Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Do waves move faster in a liquid with a higher density?
Next: ...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 29 Dec 2009 19:31 On Dec 30, 10:57 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 29, 2:35 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > As I have explained before, there are two ways to jump on the idea of > > random event. One way is to think of it in relation to the evidence we > > have. In this way, it does not matter at all about whether some event is > > "really" random. In this way of the idea, something is random if we have > > no way at all in fact of knowing which way it will turn out. > > I suppose "randomness" is commonly used in this way but a random event > is one which is independent of a previous event or evidence. Notice how you have introduced the notion of "independence". Now what is so useful in dorayme's analysis of "real" randomness (rather than the commonly enough used one) is that it does not rely on a further *unexplained* concept. It piggy backs off the straightforward notion of us not having evidence one way or the other for an event occurring. It just adds the twist that there is never any such evidence in fact, not merely that we have failed to find it. > > > The other way is built on this notion but has a twist: a *really* random > > event is one that no matter what we could know about it in this world, > > no matter how clever we were or what evidence we collected or how fast > > and accurate our calculating abilities or machines, we would still be > > quite unable to predict one way or the other. > > There does seem to be a question as to if anything is truly random, > it's more of a mathematical ideal. Maybe, but if you accept dorayme's analysis, there is no need for any ideal.
From: M Purcell on 29 Dec 2009 19:38 On Dec 29, 4:31 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 30, 10:57 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 29, 2:35 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > As I have explained before, there are two ways to jump on the idea of > > > random event. One way is to think of it in relation to the evidence we > > > have. In this way, it does not matter at all about whether some event is > > > "really" random. In this way of the idea, something is random if we have > > > no way at all in fact of knowing which way it will turn out. > > > I suppose "randomness" is commonly used in this way but a random event > > is one which is independent of a previous event or evidence. > > Notice how you have introduced the notion of "independence". Now what > is so useful in dorayme's analysis of "real" randomness (rather than > the commonly enough used one) is that it does not rely on a further > *unexplained* concept. It piggy backs off the straightforward notion > of us not having evidence one way or the other for an event occurring. > It just adds the twist that there is never any such evidence in fact, > not merely that we have failed to find it. > > > > > > The other way is built on this notion but has a twist: a *really* random > > > event is one that no matter what we could know about it in this world, > > > no matter how clever we were or what evidence we collected or how fast > > > and accurate our calculating abilities or machines, we would still be > > > quite unable to predict one way or the other. > > > There does seem to be a question as to if anything is truly random, > > it's more of a mathematical ideal. > > Maybe, but if you accept dorayme's analysis, there is no need for any > ideal. My explination would have been unnecessary if either of you had bothered to looked the word "random" up in a dictionary.
From: Marshall on 29 Dec 2009 21:31 On Dec 29, 2:43 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > On Dec 30, 3:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > None of these are axiomatic certainties. > > Hahahhahahahah, hahahahhahhah I'm sorry I cant stop laughing, how does > axiomatic change the meaning of certainty? In the above-quoted sentence, "axiomatic" functions as an adjective. It changes the meaning of the following noun via the rules of English syntax. If you are unsure about the meaning of any particular word, you can use a "dictionary" to find out what it means. Here's a link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/axiom The relevant entry here is number 3: "(Logic, Mathematics.) a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it." Marshall
From: Michael Gordge on 30 Dec 2009 02:20 On Dec 30, 11:31 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > In the above-quoted sentence, "axiomatic" functions as > an adjective. It changes the meaning of the following > noun via the rules of English syntax. Shrug, how does the adjective axiomatic change the meaning of certainty. MG
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 30 Dec 2009 02:52
On Dec 30, 11:38 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 29, 4:31 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Dec 30, 10:57 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 29, 2:35 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > As I have explained before, there are two ways to jump on the idea of  > > > > random event. One way is to think of it in relation to the evidence we > > > > have. In this way, it does not matter at all about whether some event is > > > > "really" random. In this way of the idea, something is random if we have > > > > no way at all in fact of knowing which way it will turn out. > > > > I suppose "randomness" is commonly used in this way but a random event > > > is one which is independent of a previous event or evidence. > > > Notice how you have introduced the notion of "independence". Now what > > is so useful in dorayme's analysis of "real" randomness (rather than > > the commonly enough used one) is that it does not rely on a further > > *unexplained* concept. It piggy backs off the straightforward notion > > of us not having evidence one way or the other for an event occurring. > > It just adds the twist that there is never any such evidence in fact, > > not merely that we have failed to find it. > > > > > The other way is built on this notion but has a twist: a *really* random > > > > event is one that no matter what we could know about it in this world, > > > > no matter how clever we were or what evidence we collected or how fast > > > > and accurate our calculating abilities or machines, we would still be > > > > quite unable to predict one way or the other. > > > > There does seem to be a question as to if anything is truly random, > > > it's more of a mathematical ideal. > > > Maybe, but if you accept dorayme's analysis, there is no need for any > > ideal. > > My explination would have been unnecessary if either of you had > bothered to looked the word "random" up in a dictionary. You must be some sort of philosophical idiot to suppose that something like: random |ËrandÉm| adjective made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision : a random sample of 100 households. ⢠Statistics governed by or involving equal chances for each item. ⢠(of masonry) with stones of irregular size and shape. PHRASES at random without method or conscious decision : he opened the book at random. DERIVATIVES randomly adverb randomness noun ORIGIN Middle English (in the sense [impetuous headlong rush] ): from Old French randon âgreat speed,â from randir âgallop,â from a Germanic root shared by rand 2 . would trump dorayme's analysis in the thread on the concept of random event. |