The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

Post by Logik » Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:54 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:56 am
Logic wrote:
any symbol written on paper can and will be mis interpreted
Symbols are a sub set of language and like any language they can be open to misinterpretation but the symbols
of mathematics are very rigorous indeed and much moreso than those of non mathemathical language [ words ]

I think the symbol grounding problem is more a question for philosophy not mathematics or science for it is
fundamentally metaphysical and metaphysics has got absolutely nothing to do with mathematics or science

Would machine intelligence of the future be capable of solving the problem if it is beyond human capability ?
It would certainly have superior processing capability however would that automatically produce an answer ?

Scientists and mathematicians have no problem in conveying their ideas using mathematical language so will
carry on doing so because the solution to the symbol grounding problem is not something that concerns them

But what guarantee is there that the problem itself will not be open to misinterpretation if it is ever solved ?
The symbols themselves are not actually that important since like words it is the meaning that really matters
The symbol-grounding problem is a practical problem.

It is about ensuring the content/information that the “sender” is attempting to relay is interpreted exactly in the same sense by the receiver.

It requires that words have strict and objective meaning.

There are only two ways to ensure this:

1. Prescriptive linguistic rules (not ideal).
2. Consensus from zero-knowledge.

Still, communication science has a bunch of strategies for dealing with transmission errors.
In a context free of any risk where errors in communication have absolutely no negative consequences you are free to express yourself.

Dream, theorize, imagine, write poetry.

There is zero need for precision. Only aesthetics.

There are a few AI/robotics research houses which claim to have solved the problem. They have somewhat solved it - for well controlled environments they have managed to get robots to recognise/learn/agree on meaning.

It is very far from being useful between humans.
We don’t like rules - robots love them.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3162
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

Post by surreptitious57 » Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:15 am

You cannot guarantee that the information the sender is attempting to relay is interpreted in exactly the same sense by the receiver. Free will allows for misinterpretation and definitions / meanings are descriptive. There may also be philosophical / ideological differences between the sender and receiver. So the only thing that can be done in such a situation is to make communication as error free as possible. Although that is complicated by the fact that [ non mathematical ] language is organic and freely evolves over time so is therefore not prescriptive / deductive

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Problem of Light and Speed in a Vacuum

Post by Logik » Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:32 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:15 am
You cannot guarantee that the information the sender is attempting to relay is interpreted in exactly the same sense by the receiver.
But if we do solve symbol-grounding problem we CAN guarantee that symbols contain objective and semantic truth.

We don't have to appeal to abstract axioms like A = A.

Points finger at physical phenomenon. That is A.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:15 am
Free will allows for misinterpretation and definitions / meanings are descriptive. There may also be philosophical / ideological differences between the sender and receiver. So the only thing that can be done in such a situation is to make communication as error free as possible. Although that is complicated by the fact that [ non mathematical ] language is organic and freely evolves over time so is therefore not prescriptive / deductive
You will always be free to reject it.

But then you would be rejecting truth, not a (mis)interpretation of "facts".

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests