Probability is a measure of ignorance of initial states?
>>God cannot be surprised (He even gives us a clue: "I know the end FROM the beginning").
In the legitimate courts of law, the process is designed to avoid error, not to ascertain truth. A not guilty verdict is a statement of our ignorance of events, not of our knowledge of innocence.
In science, repeated identical results are not proofs of eternal verity ("the sun also rises") but of insufficient sample size, ie ignorance.
In all cases, being finite in knowledge, wisdom and longevity, a degree of humility before that which is greater than we, is indicated.
Hence the greatest of scientists have historically been Christians, people already inclined to such humility ("thinking God's thoughts after Him").
The worst scientific (and thus, statistical) blunders have been made by those possessing unwarranted certainty in their own knowledge.
For example, even assuming that the Hubble Constant measures something akin to what Hubble supposed, it is somewhat dubious to extrapolate from a sample of several decades to 14.6 billion years. Would any of you believe I could measure the opinions of the entirety of our planet by surveying 100 people?
What would I be measuring? Would the error bars ever possibly be appreciably smaller than the whole? Whatever the result, of what practical or theoretical use would it be, except as an example of boundless hubris?
Well said! You have captured precisely what I think of the entire field of "Climate Change". Except in this case, the true believers have extrapolated a certitude from "models" constructed with samples of cherry-picked data accumulated over several decades while completely ignoring the ample evidence provided by the geology of the earth which covers the previous 4+ billion years.
Because try as I might, cannot make heads nor tails of the stuff, due to a certain flavor of mental retardation that surfaces whenever I look at such content or any page containing more than 5 numerals, never mind equations, which trigger a grand mal seizure.
However, before the photo of the Catholic nun at the blackboard passes into history I wanted to say how much it tickles me every single time I see it. Nobody who did not go to Catholic school in olden times can fully appreciate that photograph. Thanks for using it!
If there was no telos, computers couldn't work. After all, they are the reification of finite state machines. Finite state necessitates a telos, in my view. Which my explain why computer programmers are always so jittery and most of them are generally paranoid assholes, pardon my Algerian (formerly French.)
Having said that. I dislike making this types of arguments. It reminds me of the old "The theory of relativity is true because GPS works." Which is a fallacious argument. There may be a good practical application of a theory. That proves nothing. GPS won't stop working if someone comes up with a better theory. Duh.
But, teleology is not a theory of modern physics, hehehehe.
I'm working on a piece now that cites both of these works, Professor!
Two of my treasured books - "Uncertainty" and "Probability: TLoS".
Chained probabilistic reasoning is all we do and all we've ever done. On the rare occasions we (think we) have certainty {0,1} we are either (a) deluded, or (b) dealing with something self-evident.
"Nothing is no thing". The late great R.C. Sproul used to say precisely this, and was, despite my secular leanings now, a great influence on my thinking, and perhaps one reason your work resonates with me as much as it does. He made a very similar point regarding probability as ignorance. Do we share a common influence?
Wow. Haha. Been a long time since I read, and it isn't nearly as technical as your work, but I think you will spot some interesting parallels. You both are in sync with respect to probability and chance, from what I can remember (maybe one notable exception lol). His epistemology is different, you may find that interesting (if he covers it there). Hope you enjoy. Hit me up if we need to discuss anything. :)
Probability is a measure of ignorance of initial states?
>>God cannot be surprised (He even gives us a clue: "I know the end FROM the beginning").
In the legitimate courts of law, the process is designed to avoid error, not to ascertain truth. A not guilty verdict is a statement of our ignorance of events, not of our knowledge of innocence.
In science, repeated identical results are not proofs of eternal verity ("the sun also rises") but of insufficient sample size, ie ignorance.
In all cases, being finite in knowledge, wisdom and longevity, a degree of humility before that which is greater than we, is indicated.
Hence the greatest of scientists have historically been Christians, people already inclined to such humility ("thinking God's thoughts after Him").
The worst scientific (and thus, statistical) blunders have been made by those possessing unwarranted certainty in their own knowledge.
For example, even assuming that the Hubble Constant measures something akin to what Hubble supposed, it is somewhat dubious to extrapolate from a sample of several decades to 14.6 billion years. Would any of you believe I could measure the opinions of the entirety of our planet by surveying 100 people?
What would I be measuring? Would the error bars ever possibly be appreciably smaller than the whole? Whatever the result, of what practical or theoretical use would it be, except as an example of boundless hubris?
Well said! You have captured precisely what I think of the entire field of "Climate Change". Except in this case, the true believers have extrapolated a certitude from "models" constructed with samples of cherry-picked data accumulated over several decades while completely ignoring the ample evidence provided by the geology of the earth which covers the previous 4+ billion years.
Sadly I sit out the classes.
Because try as I might, cannot make heads nor tails of the stuff, due to a certain flavor of mental retardation that surfaces whenever I look at such content or any page containing more than 5 numerals, never mind equations, which trigger a grand mal seizure.
However, before the photo of the Catholic nun at the blackboard passes into history I wanted to say how much it tickles me every single time I see it. Nobody who did not go to Catholic school in olden times can fully appreciate that photograph. Thanks for using it!
An argument about teleology.
If there was no telos, computers couldn't work. After all, they are the reification of finite state machines. Finite state necessitates a telos, in my view. Which my explain why computer programmers are always so jittery and most of them are generally paranoid assholes, pardon my Algerian (formerly French.)
Having said that. I dislike making this types of arguments. It reminds me of the old "The theory of relativity is true because GPS works." Which is a fallacious argument. There may be a good practical application of a theory. That proves nothing. GPS won't stop working if someone comes up with a better theory. Duh.
But, teleology is not a theory of modern physics, hehehehe.
That symbol looks like the sigil for prosperity. Or perhaps a symbol for an antenna?
I'm working on a piece now that cites both of these works, Professor!
Two of my treasured books - "Uncertainty" and "Probability: TLoS".
Chained probabilistic reasoning is all we do and all we've ever done. On the rare occasions we (think we) have certainty {0,1} we are either (a) deluded, or (b) dealing with something self-evident.
Let us know when you’re done.
The link to the Jaynes' book does not work because it has an extra quotation mark at the end like this "
Rats. Thanks. Will fix.
"Nothing is no thing". The late great R.C. Sproul used to say precisely this, and was, despite my secular leanings now, a great influence on my thinking, and perhaps one reason your work resonates with me as much as it does. He made a very similar point regarding probability as ignorance. Do we share a common influence?
Could be, but, alas, I did not know Sproul. I’ll have to look up.
Probably not worth your time, but this is the one you'd like. Looking it up was rather nostalgic for me. https://www.amazon.com/Not-Chance-Modern-Science-Cosmology-ebook/dp/B004L9MFVS
Ordered.
Wow. Haha. Been a long time since I read, and it isn't nearly as technical as your work, but I think you will spot some interesting parallels. You both are in sync with respect to probability and chance, from what I can remember (maybe one notable exception lol). His epistemology is different, you may find that interesting (if he covers it there). Hope you enjoy. Hit me up if we need to discuss anything. :)