- #1

- 477

- 4

- Thread starter maximus
- Start date

- #1

- 477

- 4

- #2

LogicalAtheist

What? Fundamental FLAW? More like fundamental LAW.

- #3

- 477

- 4

ahhh... a paradox!Originally posted by LogicalAtheist

What? Fundamental FLAW? More like fundamental LAW.

in my terms to describe it as a LAW is contradictive because one can never know. (yes i relieze that this comment can spin on and on and on)

- #4

damgo

Yes... this "problem of induction" was first raised by David Hume back in the 1700s, and it's been a central problem in philosophy, especially philosophy of science, ever since.Originally posted by maximus

Course, in the real world, we just assume the laws of science aren't changing on us, just like we assume the sun is going to rise tomorrow...

- #5

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 7,213

- 176

As much as we know that one day it won't.Originally posted by damgo

Yes... this "problem of induction" was first raised by David Hume back in the 1700s, and it's been a central problem in philosophy, especially philosophy of science, ever since.

Course, in the real world, we just assume the laws of science aren't changing on us, just like we assume the sun is going to rise tomorrow...

I think this question becomes more significant at deeper levels. Surely it does at the deepest levels where things like Gödel’s theorem could even sneak up to haunt us. In case our friend maximus is unfamiliar with this, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem basically shows that even mathematics cannot prove itself true.

- #6

- 152

- 0

physics is trial and errorOriginally posted by Ivan Seeking

As much as we know that one day it won't.

I think this question becomes more significant at deeper levels. Surely it does at the deepest levels where things like Gödel’s theorem could even sneak up to haunt us. In case our friend maximus is unfamiliar with this, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem basically shows that even mathematics cannot prove itself true.

if there had some except for the Law

then we should make a change for the Law

until now the sun is rise every day , no esception

so it's still a Law....not a flow

Last edited:

- #7

- 152

- 0

if you believe the world is comprehensible

then you should believe physics

if the sun was raise at yesterday and raise today , but tomorrow not......than the world is incomprehensible

but this is never happen in our world

so i believe physics

- #8

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 7,213

- 176

He probably said this in opposition to the philosophies of Quantum Mechanics. On this point, it seems he was wrong.Originally posted by newton1

if you believe the world is comprehensible

then you should believe physics

if the sun was raise at yesterday and raise today , but tomorrow not......than the world is incomprehensible

but this is never happen in our world

so i believe physics

- #9

- 1,648

- 0

And the only reason for doing that is when we observe things, that can not be explained based on the existing laws.

So in fact your problem you state, is not even a theoretical problem, but a practical one. It happened over and over in physcis.

For instance Newton mechanics had to be replaced by relativity, to macth observations. Although in this case, the theory became before the observational proof.

I think you ponder about what are the fundamental laws, and can we ever know them. The answer is that we proceed from relative knowledge and truths, and may find better knowledge and truth, but never absolute truth.

In this sense, we never find absolute or fundematental laws, only relative laws.

- #10

- 152

- 0

haha....Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

He probably said this in opposition to the philosophies of Quantum Mechanics. On this point, it seems he was wrong.

you say quantum mechanics is incomprehensible

i think you should more work hard to understand it

quantum mechanics is tell us the probability

but not incomprehensible of the world

- #11

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 7,213

- 176

now, now, I still have Feynman in my pocket:Originally posted by newton1

haha....

you say quantum mechanics is incomprehensible

i think you should more work hard to understand it

quantum mechanics is tell us the probability

but not incomprehensible of the world

We can say how many of a million suns may rise, but as for ours I fear the morn.Anyone who understands Quantum Mechanics hasn't studied it long enough

Last edited:

- #12

- 152

- 0

quantum mechenics show us the so unpredictable of the worldOriginally posted by Ivan Seeking

now, now, I still have Feynman in my pocket:

We can say how many of a million suns may rise, but as for ours I fear the morn.

but we still can describe why it will happen

that mean it still comprehensible

i think you should know what more about how the quantum theory working,

you will know what the Feynman means

- #13

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 7,213

- 176

Well, I have mostly been joking but:Originally posted by newton1

quantum mechenics show us the so unpredictable of the world

but we still can describe why it will happen

that mean it still comprehensible

i think you should know what more about how the quantum theory working,

you will know what the Feynman means

When will an isotope decay?

