What does it mean for something to be "logically possible"?

[fast]

I added a layer between unobserved yet recordable facts (facts not yet risen to the status of data) and recording observed facts (data recorded). If I'm shot (in the interim between observing the facts and making a written record of those facts), then what's in memory is gone. What's in memory is the unwritten data--which is still actually data, despite the required conception that it be recorded because it exists post observation. Either way, prior to observation of facts, there is no written record of what is observed, and that's an important distinction marked by our usage of the term data.

Adding interventions doesn't help if what you are inserting aren't necessary in the first place.

Okay, but do you understand how it is data doesn't exist until observed yet? Just think of it as the written record, and you can then stomach what he's been saying.

 

[Kharakov]

Fast, are you:

maintaining that data doesn't exist prior to our observing it (like a rock doesn't have a specific mass until it is observed)

-0r- (think about this side note, the word "or" looks like 0r, which is a point at the origin, around which you can pick any direction to go. Coincidence? Yes, it is. Purposeful? hahahahaha, there's no point arguing about it)

maintaining that data is something humans collect, and that whatever properties a rock has (specific mass, velocity, heat, #of atoms, etc.) are not data?

or something else?


If you're maintaining that a rock's # of atoms isn't data until it is measured, sure, but I'm pretty sure all 3 of us (FDI, you and I) agree that the # of atoms in the rock is a specific value before being measured (give or take whatever falls of as dust as we handle it).

I also think we can agree that the belief (Max's D) that the rock is comprised of atoms is data, that the rock has mass is data, that the rock might be a hallucination is data. After something has been observed, you have data about it...

 

[fromderinside]

How it is data to a mind? Of course. Already said that. Point is a mind can't observe data if data doesn't exist without mind.

If the mind is the only medium through which data can be realized then of what is the mind composed and processing?

Do rocks and grass not absorb and reflect light without an eye to see it? Yes they do.

As for putting data on tablets establishes it as data, what was it when humans were seeing it before coherent language and clay tablets? What was it at the a place and time where life existed but nervous systems didn't exist?

I don't see existence of an instrument as critical to the existence of matter's properties like data or what is signaled by it. Pigments absorb light parts of spectra. No data?

I think you've driven yourself into the same abutment as did Descartes when he tried to save human uniqueness from being crushed by science by pointing out that men walked upright.

 

[fast]

Fast, are you:

maintaining that data doesn't exist prior to our observing it (like a rock doesn't have a specific mass until it is observed)

-0r- (think about this side note, the word "or" looks like 0r, which is a point at the origin, around which you can pick any direction to go. Coincidence? Yes, it is. Purposeful? hahahahaha, there's no point arguing about it)

maintaining that data is something humans collect, and that whatever properties a rock has (specific mass, velocity, heat, #of atoms, etc.) are not data?

or something else?


If you're maintaining that a rock's # of atoms isn't data until it is measured, sure, but I'm pretty sure all 3 of us (FDI, you and I) agree that the # of atoms in the rock is a specific value before being measured (give or take whatever falls of as dust as we handle it).

I also think we can agree that the belief (Max's D) that the rock is comprised of atoms is data, that the rock has mass is data, that the rock might be a hallucination is data. After something has been observed, you have data about it...

It's purely a linguistic issue regarding the scope of the term, "data." Much like we discern knowledge from truth, whereas knowledge is dependent on both truth and something else, data is dependent on facts and something else.

 

[fast]

How it is data to a mind? Of course. Already said that. Point is a mind can't observe data if data doesn't exist without mind.

If the mind is the only medium through which data can be realized then of what is the mind composed and processing?

Do rocks and grass not absorb and reflect light without an eye to see it? Yes they do.

As for putting data on tablets establishes it as data, what was it when humans were seeing it before coherent language and clay tablets? What was it at the a place and time where life existed but nervous systems didn't exist?

I don't see existence of an instrument as critical to the existence of matter's properties like data or what is signaled by it. Pigments absorb light parts of spectra. No data?

I think you've driven yourself into the same abutment as did Descartes when he tried to save human uniqueness from being crushed by science by pointing out that men walked upright.

Facts: includes both the observed and the unobserved
Data: includes observed facts only, especially when recorded.

Others might go on to say no fact is data unless both observed and recorded

 

[fromderinside]

We're not gong to come to resolution.

 

[fast]

We're not gong to come to resolution.

But I'm not trying to convince you or persuade you of anything, just trying to show the calculus of expanding or retracting the scope of the term "data." The point behind doing that is so that you can see the positions for what they are.

A general perspective would be to define "data" as recorded facts. Your weight unobserved is still your weight, whatever that might be, so while there is no denial of the underlying facts that must be the case for there to ever be data, there is the denial that there is data if there is no record of your weight.

A more constrictive perspective would be to define "data" as recorded facts in (oh say) brail. Outlandish as that might be, if thats the definition of "data" (it isn't, but if it were) then not even recorded facts would be data unless it was recorded in brail.

