Bars
Ecstasy
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2024
- Posts
- 652
- Reputation
- 776
A hen which the owner poured millet every day from the moment of its birth made conclusions; he extrapolated the results of his daily observations into the theory of a good owner and each time the chicken was fed, his theory received more evidence. But the owner came with an axe and chopped off the chicken's head, thereby immediately refuting his inductive theory.
In the objective world, there may be some objects. For example, a stone and a broken glass. In our inner world, there are impressions that may be caused by these objects, that is, information from our senses. This information may cause ideas and images; we cannot know for sure whether a stone really caused the image of a stone in our head or whether a broken window really caused the image and sounds of broken glass in our head. Just as we cannot judge with 100% certainty the cause-and-effect relationship between a possible stone and a possible broken window. However, we do not know for sure that one impression cannot be the cause of another, the connection of impressions and images that have arisen in the head is beyond doubt. Impressions are causes, and ideas are their effects.
Frederic Skinner made special individual cages pigeons. Each cage had a button, and a little food would enter the cage when pressed. After several unusual presses and food rewards, the pigeons built a cause-and-effect relationship between pressing the button and receiving food.
Then Skinner made it so that the feed was given randomly regardless of the pigeons' actions. The pigeons had to sit and wait. Ofc pigeons started freaking out and they started associating the food delivery with things that had nothing to do with it. If a pigeon at the moment of food delivery stood with its neck stretched out in one of the upper cage chambers, then from its point of view, this was the reason for feeding and later it repeated this movement time after time and became convinced that it worked.
The pigeons developed whole pronounced rituals; some birds made rocking movements alternately as if putting their heads under an invisible barrier and lifting them up. Some performed pendulum-like movements of the head and torso, and so on. These experiments with pigeons have shown that animals tend to make causal connections even between random events.
It is the same mechanism that makes us believe in talismans or prayers. What is the connection between praying/a talisman around our necks and success in life?
We see that one event always comes after another and we conclude that there is a connection between them. If we want to check the true existence of this connection, we ask What is the connection between phenomenon A e.g. hammer blows and phenomenon B e.g. a hammered nail? What is the connection between hammer blows and a hammered nail. This question may seem trivial only at first sight. We can say that we are just hitting the nail with a hammer thereby hammering it in and the nail is solid and so on contact they repel each other. What does it mean solid and what is the connection between solidity and repulsion? Simply bodies consist of tiny particles, solid is a state of matter with a special arrangement of atoms. They repel solid bodies because the nuclei of atoms are surrounded by electrons in their orbit and when they approach each other their electrons do not give contact and repel. So, we have come to the fact that the hammer and the nail do not even touch each other, but what is the connection between the presence of electrons and the fact that they repel? Electrons have the same charge and equal charges repel. Okay, but what's the connection between equal charges and repulsion?
We don't know.
We cannot discover causation; it exists only in our heads and no answer, and no demonstrations or experiments will let us see how one event can cause another. We always see only the sequence of events but never the connection between them. The blow of a hammer drives nails, but we don't know why.
We don't know.
We cannot discover causation; it exists only in our heads and no answer, and no demonstrations or experiments will let us see how one event can cause another. We always see only the sequence of events but never the connection between them. The blow of a hammer drives nails, but we don't know why.
Correlation is a relationship between events, but it's not causal, it's statistical. There is no causal relationship between hammer blows and nails hammered, but there is a strict correlation.
The process of induction consists in recognizing as true the simplest rule that coincides with our experience. This process, however, has no logical justification, but only a psychological one. It is clear that there is no reason to believe that the simplest thing will actually happen, that the sun will rise tomorrow is a hypothesis, which means that we do not know if it will set.
Human thinking is poorly organized and haphazard. We constantly see the world's truths in particulars and therefore so often make mistakes in our attempts to somehow organize the chaos. We are gradually inventing the scientific method and today it is considered that one of the main criteria of scientificity is falsifiability, which was introduced by Karl Popper and he also believed that all scientific hypotheses should be read as proofs and not true theories because through experience we can only judge the falsity of a certain statement but never its truth. Million times of sunsets won't allow us to conclude that it will rise again.
Any theories we have fall into two groups: those that already disproved, and those that not yet disproved. The expression "science has proven" is very crude; science proposes models of reality, and they are verified by more and more precise experiments, but verification is never enough and yes, yes, the absence of evidence of falsehood is not evidence of truth.