What is the physical mechanism for entanglement?

Please describe the exact physical nature of an electron in a superposition of eigenstates.

We have words for ideas that can be expressed mathematically. We have a tremendously successful model [QM]that is sometimes called more successful than all previous theories combined. This does not mean we understand it. You don't agree?

- #14

- 152

- 0

yes...Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

Well, I have mostly been joking but:

When will an isotope decay?

What is the physical mechanism for entanglement?

Please describe the exact physical nature of an electron in a superposition of eigenstates.

We have words for ideas that can be expressed mathematically. We have a tremendously successful model [QM]that is sometimes called more successful than all previous theories combined. This does not mean we understand it. You don't agree?

but i am discuss how many we understand about the world

i know there have many thing we still need to understand

but it doesn't mean it can not be understand

i just say the world is comprehensible

will you see the electron will suddenly become a proton??

will you see the sun suddenly raise on west ??

this call comprehensible

- #15

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 7,213

- 176

We agree.Originally posted by newton1

yes...

but i am discuss how many we understand about the world

i know there have many thing we still need to understand

but it doesn't mean it can not be understand

i just say the world is comprehensible

will you see the electron will suddenly become a proton??

will you see the sun suddenly raise on west ??

this call comprehensible

- #16

- 152

- 0

ThankOriginally posted by Ivan Seeking

We agree.

- #17

drag

Science Advisor

- 1,062

- 0

We don't, but it seems likely.Originally posted by maximus

or, more simply, if we drop a stone a hundred

times to the earth how can we ever know -truely

know without a doubt- that it will fall again

the next time?

Also, it is the only possibility that

we can explore in this case because other

possibilities are essentialy infinite and

we don't have any preferences amongst them.

Live long and prosper.

Last edited:

- #18

marcus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 24,738

- 785

**********

now, now, I still have Feynman in my pocket:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone who understands Quantum Mechanics hasn't studied it long enough

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We can say how many of a million suns may rise, but as for ours I fear the morn.

************

As for the original question, this was solved by Bayes was it not?

I suspect as a philosophically sophisticated person you must know the Bayesian inference model.

this is already a long thread and no one has told maximus about

that way to resolve his difficulty

Were you the person who wandered into the Astronomy game with a neat question about the event horizon a few days ago. I confuse names, but I think it may have been you

- #19

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 7,213

- 176

Thanks. No just me. I get a little philosophical from time to time...especially at 3AMOriginally posted by marcus

----is that a quote from somewhere or do you just put a literary touch on things now and then? this is a nicely tossed off post:

No that's news to me. I will read up on this. And yes I'm the troublemaker with the event horizon problem. In the end, I wasn't sure if this interpretation is correct or not. Someone objected claiming this is merely a matter of semantics[B}As for the original question, this was solved by Bayes was it not?

I suspect as a philosophically sophisticated person you must know the Bayesian inference model.

this is already a long thread and no one has told maximus about

that way to resolve his difficulty

Were you the person who wandered into the Astronomy game with a neat question about the event horizon a few days ago. I confuse names, but I think it may have been you [/B]

- #20

marcus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 24,738

- 785

Not to worry, the person might have said "semantics" and meant "sour grapes".Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

...I wasn't sure if this interpretation is correct or not. Someone objected claiming this is merely a matter of semantics

Bayesians are a minority among probability theorists, but a respectable one. For many years the most eminent prob. theorist/game theorist at UC Berkeley was a Bayesian namedOriginally posted by Ivan Seeking

No that's news to me. I will read up on this...