A more focused definition of "data" would be facts observed for potential preservation. For example, if I measure your weight and notice what the scale says and I commit it to memory as my pencil breaks, then it's not data according to the definition that says data is recorded facts, but because the numeral representing the number reflective of your weight as measured has been committed to memory, the data point collected through observation isn't yet lost.

Now, we could make an incredibly broad definition and define "data" as "facts." In that case, no observer is necessary for there to be data, but such a broad definition seems to be as inaccurate as is the one that overly narrows it by including brail.

I strongly shy away from stipulative definitions and tend to go with ones that are lexical. I do know that people don't normally speak about the data of the world like they do when they speak of facts and state of affairs.

 

[fromderinside]

Rather than trying to sustain data and facts I'm more interested in whether what a person records is a thing. I mean objective isn't really objective since it is based on what minds do what they, as carefully as possible, measure. So when someone comes to me and says that data is literally invented by the mind from such measurement I going to react.

Like I said we're not gong to resolve our 'differences; on any rational level since some think rational is subjective and others operate as if rational were a substitute, not just for rational, but for real.

Your points are well taken in your context. They just don't apply to the context I addressed.

I'll stand with my photons being recorded by the eye as data before they are recorded by the eye.

 

[fast]

Rather than trying to sustain data and facts I'm more interested in whether what a person records is a thing.

Like a numeral? It's as much a thing as are letters and words. Speech acts are events made by people.

I mean objective isn't really objective since it is based on what minds do what they, as carefully as possible, measure.

Im not sure what you're getting at. I can be objective in my approach at measuring things and give a non subjective account of my findings. Well, my dumbass might not, but people more adept at this kind of thing should be able to with ease.

So when someone comes to me and says that data is literally invented by the mind from such measurement I going to react.

People are weird, and the more they philosophize without supervision of the commoners, the more apt they are to repeat the same mistakes of the great philosophers known for them. Plus, when people get stuck in the grip of a theory, the crazier and more profoundly ridiculous their claims.

If someone says "data is literally invented," I'd want to know a little bit more about what they think that means.

 

[fromderinside]

If someone says "data is literally invented," I'd want to know a little bit more about what they think that means.

One's mind created the data. Like I said photons are data, not facts, else evolution wouldn't have adapted to them. You know the input device through which the stuff arrives at the mind so it can be realized, created by said mind.

If you're going to talk reduction with me you'd better come armed.

 

[Speakpigeon]

My good Oxford dictionary says:

Data: Known facts.

I would further conjecture that "known" by itself implies "human, or possibly non-human, mind".

So, I would assume that data depend on minds while facts do not necessarily.



Well, that is all well and good, but discussions about the fundamentals of data and facts should be conducted carefully. I can see how it's possible both to consider photons as data or to consider them as facts.

Still, we can have a sensible conversation if we remain alert to the fact that we can maintain the distinction between photons as data and photons as facts: Very simply, we just have to keep in mind that some facts about photons may be unknown, and therefore not data. And then not go pretending we know these unknown facts.

A bit of caretaking is just what we need.

That being said, I would commend fast's careful style and condemn fromderinside's slapdash one as unhelpful.

Such is my mood today.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

One's mind created the data.

So far I'm with you.

Like I said photons are data, not facts,

That's not what people mean by 'photons'.

What we know about photons are data but we all assume that photons themselves, or whatever they do, are facts.

else evolution wouldn't have adapted to them.

Evolution works even outside knowledge so living things could adapt to the facts of photons without knowing them unless you want to redefine "knowing" as "interacting" but then interaction doesn't necessarily produce data.

You know the input device through which the stuff arrives at the mind so it can be realized, created by said mind.

You just lost me.

If you're going to talk reduction with me you'd better come armed.

If you're going to take part in a forum you'd better improve your communication skills.
EB

 

[fast]

My good Oxford dictionary says:

Data: Known facts.

I would further conjecture that "known" by itself implies "human, or possibly non-human, mind".

So, I would assume that data depend on minds while facts do not necessarily.



Well, that is all well and good, but discussions about the fundamentals of data and facts should be conducted carefully. I can see how it's possible both to consider photons as data or to consider them as facts.

Still, we can have a sensible conversation if we remain alert to the fact that we can maintain the distinction between photons as data and photons as facts: Very simply, we just have to keep in mind that some facts about photons may be unknown, and therefore not data. And then not go pretending we know these unknown facts.

A bit of caretaking is just what we need.

That being said, I would commend fast's careful style and condemn fromderinside's slapdash one as unhelpful.

Such is my mood today.
EB

I would say the dictionary definition is correct but imprecise. A lexical definition does reflect what a word means, and that's not to say the meaning is inherent in the word (lexical meanings need not be inherient) but a definition is an explanation--it's an explanation of meaning, and though the definition is accurate, it's through analysis that we recognize the definition cited satisfies some necessary conditions, but that it's insufficient is revealed. It would be like saying a dog is a domesticated mammal with four legs. That would be true, but it's insufficient as it includes instantiations of cats which aren't dogs.

