User Controls
should lanny stop pretending to be an important philosopher
-
2018-11-13 at 7 PM UTCAll of existence is an informational kink in a one dimensional continuum
-
2018-11-13 at 9:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by PhD in Condom Mechanics There's no additional nuance necessary, there's nothing special about QM, it is as real as it gets.
You've missed the point. I agree there's nothing qualitatively different in QM from other physical theories. The problem is this statement "Each correct prediction by a theory increases the likelihood of the theory being correct" is not just untrue of QM, but of every scientific theory. Hypothetico deductivism is, frankly, a discredited theory in the philosophy of science. -
2018-11-13 at 10:01 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I agree there's nothing qualitatively different in QM from other physical theories.
The introduction of discrete quantisation of energy states and the introduction of mathematical probabilistic randomness as a fundamental principle involved in the operation of the universe were qualitatively new. -
2018-11-13 at 11:18 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny You've missed the point. I agree there's nothing qualitatively different in QM from other physical theories. The problem is this statement "Each correct prediction by a theory increases the likelihood of the theory being correct" is not just untrue of QM, but of every scientific theory. Hypothetico deductivism is, frankly, a discredited theory in the philosophy of science.
Interesting, I'm not as well read on the philosophy of science. What's wrong with it and what are better alternatives in your opinion? -
2018-11-13 at 11:19 PM UTC
Originally posted by Odigo Messenger - Now With Free 911 Service The introduction of discrete quantisation of energy states and the introduction of mathematical probabilistic randomness as a fundamental principle involved in the operation of the universe were qualitatively new.
Tutorial: How to seem doubly retarded by trying to say something smart. -
2018-11-14 at 1:02 AM UTC
Originally posted by PhD in Condom Mechanics Interesting, I'm not as well read on the philosophy of science. What's wrong with it and what are better alternatives in your opinion?
The "raven paradox" is kind of the most fun/quick criticism. Ultimately though you can bite the bullet on that one and still have a tenable theory. The deeper issue is that it simply does not work on a statistical level: failure to falsify does not, on its own, yield any information about the validity of a theory. Sure, we can say it's very likely that a given model is wrong in light of some observed results, but the survival of a model against testing doesn't actually say anything about it being correct, at least not formally. We certainly have the intuition that it does, but mathematically or logically we can't say anything about it.
Originally posted by Odigo Messenger - Now With Free 911 Service The introduction of discrete quantisation of energy states and the introduction of mathematical probabilistic randomness as a fundamental principle involved in the operation of the universe were qualitatively new.
In terms of gathering evidence and empirically testing hypothesis of QM those arne't anything new at all. We've been testing probabilistic models and discrete models for a long time. Like yes, there are ideas in QM that are novel to physics, but we started with the claim that QM is somehow purely theoretical. Which is simply false, it has been tested in the same basic framework most physical theories are tested: predictions are made and a theory broadly succeeds or fails based on the accuracy of those predictions. -
2018-11-14 at 2:07 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny The deeper issue is that it simply does not work on a statistical level: failure to falsify does not, on its own, yield any information about the validity of a theory. Sure, we can say it's very likely that a given model is wrong in light of some observed results, but the survival of a model against testing doesn't actually say anything about it being correct, at least not formally. We certainly have the intuition that it does, but mathematically or logically we can't say anything about it.
While I fully agree with your conclusion here, I still think we can draw a distinction between pragmatic knowledge, and pure knowledge (for lack of a better descriptor).
We may encounter 10,000,000,000 white swans, and only one black swan, but that doesn't really negate the usefulness of having detected 10,000,000,000 white swans.
We can state with a degree of pragmatic certainty that swans are, generally speaking, white.
Speculation about the implications that arise from the one black swan are interesting, but are they really worth tearing down the foundations of the science we have come to know and trust (in the sense that we trust applied science for, say, automobile engineering, or nuclear power generation)? -
2018-11-14 at 2:10 AM UTCAlso, Lanny, I could totally have missed something fundamental to your argument due to my current BAC, as well as general ADHD.
If so, before outing me as an utter fool, please take some pity.
Again, I think you're correct, but we don't need absolute, unwavering logical certainty for science to be practical, let alone intrinsically valid. -
2018-11-14 at 2:17 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny The "raven paradox" is kind of the most fun/quick criticism. Ultimately though you can bite the bullet on that one and still have a tenable theory. The deeper issue is that it simply does not work on a statistical level: failure to falsify does not, on its own, yield any information about the validity of a theory. Sure, we can say it's very likely that a given model is wrong in light of some observed results, but the survival of a model against testing doesn't actually say anything about it being correct, at least not formally. We certainly have the intuition that it does, but mathematically or logically we can't say anything about it.
I'm looking into it a little more and I have to say, I'm not particularly moved by this. If I'm understanding it right, it is essentially the problem of induction being raised again. -
2018-11-14 at 3:01 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks We can state with a degree of pragmatic certainty that swans are, generally speaking, white.
This will probably sound like I'm being pedantic, but what is "pragmatic certainty"? How does it differ from simple useful belief? If I'm a primitive person and believe that my nocturnal predators are ghosts or something and avoid going out at night that might be useful. I might gather evidence in the form of people going out at night not coming back. Is there a sense in which the night-ghost hypothesis is any less pragmatically certain than the correct one?Speculation about the implications that arise from the one black swan are interesting, but are they really worth tearing down the foundations of the science we have come to know and trust (in the sense that we trust applied science for, say, automobile engineering, or nuclear power generation)?
Sure, obviously scientific inquiry has done a lot of practical good for us. I don't propose "tearing down" the social institution of science. I just think we should be honest about what it is: a mechanism for producing useful beliefs, many of which we don't actually have a robust reason to call actually true. Specifically, using terms like "likelihood" or "probability" of a theory being true are strictly a misuse of the statistical terms.
