add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Correlation is not causation. However, perhaps we can
get a bit of help with Occam's razor:
- Every system has a specific degree of complexity. For
example: a morning alarm of an an alarm clock has a
higher complexity than a sun rise. The reasoning is that
alarm clock's operation, construction
and it's existence
depends on precarious arrangement of human though,
culture and action. In contrast a sun rise does not.
- System with higher complexity can not be the cause of
observed behavior in a lower complexity system. For
example an alarm can not be the cause of the sun rising in
the morning.
- Nothing can be said of the reverse relationship. For
example it may, or may not, be true that the sun causes
certain alarm clocks to ring.
- Nothing can be said about a hidden variable. The yet to
be discovered hidden variable may cause both. The only
thing that can be said that this hidden variable must have a
lower complexity than the previously considered variables.
This rule doesn't identify causes, but it helps to shrink the
search space when searching for causes of a phenomenon.
William Paley
https://en.wikipedi...ument#William_Paley
Watch your spelling ... [8th of 7, Dec 04 2017]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
Isn't this just a badly-reasoned reworking of Paley's Watch ? |
|
| |
How does this deal with a purely solipsist position ? |
|
| |
If the sunrise is not observed, does it, in fact, occur ? |
|
| |
If the alarm clock was immediately rewound and reset, where is
your evidence that the alarm clock actually went off at all at
sunrise ? |
|
| |
Where are the snows of yesteryear ? |
|
| |
Where is the steam road-roller of the policeman 's grandmother
? (Use du, de la, des. The subjunctive may be appropriate, but
avoid gerunds). Sumon an artisan, there appears to be some
derangement of the magneto.(future imperative, page 186 & ff.). |
|
| |
Other than the alarm clock example, this has very little in
common with Paley's watch. Perhaps what you're getting at
is the question of how do we measure complexity. As
Paley's watch illustrates there is controversy over the
relative level of complexity of various systems. |
|
| |
Well, at least you understand our point. Bravo. |
|
| |
We are now, to our surprise ,convinced that you are probably not
an idiot,
but genuinely capable of understanding a philosophical
disputation. |
|
| |
This is something of a shock. We are not used to such things on
the HB. We may have to go and have a little
sit down for a bit. |
|
| |
// a sun rise does not. // |
|
| |
Jedi yet you are not. Sun rise, it does. Much to learn, you have. |
|
| |
//- System with higher complexity can not be the cause of observed behavior in a lower complexity system. For example an alarm can not be the cause of the sun rising in the morning.// |
|
| |
And when we get a fusion reactor online ? |
|
| |
One day, the sun comes up twice, and then you go looking for
bits to show to the Board of Enquiry. |
|
| |
I think this is actually the opposite of Paley's watch, isn't it? Isn't
it Paley's contention that a watch, being complex, must be the
effect of an even more complex cause? Whereas Ixnaum's watch
must, ex hypothesi, be the effect of a simpler cause? |
|
| |
Neither of these general assumptions is cogent; I'm just pointing
out that they are opposites. |
|
| |
Paley's watch is an argument for intelligent design, in that a
watch demonstrates intentional complexity. |
|
| |
The sunrise -alarm clock relationship is different. In fact, the two
phenomena are decoupled. The clock is manifestly the product of
intelligent design; its existance cannot be otherwise explained, I.e
by the existence of clock trees or clock volcanoes.
The sunrise is a simple physical event requiring no a priori action
by a system of higher complexity and can be
entirely described (as per Occam's razor) via a sequence of
simple, stochastic events, right back to the condensation of the
proto -star from an isotropic gas cloud. |
|
| |
The problem with [ix]'s idea is that the assertion "Systems with
higher complexity can not be the cause of observed behavior in a
lower complexity system." is fallacious. |
|
| |
Now, can anyone explain why this is so ? |
|
| |
//If the sunrise is not observed, does it, in fact,
occur?//
If Milli Vanilli fall down in a
forest, does someone else make a noise? |
|
| |
Yes, but how do you sharpen a teapot ? |
|
| |
Or a Teasmaid. If you don't wake up, did it make tea? |
|
| |
If a tree falls in the forest and kills a solopsist, do we all
disappear? |
|
| |
Only if it kills us. You, however, do not exist outside our
perception. You are merely a mental construct we have created
to account for certain phenomena which we appear to percieve,
but for which there is no objective evidence. |
|
| |
Now, go and make us some tea. The stuff that teasmade
produces tastes awful, and besides it doesn't seem to have
worked today. |
|
| |
Well, if he ate the biscuits, who ate all the pies ? |
|
| |
How do you in fact assimilate a non-entity? |
|
| |
Noncorporeally of course. |
|
| |
//Bertrand Russell ate them all// |
|
| |
Ah, now this one we can help with; here in Australia, one can buy
Russell Set groceries. There's a chain of supermarkets called
"Independent Grocers of Australia". By implication, it's the chain
of all the supermarkets that don't belong to a chain. They should
stock the right kind. |
|
| |
//can anyone explain why this is so ?// |
|
| |
Yes, but probably not in the way you meant. |
|
| |
So, 0 < n(P) < 1 for n > 0 ? |
|
| |
// By implication, it's the chain of all the supermarkets that don't belong to a chain. They should stock the right kind. // |
|
| |
That would be packets of biscuits that are always at least one biscuit short. The consumer must however accept that if they want packets of biscuits that comply with the axioms of formal mathematical logic, then they also lose out on the overall total of biscuits purchased. |
|
| |
A grocery store that was run by a logician would be an interesting place to shop. |
|
| |
Nah, it would be stocked with nothing but
pinkish-grey stew, some cheese, victory coffee,
day-old bread and a bit of saccharine. |
|
| |
I'm still confused by the idea of a hegemonic
swarm that flies around the universe assimilating
species that don't exist outside of its perception
yet whose existence is compiled of those
assimilated species. It seems a little bit like a
make-work program created by a typographical
error on a budget sheet. You don't happen to
work for the Defense Ministry, do you? |
|
| |
Don't worry, you're only a figment of our imagination anyway.
We'll think of you as being more confident, certain and better
informed. |
|
| |
//the assertion "Systems with higher complexity can not be the cause of observed behavior in a lower complexity system." is fallacious. Now, can anyone explain why this is so ?// |
|
| |
Why would it be correct? The proof that it isn't is tautological.Is that the right word? The concept holding that it isn't correct is as simple as it can possibly be. |
|
| |