Blackwell.

I cant give anything but the most simplistic account. A Bayesian begins dropping bricks with an arbitrary probability distribution according to which the brick might just as well fall upwards. Each time he does the experiment he recalculates his probability distribution (which becomes a way of describing his info about the world or his beliefs about physical law or his expectations of what will happen). he uses a calculus of "conditional probabilities" developed by Bayes----who thought this was all highly sensible.

The more he drops the brick and recalculates his subjective probabilities describing his expectations the better they get.

Bayes and the Bayesian school make this sort of rigorous and prove theorems about it. Superficially or at first sight it may seem

----well----either dumb or obvious. But that may be mostly because of my shallow view of it. I dont know any books to read about Bayesian theory.

- #21

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 7,213

- 176

If I understand the philosophiical distinction here, we do not attempt to ascribe any particular path or mechanism to determine the result, rather we get a statistical expectation [void of any other philosophy] for any particular final position [destination] of the brick?Originally posted by marcus

Not to worry, the person might have said "semantics" and meant "sour grapes".

Bayesians are a minority among probability theorists, but a respectable one. For many years the most eminent prob. theorist/game theorist at UC Berkeley was a Bayesian named

Blackwell.

I cant give anything but the most simplistic account. A Bayesian begins dropping bricks with an arbitrary probability distribution according to which the brick might just as well fall upwards. Each time he does the experiment he recalculates his probability distribution (which becomes a way of describing his info about the world or his beliefs about physical law or his expectations of what will happen). he uses a calculus of "conditional probabilities" developed by Bayes----who thought this was all highly sensible.

The more he drops the brick and recalculates his subjective probabilities describing his expectations the better they get.

Bayes and the Bayesian school make this sort of rigorous and prove theorems about it. Superficially or at first sight it may seem

----well----either dumb or obvious. But that may be mostly because of my shallow view of it. I dont know any books to read about Bayesian theory.

Next, do we extend the set of all possible destinations to include those due only to quantum phenomenon - eg the 1:10^50 chance that the brick disappears and turns up elsewhere? The similarities to QED is what hits me like a brick.

- #22

marcus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 24,738

- 785

Woah! I did not notice your post until now or i would have replied earlier. The answer is, I simply do not know how Bayesians handle the question of physical laws.Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

If I understand the philosophiical distinction here, we do not attempt to ascribe any particular path or mechanism to determine the result, rather we get a statistical expectation [void of any other philosophy] for any particular final position [destination] of the brick?

Next, do we extend the set of all possible destinations to include those due only to quantum phenomenon - eg the 1:10^50 chance that the brick disappears and turns up elsewhere? The similarities to QED is what hits me like a brick.

It might be a possible PhD thesis for all I know!

It is a small minority which has been active in Probability Theory for several decades and it seems very likely that by now they have devised methods for placing Bayesian probabilities on the truth of models or laws of nature. But perhaps they have not done this and it is an open area for research.

The trouble is, although I know Blackwell personally, I have always avoided talking about Bayesian probability with him, and

am totally ignorant about it. I know that there is an "if-then" type of object called a "conditional probability" in this theory. I know that one starts by conjecturing a "prior" distribution of probability on states of the world or matters of concern and then revises or improves that prior----presumably thru a calculus of conditional probabilities. It could be very boring! I have always wished to avoid getting deeper into it. It remains a minority school even among probability theorists (a small academic community in the first place!) But who knows, it might eventually become important!

The trouble is, as far as I know Bayesian probability calculus has so far never been made *quantum*------these days who can take probability seriously if it is not done quantum-style? But this is just my take and as I say i do not know the subject.

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 12K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 564

- Last Post

- Replies
- 29

- Views
- 4K

- Replies
- 15

- Views
- 4K

- Replies
- 26

- Views
- 6K

- Replies
- 11

- Views
- 4K

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 3K