Science is not about proving but about reducing uncertainty.
Statistically, a hammer will drive a nail, a rock will break a window, and the sun will set tomorrow, but the probability cannot be 100% and this is the foundation of human knowledge which is built on correlations.
Here in the 21st century, we don't believe that the sun will rise tomorrow just because it rose yesterday. We have general relativity, which not only predicts sunrises and sunsets, but also explains why they happen. This sounds exciting, but you'll quickly notice that the same problem exists with the laws of physics; we believe that they will work in the future only because they worked in the past. It's the same inductive approach.
Human thinking is poorly organized and haphazard. We constantly see the world's truths in particulars and therefore so often make mistakes in our attempts to somehow organize the chaos. We are gradually inventing the scientific method and today it is considered that one of the main criteria of scientificity is falsifiability, which was introduced by Karl Popper and he also believed that all scientific hypotheses should be read as proofs and not true theories because through experience we can only judge the falsity of a certain statement but never its truth. Million times of sunsets won't allow us to conclude that it will rise again.
Any theories we have fall into two groups: those that already disproved, and those that not yet disproved. The expression "science has proven" is very crude; science proposes models of reality, and they are verified by more and more precise experiments, but verification is never enough and yes, yes, the absence of evidence of falsehood is not evidence of truth.
Science is not about proving but about reducing uncertainty.
Statistically, a hammer will drive a nail, a rock will break a window, and the sun will set tomorrow, but the probability cannot be 100% and this is the foundation of human knowledge which is built on correlations.
Here in the 21st century, we don't believe that the sun will rise tomorrow just because it rose yesterday. We have general relativity, which not only predicts sunrises and sunsets, but also explains why they happen. This sounds exciting, but you'll quickly notice that the same problem exists with the laws of physics; we believe that they will work in the future only because they worked in the past. It's the same inductive approach.
The fundamental principle of classical and quantum physics is that we cannot destroy information without a trace, because the state of any system at any moment in time is determined by its value at any other moment in time, both in the past and in the future. Our entire faith in scientific determinism is based on this position.
Black holes are the simplest objects in the universe, uncharged and non-rotating black holes are described by only one parameter - mass. Two uncharged and non-rotating black holes are fundamentally indistinguishable from each other. What happens in a black hole, stays in a black hole. Black holes evaporate, lose mass and disappear completely. Fundamental destruction of information is evident. This is the main problem of science.
"If information really does disappear in black holes, we won't be able to predict the future, since black holes can emit any set of particles." - Stephen Hawking
"And this may seem unimportant, but it's a matter of principle. There may be black holes that arise as fluctuations from the vacuum, absorb one set of particles, emit another, and dissolve back into the vacuum." - Stephen Hawking
"After all, if the predictability of the universe ceases to apply in black holes, then it may cease to apply in other situations as well." - Stephen Hawking
If the universe could appear from nothing and without any cause, then the effect doesn't have to follow the cause, and the cause doesn't have to exist at all.
If the universe came spontaneously out of nothing without a cause, then why wouldn't it also turn to nothing with no cause?
looksmax.org
Black holes are the simplest objects in the universe, uncharged and non-rotating black holes are described by only one parameter - mass. Two uncharged and non-rotating black holes are fundamentally indistinguishable from each other. What happens in a black hole, stays in a black hole. Black holes evaporate, lose mass and disappear completely. Fundamental destruction of information is evident. This is the main problem of science.
"If information really does disappear in black holes, we won't be able to predict the future, since black holes can emit any set of particles." - Stephen Hawking
"And this may seem unimportant, but it's a matter of principle. There may be black holes that arise as fluctuations from the vacuum, absorb one set of particles, emit another, and dissolve back into the vacuum." - Stephen Hawking
"After all, if the predictability of the universe ceases to apply in black holes, then it may cease to apply in other situations as well." - Stephen Hawking
If the universe could appear from nothing and without any cause, then the effect doesn't have to follow the cause, and the cause doesn't have to exist at all.
If the universe came spontaneously out of nothing without a cause, then why wouldn't it also turn to nothing with no cause?
We Will Never Die
Our observable universe is about 13,800,000,000 years old and that it came into being in the Big Bang out what? Out of something we can't describe. That doesn't mean that there was nothing before the Big Bang. And this applies not only to time, but to space itself. The universe is supposed...
looksmax.org
"
