this attachment.

Thanks for the readable e-mail format.

John Mikes

Reply via email to