Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Reach & Induction (was: How to live without inductivism)

Expand Messages
  • Elliot Temple
    ... Yes ... No. Regardless of what the source of a conjecture is, it could be contradicted by data if it makes any empirical/scientific claims. ... I am saying
    Message 1 of 448 , Jan 31, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      On Jan 31, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

      >
      > On 31 Jan 2011, at 00:38, Elliot Temple wrote:
      >
      >>
      >> On Jan 30, 2011, at 7:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
      >>
      >>>
      >>> On 29 Jan 2011, at 01:13, Elliot Temple wrote:
      >>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>> If you want to call yourself a crypto-inductivist like in Fabric
      >>>> you're welcome to. It's that or inductivist. As he explains in
      >>>> Fabric, David thinks they are the same thing.
      >>>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>> I will rererereread it, but if I remember I do agree (up to
      >> vocabulary
      >>> issue).
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>>
      >>>> David says induction is a fictitious process (no one ever does it).
      >>>>
      >>> In the inductivist sense of induction. Not in the general sense the
      >>> word has in philosophy and computer science. Inducing is just
      >>> conscious or unconscious conjecturing.
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>> You say it's a real process. You and David (and I) have very
      >>>> different views on the matter. Simple as that.
      >>>>
      >>>> Read chapter 7. Seriously. It addresses all these issues.
      >>>>
      >>>
      >>> Could you explain me how it is possible to make a conjecture without
      >>> an induction, in the large but common sense I suggest?
      >>
      >> Induction is a method by which we (supposedly) get ideas *from data*.
      >>
      > OK.
      >
      >
      >>
      >> One can conjecture *however he wants*, e.g. wild guesses, without in
      >> any way inferring the conjectures from data.
      >>
      > I find this contradictory. if a conjecture is not induced from data,
      > including the empty data, conjectures fall from the sky

      Yes

      > and cannot
      > even be confronted with data, and so are not even falsifiable.

      No. Regardless of what the source of a conjecture is, it could be contradicted by data if it makes any empirical/scientific claims.

      >
      >
      >
      >>
      >> So for example I can use anything I dreamed (literally, while
      >> asleep) as a conjecture, but those are not inductions.
      >>
      > I have no clue what you are saying here.

      I am saying that even dreams are fine for conjectures, it can be any source of ideas at all; the source doesn't matter. Dreams were intended an example of ideas we have that are not from observations.

      >>
      >>> This is the point above the vocabulary discussion on the word
      >>> "induction".
      >>>
      >>> You did not refute my argument according to to which you need to
      >> do an
      >>> induction just for sending a mail to me.
      >>>
      >>> I just open the first dictionary on my hard disk on 'induction',
      >> and I
      >>> see:
      >>>
      >>> "the inference of a general law from particular instances. Often
      >>> contrasted with deduction"
      >>
      >> When I conjecture that my parents will divorce, or that my bike
      >> needs maintenance, I am not conjecturing a *general law*, so that is
      >> a conjecture which is not an induction using that definition.
      >>
      > In the multiverse, it means that you are conjecturing that your
      > parents will divorce in the normal futures. Stable (in time, space and
      > multiuverse) existencial proposition are particular case of universal
      > one.

      A universal law means something that applies to the whole multiverse. This looks to me like genuinely a terminology issue.

      For evaluating a dictionary definition of induction, let's use the dictionary's definition of universal:

      > of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases

      I hope that's fairly clear. If it's about only my parents it's not universal. If it's about all possible parents then it is universal.

      >
      >> Simple, isn't it?
      >>
      > Not so much.

      OK I concede this point :)

      >
      >>> To send me a mail you have conjectured, even if only provisorily,
      >> the
      >>> general law "Bruno read mails"
      >>
      >> First, "Bruno reads email" is not a universal law, it is a law about
      >> Bruno.
      >>
      > It is a laws on Brunos.

      Universal laws refer to things like laws about all people (large category), not all Brunos (small category).

