about maths: strictly speaking, off topic, but justified.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: doubts about tetrahedral packing in 3D is a solid packing #516 Correcting Math
Next: JSH:Twin primes probability correlation
From: tonyb on 15 Mar 2010 17:58 On 15 Mar, 21:16, rabid_fan <r...(a)righthere.net> wrote: > On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:28:40 -0700, tonyb wrote: > Now put yourself back in the early 20th century. A certain > hypothesis is found in your hypothesis space. It is the idea > that matter -- yes hard and palpable matter -- possesses > wave-like characteristics. What probability do you assign > to this hypothesis? Well, after you stop laughing, you > rate it about P = 10^-104, toss it aside, and then keep > dipping into your "space" for something else. I disagree. I think that at that time many experiments were exhibiting wave phenomena, all with a very high level degree of model-data probability. So high in fact, that we had to modify some cherished hypothesis. (or put the other way round, classical models were producing very low probabilities for these datasets) My conjecture is that if we had been more formal about this process, we would have moved to the wave hypothesis *sooner* > Science is creativity in the true sense. i.e. creation > ex nihilo, and such things are beyond all accountability. I think you assign too much to man and too little to the wonder of nature. I would maintain that the most significant element in creativity is the random exploration of interesting spaces. Look at evolution.
From: rabid_fan on 15 Mar 2010 18:54 On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:43:48 -0700, tonyb wrote: > > Because its not a formal mathematical process it is subject to the type > of subjective biases that plague the humanities. > > Perhaps I am being daft, but I really can't see a problem with this. I > think the problem might be that we hold with different schools of > probability theory - I'm with the physicist Cox, you sound more > classical. > I differ on principle. A formal system, no matter how elaborate, simply cannot account for everything. However, formal systems of decision, and their supposed power, can be quite seductive to some personality types. Also, in societies that are tightly regulated, such as the UK, formal systems of decision can be a highly welcome method to avoid personal responsibility. Liability can be avoided by relegating important choices to the formalized system. If the purpose is to administer scarce resources by a visibly fair and just process, a formalized decision can certainly be an option. It may not satisfy all, but it will satisfy many.
From: J. Clarke on 15 Mar 2010 20:26 On 3/15/2010 5:58 PM, tonyb wrote: > On 15 Mar, 21:16, rabid_fan<r...(a)righthere.net> wrote: >> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:28:40 -0700, tonyb wrote: > >> Now put yourself back in the early 20th century. A certain >> hypothesis is found in your hypothesis space. It is the idea >> that matter -- yes hard and palpable matter -- possesses >> wave-like characteristics. What probability do you assign >> to this hypothesis? Well, after you stop laughing, you >> rate it about P = 10^-104, toss it aside, and then keep >> dipping into your "space" for something else. > > I disagree. > I think that at that time many experiments were exhibiting wave > phenomena, all with a very high level degree of model-data > probability. So high in fact, that we had to modify some cherished > hypothesis. > (or put the other way round, classical models were producing very low > probabilities for these datasets) > My conjecture is that if we had been more formal about this process, > we would have moved to the wave hypothesis *sooner* You're armchair quarterbacking. >> Science is creativity in the true sense. i.e. creation >> ex nihilo, and such things are beyond all accountability. > > I think you assign too much to man and too little to the wonder of > nature. > I would maintain that the most significant element in creativity is > the random exploration of interesting spaces. > Look at evolution.
From: Tony Bandero on 16 Mar 2010 03:41 rabid_fan wrote: > On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:43:48 -0700, tonyb wrote: > >> Because its not a formal mathematical process it is subject to the type >> of subjective biases that plague the humanities. >> >> Perhaps I am being daft, but I really can't see a problem with this. I >> think the problem might be that we hold with different schools of >> probability theory - I'm with the physicist Cox, you sound more >> classical. you seem to have missed the question about the holes in my reasoning, re. probability theory. > I differ on principle. A formal system, no matter how elaborate, > simply cannot account for everything. isn't this just a truism? > If the purpose is to administer scarce resources by a visibly > fair and just process, a formalized decision can certainly > be an option. It may not satisfy all, but it will satisfy > many. Thanks very much for the discussion, I think we've run to the end of this one. You've certainly given me some food for thought. TonyB
From: tonyb on 16 Mar 2010 04:05
On 16 Mar, 00:26, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 3/15/2010 5:58 PM, tonyb wrote: > > > > > On 15 Mar, 21:16, rabid_fan<r...(a)righthere.net> wrote: > >> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:28:40 -0700, tonyb wrote: > > >> Now put yourself back in the early 20th century. A certain > >> hypothesis is found in your hypothesis space. It is the idea > >> that matter -- yes hard and palpable matter -- possesses > >> wave-like characteristics. What probability do you assign > >> to this hypothesis? Well, after you stop laughing, you > >> rate it about P = 10^-104, toss it aside, and then keep > >> dipping into your "space" for something else. > > > I disagree. > > I think that at that time many experiments were exhibiting wave > > phenomena, all with a very high level degree of model-data > > probability. So high in fact, that we had to modify some cherished > > hypothesis. > > (or put the other way round, classical models were producing very low > > probabilities for these datasets) > > My conjecture is that if we had been more formal about this process, > > we would have moved to the wave hypothesis *sooner* > > You're armchair quarterbacking. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that (I'm from the UK) My point is simply, if you had done the 2 slits/particle interference experiment, and then measured the probability of each model, given the data, even with an extremely large prior for classical physics, the data would have still overridden that prior. Imagine modelling an interference pattern with a mixture of two Gaussian distributions - the maximum likelihood model will be really really bad - to be equally speculative P = 10^-204 Very quickly the data would have won the argument - certainly much quicker than a group of conservative old farts who didn't want to violate Newton's majesty > >> Science is creativity in the true sense. i.e. creation > >> ex nihilo, and such things are beyond all accountability. > > > I think you assign too much to man and too little to the wonder of > > nature. > > I would maintain that the most significant element in creativity is > > the random exploration of interesting spaces. > > Look at evolution. |