There is something true we can say about data which would exclude regarding photons as data.

 

[fast]

Also, while I'm thinking about it, there is a difference between observable facts and facts observed. How many leaves on a particular tree is an observable fact, but we must observe (count, calculate, or measure) the number before it's an observed fact.

 

[fromderinside]

Good. Photons as data when interacting sans mind and photons as facts when observed (interacting) with mind.

Given the probability that photons interact with things without minds almost exclusively I go with photons as data as default take on it's attributes.

In fact it takes a mind with memory and language to observe as fast and Speakpigeon assert.

A Manta Ray and a Sea Anemone have brains with little memory and no appreciable language so sensing and organizing photon reactions into shapes would still be a case of photons (data) interacting with things without mind.

The situation we are considering is exemplified in the development of statistical thermodynamics and Information theory with the development thermodynamic construct of S (entropy) and the information construct H. One reflects a physical probability and the other an information probability. See   Entropy in thermodynamics and information theory

Boltzmann's equation is presumed to provide a link between thermodynamic entropy S and information entropy H = −Σi pi ln pi = ln(W) where p_i=1/W are the equal probabilities of a given microstate. This interpretation has been criticized also. While some say that the equation is merely a unit conversion equation between thermodynamic and information entropy, this is not completely correct.^[19] A unit conversion equation will, e.g., change inches to centimeters, and yield two measurements in different units of the same physical quantity (length). Since thermodynamic and information entropy are dimensionally unequal (energy/unit temperature vs. units of information), Boltzmann's equation is more akin to x = c t where x is the distance travelled by a light beam in time t, c being the speed of light. While we cannot say that length x and time t represent the same physical quantity, we can say that, in the case of a light beam, since c is a universal constant, they will provide perfectly accurate measures of each other. (For example, the light-year is used as a measure of distance). Likewise, in the case of Boltzmann's equation, while we cannot say that thermodynamic entropy S and information entropy H represent the same physical quantity, we can say that, in the case of a thermodynamic system, since k_B is a universal constant, they will provide perfectly accurate measures of each other.

Which is how I see the relationship between a physical fact and data.

 

[fast]

I'm not particularly keen on regarding photons as data.

 

[untermensche]

To address the argument you actually have to address the logic of the argument. You have to address the absurdity of claiming endless moments occurred before any given moment. This merely requires understanding the definition of "endless".

Yeah. Beginless moments have passed, not endless. There wasn't a beginning. There is no paradox: something always existed. Existence didn't start, it always was.

Absolutely no paradox, unless you claim something nonsensical like a beginning to eternal existence (not the same thing as a beginning of an endless existence in eternity- eternal existence > any existence that begins).

You can't surmount this paradox by simply labeling something "beginningless".

That is a pretend answer. A worthless answer.

Not a description or explanation of anything.

If all you have are undefined magic labels you have nothing.

To surmount this paradox you have to define what it means for something to be "beginningless", not merely claim it, as if the claim means something, and then show how it is possible for such a thing to be.

Something you will never do. The only eternity you will ever know.

 

[untermensche]

How do you "see" it has no end?

All you know, or could ever know, is it goes further than you can see with any instrument, even magic instruments can't "see" "no end".

It is not something that can be seen.

I'm not talking about the universe. I'm not talking about time. I'm not talking about distance. I'm talking about something. Specifically, I'm talking about the number line. Now that that's out the way, grasp that my tool of choice shall not be an instrument.

You've made two points. One is correct. We cannot visually see the end. Even if we could see numbers, we still couldn't visually see the end. That sounds true to me, especially in light of the fact THERE IS NO END.

I can see that there is no end, however. Well, I can't visually see something that's not there, but I can mentally grasp or logically conclude that there is no end.

The number line is infinite BY DEFINITION.

It is not infinite in any other way.

You can't even imagine infinity. You cannot grasp it in any way. You can only understand the definition.

It is that abstract.

 

[fast]

And this whole photon interaction thingy is far and away removed from what's going on. I'm not observing photons even when my eyes interact with them. It would take specialized equipment to actually observe a photon.

Now, you might assert that I am observing a massive amount of photons when observing the tree, but we ought not list that as perceptible during the quest to list observed data, as without instrumentation, such things cannot be ascertained.

 

[untermensche]

And this whole photon interaction thingy is far and away removed from what's going on. I'm not observing photons even when my eyes interact with them. It would take specialized equipment to actually observe a photon.

Now, you might assert that I am observing a massive amount of photons when observing the tree, but we ought not list that as perceptible during the quest to list observed data, as without instrumentation, such things cannot be ascertained.

You are not observing any photons.

They might be exiting retinal cells but the act of "observing" is subjective.

It is something a subject does.

Not an object.