      But never mind, moving on:


      >>
      >> Second, it's very vague. You read every email you receive? I doubt it.
      >>
      >
      > By default I assume "Elliot's mail". This is rhetoric.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >> Most that you receive go in your spam filter. And a few from me may
      >> end up there by accident too. I think you a policy for reading
      >> emails, which I do not know, which governs which you choose to
      >> receive and which you choose to read and how carefully you choose to
      >> read them and whether you choose to reply and so on. And I think
      >> that policy is frequently modified as you learn new things and as
      >> your life circumstances change, and I know very little about how and
      >> why it changes.
      >>
      >> You're welcome not to read my emails. I simply don't know under what
      >> circumstances you do or don't read them. I think there are
      >> circumstances under which you stop reading them, such as your death,
      >> or the destruction of all computers in your country, or if you got
      >> bored with them. Will any of the circumstances happen that would
      >> stop you reading emails? Are they likely to happen between now and
      >> when you receive this email? I neither know nor care.
      >>
      >> I don't have to conjecture anything about my audience to write
      >> emails, the only important conjecture is that I myself will enjoy
      >> the writing process.
      >>
      > If you don't conjecture or induce the existence of people when sending
      > mails to them, you act like a solipsist.

      Yes, I conjecture (not induce) that there are people such as Bruno. So what?

      > Nobody can prove the
      > existence of other people, except in theory which acknowledge their
      > existence or something which entails them at the start.
      >
      >
      >>
      >>> from the finite numbers of particular
      >>> instances available to you.
      >>
      >> This exact thing is addressed in Fabric.
      >>
      >> The crypt-inductivist says something like: David, do you believe X?
      >>
      >> And David says yes.
      >>
      > OK. (although we do have problem with words like believe, know, etc.)
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >>
      >> And he says: so, you believe the evidence justified X?
      >>
      >> And David says no.
      >>
      >
      > And I certainly agree with David. Evidence are never justification.
      > But evidence can support positively or negatively theories.

      The word "support" in your statement means the same thing as the word "justify" in David's statement. They are the *same thing*, the *same concept*.

      This is not a matter of disagreeing about words. The *underlying concept* you are praising is the same *concept* that David was criticizing.


      I've stopped replying here because I think this is one of the major issues and lots of other stuff depends on it. Maybe you can understand what I was saying in my previous email using this clarification.

      -- Elliot Temple
      http://elliottemple.com/
    • hibbsa
      ... for ... sort of ... Ayn ... It s not mooching when you already paid more than that to the Government in taxes for stuff you didn t want, and now you re
      Message 448 of 448 , Jan 20, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com, Elliot Temple <curi@...>
        wrote:
        >
        >
        > On Jan 19, 2012, at 1:36 PM, hibbsa wrote:
        >
        > >
        > > Someone said this about Rand toward the end of her life.
        > >
        > > Maybe it isn't true. But it is is, what are the implications of this
        for
        > > her personally in respect of her philosophical views? Presumably she
        > > would have refused another person in the same circumstances this
        sort of
        > > state sponsored support?
        > >
        > > "An interview recently surfaced that was conducted in 1998 by the
        Ayn
        > > Rand Institute with a social worker who says she helped Rand and her
        > > husband, Frank O'Connor, sign up for Social Security and Medicare in
        > > 1974.
        > >
        > > She did so under the name of Ann O'Connor. A heavy smoker, Ayn was
        > > operated for lung cancer in 1974, in 1982, she expired from heart
        > > failure, apparently while on Medicare."
        >
        > There's no consequences. It isn't immoral to accept what you're owed.
        It's not mooching when you already paid more than that to the Government
        in taxes for stuff you didn't want, and now you're getting part of it
        back.
        >
        > *Not* accepting social security would be an altruistic stand.
        >
        >
        > -- Elliot Temple
        > http://beginningofinfinity.com/
        >


        OK this makes sense. Rand Rocks!
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.