4 ms·
My first-ever attempt to create a meme
- jakelazaroff 5y agoCan someone who has heard of any of these people please explain this?
- bombcar 5y agoI think I recognize a name or two as modern philosophers. I prefer my philosophers long dead.
- raldi 5y agoThe Everett school of thought is that every time you flip a coin, you create a pair of parallel universes. That everything that could ever have happened did in fact happen somewhere in the multiverse. The Bayesians believe you can look at past results to make good guesses about what will happen in the future. I must be missing something, because I don't understand how anyone could disagree, but apparently Karl Popper famously does. David Deutsch also apparently disagrees, and has written up an ostensibly simple explanation here: http://www.daviddeutsch.org.uk/2014/08/simple-refutation-of-the-bayesian-philosophy-of-science/ http://www.daviddeutsch.org.uk/2014/08/simple-refutation-of-...
- klyrs 5y agoI'm not one to gamble, but if any Popperians want to play some blackjack, hmu
- GavinMcG 5y agoIt's more about deductive vs. inductive reasoning, rather than whether past results matter. Popper distinguished science from non-science by falsifiability: if a prediction could theoretically be disproved, it's a scientific one. New information is often useless, because new information can never prove a claim—the only useful information is disproof. On a larger scale, models that turn out to make false predictions are either altered or abandoned. It's all well and good to look at past results and make predictions, but Popper's point was that there can be plenty of models that are consistent with past results and there's no way of choosing between them until they're winnowed down through falsification. Bayesianism acknowledges that you can't necessarily pick one right explanation, but it tries to account for that by statistically weighting models, and with new information the distribution/weighting is updated. (This explanation is a gloss, of course, and so necessarily an incorrect model. But hopefully a helpful one.)
- mirceal 5y agoPopper was a cool guy and his ideas on falsifiability definitely moved the needle and gave us a robust scientific method. But… what do you do when you no longer can directly measure or even worse: the measurements impact the state of the system you are trying to observe? I think for things like quantum mechanics and other areas that are hard to observe directly (neuroscience comes to mind) there has to be a revision of how Popper’s principles are applied.
- GavinMcG 5y agoThat revision is probably expressed in Lakatos's view on "research programmes" that may have core non-falsifiable theories and that continue being useful even when scientists know something is off about the model as a whole: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lakatos/#ImprPoppScie https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lakatos/#ImprPoppScie
- mirceal 5y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bayes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bayes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Everett_III https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Everett_III Most people have directly benefited greatly from Bayes’s ideas (an example would be Bayesian email spam filters) Everett is the multi-world interpretation of quantum mechanics dude. In a nutshell he proposes that there is no wave function collapse when we measure something. I hope everyone knows who Popper is. The dude defined the modern scientific method via https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- morninglight 5y agoA "meme"? Using this as a template, what is not a "meme"?
- ccvannorman 5y agoMy thoughts exactly. Well, what did you expect when a super-geek like Scott Aaronson said he was going to create a meme? This is the definition of Milhousing. [ insert pic of confused anime guy looking at a butterfly ] -- "Is this a meme?" No, Scott, it isn't, but I hope you try again and someday succeed. :-]