The processing of information

[Lonnie Clay]

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/epistemology/OV6-uW2qy7Y

Is a thread which I have been following for some time now. Rather than stick my oar in there, I am starting a new thread on a related topic.

fundamental -> interactions -> medium -> instruments -> raw observations ->

transmission -> processing -> correlation -> interpretation -> understanding

At each step of the way from the fundamental to our understanding of what is happening, errors can be introduced, most commonly at the stage of interpretation. We achieve a consensus of what is reality through the scientific method among other tools. So the four elements earth, air, fire, and water of the ancients have evolved into a few quarks or so in modern theory, along the way passing through the stage of trillions of molecules, a couple hundred "elements", and a similar number of subatomic particles. Nature did not change its structure during the evolution of our understanding, it was just our interpretation that evolved. I have to wonder as we close in on the last of the hypothesized quarks if we are about to unfold a strange landscape of various colors and flavors lying beneath the quarks...

Lonnie Courtney Clay

[Craig Weinberg]

The loop also runs in the other direction:
understanding -> motive -> expectation -> experiment design -> instrument design -> experiment -> analysis -> projected  medium, interactions, and fundamentals.

In this direction, each step invites a false confidence of self-fulfilling feedback which privileges the more empirically testable phenomena over the more elusive influences. This accumulates exponentially as each material instrument, experiment, and hypothesis directs our attention further into materialism, until we reach the point with QM and Information Theory that we cannot recognize subjective phenomenology as anything other than objects even when we are looking right at it.

Craig

[awori achoka]

Lonnie, then we shall discover that there are no quarks...it's us who are quarky in our understanding of nature.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/IQ8PTSkkE5IJ.
To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.

[Lonnie Clay]

Yes indeed "We found what we were looking for", "it fulfilled our hopes and expectations", "we have achieved our goal of understanding...", LOL LOL LOL

Lonnie Courtney Clay

[archytas]

Next will be the quirk which will have negative charm and be found
sulking where even dark matter dares not tread.

On Mar 28, 4:15 pm, Lonnie Clay <claylon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Yes indeed "We found what we were looking for", "it fulfilled our hopes and
> expectations", "we have achieved our goal of understanding...", LOL LOL LOL
>
> Lonnie Courtney Clay
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 28, 2012 7:46:03 AM UTC-7, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > The loop also runs in the other direction:
> > understanding -> motive -> expectation -> experiment design -> instrument
> > design -> experiment -> analysis -> projected  medium, interactions, and
> > fundamentals.
>
> > In this direction, each step invites a false confidence of self-fulfilling
> > feedback which privileges the more empirically testable phenomena over the
> > more elusive influences. This accumulates exponentially as each material
> > instrument, experiment, and hypothesis directs our attention further into
> > materialism, until we reach the point with QM and Information Theory that
> > we cannot recognize subjective phenomenology as anything other than objects
> > even when we are looking right at it.
>
> > Craig
>
> > On Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:20:52 AM UTC-4, Lonnie Clay wrote:
>

> >>https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/epistemology...