Prev: Wittgenstein shows Gödel semantic proof ends in contradiction
Next: Radioactive decay and the myth of randomness
From: John Jones on 11 Nov 2009 16:11
Can we predict the outcome of a tossed coin? Scientists and gamblers
have occasionally grappled with this problem. For the philosopher,
however, the answer is straightforward. There are no outcomes for a
tossed coin.

For a philosopher, there is no possibility that an outcome of a tossed
coin is either heads or tails. Seen from above we may see heads, seen
from below we may see tails.

The geometry of the coin means that we can only see one side at a time.
Which side is seen depends not on "possibilities" but on the fickle,
subjective reasons for our preferred spatial orientation that we adopt
AFTER the coin has been tossed.
From: Sam Wormley on 11 Nov 2009 16:20
John Jones wrote:
> Can we predict the outcome of a tossed coin?

Yes, probabilistically.
From: John Jones on 11 Nov 2009 16:22
Sam Wormley wrote:
> John Jones wrote:
>> Can we predict the outcome of a tossed coin?
>
> Yes, probabilistically.

Certainly not.
From: John Stafford on 11 Nov 2009 16:23
In article <hdf9ad$m2n$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
John Jones <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote:

> Can we predict the outcome of a tossed coin? Scientists and gamblers
> have occasionally grappled with this problem. For the philosopher,
> however, the answer is straightforward. There are no outcomes for a
> tossed coin.
>
> For a philosopher, there is no possibility that an outcome of a tossed
> coin is either heads or tails. Seen from above we may see heads, seen
> from below we may see tails.

So don't toss a coin for a philosopher. Problem solved.

> The geometry of the coin means that we can only see one side at a time.
> Which side is seen depends not on "possibilities" but on the fickle,
> subjective reasons for our preferred spatial orientation that we adopt
> AFTER the coin has been tossed.

If words were shillings, you would owe us and all of England would be
bankrupt.
From: PD on 11 Nov 2009 16:26
On Nov 11, 3:11 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> Can we predict the outcome of a tossed coin? Scientists and gamblers
> have occasionally grappled with this problem. For the philosopher,
> however, the answer is straightforward. There are no outcomes for a
> tossed coin.
>
> For a philosopher, there is no possibility that an outcome of a tossed
> coin is either heads or tails. Seen from above we may see heads, seen
> from below we may see tails.
>
> The geometry of the coin means that we can only see one side at a time.
> Which side is seen depends not on "possibilities" but on the fickle,
> subjective reasons for our preferred spatial orientation that we adopt
> AFTER the coin has been tossed.

Well, you see you forgot to specify the initial conditions of where
the observer is going to be.

It's like asking whether a baseball is going to be hit out of the park
when you haven't specified where the batter is going to be standing.

And if I may editorialize, it takes EXTRAORDINARY hubris to imagine
that your little dollop of dung is of interest in sci.logic or
alt.philosophy, let alone sci.physics.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Wittgenstein shows Gödel semantic proof ends in contradiction
Next: Radioactive decay and the myth of randomness