This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
Another small note.
Introducing to you a concept.
(You can use it with the "Fine Tunning" Argument, but think it, please, wider.)
The "destruction of Information" when considering a result.
- You observe that a result is "4".
- You have (not YET) knowledge on how "4" ressulted (such information is not "contained" in the ressult, but "destroyed").
- If you infer that 2+2=4, that´s right! But if you say that 4=2+2 (outside basic arithmetic) is WRONG.
- Also 3+1= 4.
- AND, beyond abstract school level Math, in the physical Universe 1+3=4 but, when the "path" matters (which happens in the natural world, Physics, Biology et al) 3+1, is not the same as 1+3. EVEN if both result in "4".
That, together with the concept of Information Destruction, gives a first glimpse to what means "path deppendent".
When someone looking at the "4" (the actual Universe) says, ok, THEN 2+2, is making nothing but a gess.
Do not call it Logic.
Do not call it Science.
Science do not jump to the 2+2.
Explores the causal material chain, the specific path taken for a result.
Not "rationallity" (where 2+2=4, right).
But what actually happened in material terms.
There will be more notes. Enough coffee provided.
Introducing to you a concept.
(You can use it with the "Fine Tunning" Argument, but think it, please, wider.)
The "destruction of Information" when considering a result.
- You observe that a result is "4".
- You have (not YET) knowledge on how "4" ressulted (such information is not "contained" in the ressult, but "destroyed").
- If you infer that 2+2=4, that´s right! But if you say that 4=2+2 (outside basic arithmetic) is WRONG.
- Also 3+1= 4.
- AND, beyond abstract school level Math, in the physical Universe 1+3=4 but, when the "path" matters (which happens in the natural world, Physics, Biology et al) 3+1, is not the same as 1+3. EVEN if both result in "4".
That, together with the concept of Information Destruction, gives a first glimpse to what means "path deppendent".
When someone looking at the "4" (the actual Universe) says, ok, THEN 2+2, is making nothing but a gess.
Do not call it Logic.
Do not call it Science.
Science do not jump to the 2+2.
Explores the causal material chain, the specific path taken for a result.
Not "rationallity" (where 2+2=4, right).
But what actually happened in material terms.
There will be more notes. Enough coffee provided.