3 ms·

I dont follow. What are "actual" objects? Everything we conceptualize is some abstraction of data. We the see the world in trained concepts. A "door" for examp

I dont follow. What are "actual" objects? Everything we conceptualize is some abstraction of data. We the see the world in trained concepts. A "door" for example isn't a fundamental object of the universe. Its a collection of atoms or quarks or whatever you consider fundamental objects of reality, (or even a completely abstract object having some resemblance in space/time), but each part in itself means nothing. It is the collection of them in a certain configuration which we recognize as being a "door". It is precisely the "compression" of of bunch of data points into a simpler concept. The same goes for concepts like shapes, diagonal, alternating, etc. There are endless infinite patterns from which we learn to distinguish

mjburgess 3y ago
Many things are extended in space and time; the number "2" is not. Nor is 010101010111010011...
- andoando 3y ago
  Im not sure what your point here is. unless you think it's impossible to encode space/time with a mathematical framework?
  - mjburgess 3y ago
    When you, eg., take all the positions of stars (etc.) in the sky and compress them, you do not get newton's universal theory of gravity -- indeed it is impossible to induce this theory via compression. It is impossible to induce any theory of physics (and indeed, any explanation) via compression of measurement data. The only sense in which physics is "compressed" wrt measurement data is just that it's conducted using finite sequences of mathematical symbols given a causal semantics. The only "data" which can be compressed into, eg., newton's universal law requires you already knowing that law in order to collect it. Almost all measurements of the sky need to be adjusted, or ignored, by already knowing the theory.
    - andoando 3y ago
      Its impossible to induce anything through compression alone as it is reductory. We also need the ability to add and combine things. The vary nature of the inquiry of physics is to find the simplest mental conception which explains the greatest number of physical phenomena. To improve any system or model while retaining all its qualities, it is necessary to deconstruct it into simpler bits so that it can be reconstructed into something simpler. Indeed, one can conceive of a physics model in which every observable phenomena is a unique entity which has the properties of doing exactly what is being observed. But attempting to find common properties between phenomena, we can reduce them to simpler explanations, and this can happen in iterative steps. In the the primitive studies of physics, this was reducing the elements into "fire", "water", "steam", "earth", etc. Then we broke this model down further, by saying all elements have something in common, in that they are atoms. And we then attempted to explain commonalities by which atoms behave by breaking it down further.

mjburgess 3y ago

Many things are extended in space and time; the number "2" is not. Nor is 010101010111010011...

andoando 3y ago
Im not sure what your point here is. unless you think it's impossible to encode space/time with a mathematical framework?
- mjburgess 3y ago
  When you, eg., take all the positions of stars (etc.) in the sky and compress them, you do not get newton's universal theory of gravity -- indeed it is impossible to induce this theory via compression. It is impossible to induce any theory of physics (and indeed, any explanation) via compression of measurement data. The only sense in which physics is "compressed" wrt measurement data is just that it's conducted using finite sequences of mathematical symbols given a causal semantics. The only "data" which can be compressed into, eg., newton's universal law requires you already knowing that law in order to collect it. Almost all measurements of the sky need to be adjusted, or ignored, by already knowing the theory.
  - andoando 3y ago
    Its impossible to induce anything through compression alone as it is reductory. We also need the ability to add and combine things. The vary nature of the inquiry of physics is to find the simplest mental conception which explains the greatest number of physical phenomena. To improve any system or model while retaining all its qualities, it is necessary to deconstruct it into simpler bits so that it can be reconstructed into something simpler. Indeed, one can conceive of a physics model in which every observable phenomena is a unique entity which has the properties of doing exactly what is being observed. But attempting to find common properties between phenomena, we can reduce them to simpler explanations, and this can happen in iterative steps. In the the primitive studies of physics, this was reducing the elements into "fire", "water", "steam", "earth", etc. Then we broke this model down further, by saying all elements have something in common, in that they are atoms. And we then attempted to explain commonalities by which atoms behave by breaking it down further.