3 ms·

> Induction defines that line Really? How? You are asking me to solve the problem of induction. I appreciate your vote of confidence. ;-)

by dmfdmf 11y ago

lisper 11y ago
Perhaps I misunderstood you. When you said "Induction defines that line" I thought that meant you believed that the problem of induction had been solved. Not necessarily by you, but if you were claiming it had been solved I was just asking what you thought the solution was. But I'm still confused then, if you concede that the problem of induction hasn't been solved, then why do you find the Popper/Deutsch solution to it (or, if you prefer, end-run around it) so unappealing? Do you prefer a world where this problem remains unsolved?
- dmfdmf 11y ago
  P1: That was my fault, I didn't state that clearly. I should have said "The valid principles of induction define that line..." We have the principles of deduction that tell us when something is false but we are missing the principles of induction that tell use when something is true (in a given context). This is a general need so it spans all theories in all fields; how do we know and are certain the sun will rise, evolution is true, there ARE atoms, etc. There must be a criteria by which to say, in the current context of knowledge we know enough to say something is true and certain. P2: You anticipated my answer, Kant/Popper is an end-run evading the issue, i.e., we can only prove thing false never true and certain. The truth is unattainable. I think it is a valid question and needs to be solved. But to solve it we need a full, valid epistemology explaining how reason works in toto to achieve certain knowledge. I think this is the same problem as in physics and all the contradictions and paradoxes in QM and GR. Physics is hung up on all sorts of confusing issues that seem to revolve around the nature of the observer and time. This makes sense to me because deduction is based on a metaphysical fact that contradictions do not exist which we (try) to abide. But this is half the story, what is missing is an epistemological principle that tells us what our brains do to create true knowledge. Whoever solves this problem will revolutionize physics and allow us to create AI (in my judgement).
  - lisper 11y ago
    > what is missing is an epistemological principle that tells us what our brains do to create true knowledge Yes, I think even Deutsch would mostly agree with that, though I think his position would be: we know what the principle is (universal computation) but we don't yet know the particular mechanism by which our brains produce new theories, and that when we do figure that out it will be a major breakthrough. Anyway, thanks for clarifying.

> Induction defines that line Really? How? You are asking me to solve the problem of induction. I appreciate your vote of confidence. ;-)

by dmfdmf 11y ago

> Induction defines that line Really? How? You are asking me to solve the problem of induction. I appreciate your vote of confidence. ;-)

lisper 11y ago

Perhaps I misunderstood you. When you said "Induction defines that line" I thought that meant you believed that the problem of induction had been solved. Not necessarily by you, but if you were claiming it had been solved I was just asking what you thought the solution was. But I'm still confused then, if you concede that the problem of induction hasn't been solved, then why do you find the Popper/Deutsch solution to it (or, if you prefer, end-run around it) so unappealing? Do you prefer a world where this problem remains unsolved?

dmfdmf 11y ago
P1: That was my fault, I didn't state that clearly. I should have said "The valid principles of induction define that line..." We have the principles of deduction that tell us when something is false but we are missing the principles of induction that tell use when something is true (in a given context). This is a general need so it spans all theories in all fields; how do we know and are certain the sun will rise, evolution is true, there ARE atoms, etc. There must be a criteria by which to say, in the current context of knowledge we know enough to say something is true and certain. P2: You anticipated my answer, Kant/Popper is an end-run evading the issue, i.e., we can only prove thing false never true and certain. The truth is unattainable. I think it is a valid question and needs to be solved. But to solve it we need a full, valid epistemology explaining how reason works in toto to achieve certain knowledge. I think this is the same problem as in physics and all the contradictions and paradoxes in QM and GR. Physics is hung up on all sorts of confusing issues that seem to revolve around the nature of the observer and time. This makes sense to me because deduction is based on a metaphysical fact that contradictions do not exist which we (try) to abide. But this is half the story, what is missing is an epistemological principle that tells us what our brains do to create true knowledge. Whoever solves this problem will revolutionize physics and allow us to create AI (in my judgement).
- lisper 11y ago
  > what is missing is an epistemological principle that tells us what our brains do to create true knowledge Yes, I think even Deutsch would mostly agree with that, though I think his position would be: we know what the principle is (universal computation) but we don't yet know the particular mechanism by which our brains produce new theories, and that when we do figure that out it will be a major breakthrough. Anyway, thanks for clarifying.