3 ms·

The fact that the pattern exists doesn't make it "predictable".

• chki 9y ago
  Isn't that the very definition of something being predictable? That there is a pattern which predicts a certain outcome? For example a certain simplified weather pattern (e.g. "if it rains for three consecutive days 9/10 times it rains a fourth day") makes it possible to predict a certain weather ("it has rained the last three days so there will be rain tomorrow as well") Obviously that is not a prediction with absolute certainty but nonetheless a prediction.
  • ajross 9y ago
    It's a semantic argument over the meaning of "pattern". Your example is mathematical, the meaning in the linked article is more along the lines of "statistical model". I mean, to provide a counterexample: we have about as good a model for beta decay of H3 as we are ever going to get[1], but we still can't tell you when your geiger counter is going to click. [1] Pause for some physiscist to jump in and tell me this is totally not true and there remain deep theoretical holes here.
• 1_2__4 9y ago
  Unless you have some unique definition of what a pattern is: yes, it does.
• justforFranz 9y ago
  David Hume's Problem of Induction strikes again! But that's not how science works.