Originally posted by PhD in Condom Mechanics I'm looking into it a little more and I have to say, I'm not particularly moved by this. If I'm understanding it right, it is essentially the problem of induction being raised again.
Not far, although it's a little different. Hypothetico-deductivism kinda cropped up as (or is editorialized to be) a way out of the problem of induction. Hume was right that observing a thing being one way, even many times, is not logically sufficient to suggest that it will be that way in the future. But Hume would seem to agree we can reject hypotheses which make contrary predictions to observed actuals. The deductivists thought (broadly) that since we could deny hypotheses with certainty, and classes of hypotheses are mutually exclusive, we could sort of "exhaust the alternatives" to verify a true hypothesis. But when we look at it, most classes of hypotheses explaining observable phenomena are literally infinite. -
2018-11-14 at 6:25 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Sure, obviously scientific inquiry has done a lot of practical good for us. I don't propose "tearing down" the social institution of science. I just think we should be honest about what it is: a mechanism for producing useful beliefs, many of which we don't actually have a robust reason to call actually true. Specifically, using terms like "likelihood" or "probability" of a theory being true are strictly a misuse of the statistical terms.
but your convinced that human caused climate to change. -
2018-11-14 at 9:32 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny In terms of gathering evidence and empirically testing hypothesis of QM those arne't anything new at all. We've been testing probabilistic models and discrete models for a long time. Like yes, there are ideas in QM that are novel to physics, but we started with the claim that QM is somehow purely theoretical. Which is simply false, it has been tested in the same basic framework most physical theories are tested: predictions are made and a theory broadly succeeds or fails based on the accuracy of those predictions.
You speak like a politician when you are shown to be wrong. How the fuck did you manage to deflect my very specific observation into a meaningless platitude about the scientific method in general? You and CF are on a similar intellectual level, goddam. -
2018-11-14 at 9:37 AM UTC
Originally posted by Odigo Messenger - Now With Free 911 Service You speak like a politician when you are shown to be wrong. How the fuck did you manage to deflect my very specific observation into a meaningless platitude about the scientific method in general? You and CF are on a similar intellectual level, goddam.
Who are you? -
2018-11-14 at 9:38 AM UTCIF YOU TAKE THE INTEGERS AND PUT THEM AROUND EACH KTHER IT'S ALWAYS THE RIGHT THING AND
-
2018-11-14 at 9:39 AM UTCFuck I'd fight any of you in the barking lot and we'd end up laughing
-
2018-11-14 at 11:36 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Sure, obviously scientific inquiry has done a lot of practical good for us. I don't propose "tearing down" the social institution of science. I just think we should be honest about what it is: a mechanism for producing useful beliefs, many of which we don't actually have a robust reason to call actually true. Specifically, using terms like "likelihood" or "probability" of a theory being true are strictly a misuse of the statistical terms.
Yeah I guess I was actually the one being pedantic here. I agree with what you're saying. Absolute knowledge, the kind we boast about in the various scientific communities, really is just a way of taking empirical observations and turning them into solid fact, when really, that's not what logic and reason dictate.
Originally posted by Lanny Not far, although it's a little different. Hypothetico-deductivism kinda cropped up as (or is editorialized to be) a way out of the problem of induction. Hume was right that observing a thing being one way, even many times, is not logically sufficient to suggest that it will be that way in the future. But Hume would seem to agree we can reject hypotheses which make contrary predictions to observed actuals. The deductivists thought (broadly) that since we could deny hypotheses with certainty, and classes of hypotheses are mutually exclusive, we could sort of "exhaust the alternatives" to verify a true hypothesis. But when we look at it, most classes of hypotheses explaining observable phenomena are literally infinite.
I've really gotta brush up on my Hume, and the whole notion of hypethetico-deductivism.
Fuck, now that I think of it, where did all my philosophy knowledge go? It's like you use the logical tools you learn from philosophy on a day-to-day basis, but in terms of specific philosophical debate, I'm starting to feel lost here. -
2018-11-14 at 12:18 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Not far, although it's a little different. Hypothetico-deductivism kinda cropped up as (or is editorialized to be) a way out of the problem of induction. Hume was right that observing a thing being one way, even many times, is not logically sufficient to suggest that it will be that way in the future. But Hume would seem to agree we can reject hypotheses which make contrary predictions to observed actuals. The deductivists thought (broadly) that since we could deny hypotheses with certainty, and classes of hypotheses are mutually exclusive, we could sort of "exhaust the alternatives" to verify a true hypothesis. But when we look at it, most classes of hypotheses explaining observable phenomena are literally infinite.
That's true. To be fair, scientists are usually very open about not being absolutely sure that anything they say is 100% truth: it's usually the default caveat they throw in when they make a statement that isn't deductively "true"; everything is always open for falsification.
I didn't really consider the deductive model as being a way to defeat the problem of induction per se, but rather as a way to live within it and I think most scientists see it the same way.But when we look at it, most classes of hypotheses explaining observable phenomena are literally infinite.
This part is interesting. Do you know about Feynman's path integral formulation in QM? -
2018-11-14 at 12:19 PM UTC
Originally posted by Odigo Messenger - Now With Free 911 Service You speak like a politician when you are shown to be wrong. How the fuck did you manage to deflect my very specific observation into a meaningless platitude about the scientific method in general? You and CF are on a similar intellectual level, goddam.
You literally didn't even address his original point u chud -
2018-11-14 at 12:20 PM UTCEvery time you type QM I see MQ and I'm like dang
But that's cuz I'm retarded.
Mechanical quantity. Know about it bitch? -
2018-11-14 at 12:48 PM UTC
