On Friday, March 22, 2013 1:15:58 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
> On 3/19/2013 11:24 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> > On 19.03.2013 19:17 Craig Weinberg said the following:
> >> On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 1:38:21 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>> Intimate relation is not causality. The stock market has been
> >>>> famously been related to skirt lengths
> >>> If when skirt lengths changed there was ALWAYS a change in the
> >>> stock market in the same direction, and when the stock market
> >>> changed there was ALWAYS a change in skirt lengths that preceded it
> >>> then its true, changing the length of skirts DOES cause a change in
> >>> the stock market; and if humans don't understand how a connection
> >>> between the two could possibly work that's just too bad, it
> >>> wouldn't make it any less true.
> >>> And if all of that were true then dress designers would be the
> >>> richest people the world has ever seen. They're not.
> >> I already went through this with you with the vanilla ice cream
> >> example. Correlation, even 100% correlation, does not equal
> >> causation. Two unrelated systems can both be related to a third, and
> >> I think that must be the case with neurological activity and
> >> subjective experience, where the third and fundamental system is
> >> sensory-motor capacity, or sense, from which the private and public
> >> subsystems are derived.
> > In a way everything is just regularities.
> That's not where the "laws of nature" come from. We make up the "laws of
> nature" so they
> are consistent with the regularities we've observed. But the "laws" have
> to go beyond
> just encoding the know regularities, they have to have predictive and
> explanatory power.
> Otherwise they no better than a data list.
We make inferences from the data list which make sense to us intuitively,
logically, aesthetically, and continue to coincide without experience
practically. Then eventually we understand more and recontextualize what we
thought was 'law' into more of a 'really nice try', but by then 'we' aren't
the same people as we were before. I would wager that this pattern turns
out to be more of a 'law' than what we have learned from science,
philosophy, or religion.
> > For example a good short talk in this respect
> > Where do the Laws of Nature Come From? (Bas van Fraassen)
> > Evgenii
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.