Dear Andrei, As long as we understand that the world itself is not probabilistic. :-)
Probability being merely a way of speaking about that which is inaccessible. Probabilistic laws only work because the world is, in fact, profoundly uniform. With respect, Steven On May 8, 2011, at 1:47 AM, Andrei Khrennikov wrote: > Dear all, > I think that the discussion on uniformity of the world's laws is closely > related to a role which the basic principle of modern probability theory > (and hence modern science, since laws of nature are probabilistic, in their > modern formulation), > the principle of statistical stabilization of relative frequencies. By this > principle probability is the limit of relative frequency > of occurence of an event A in a long series of observations. Von MIses used > this principle as the cornerstone of his frequency probability theory, > in the conventional measure-theoretic probability theory (Kolmogorov, 1933), > it is exhibited through the law of large numbers > (at least roughly speaking). Thus a phenomenon is recognized as physical (or > real) if it satisfies the principle of statistical stabilization > of relative frequencies. If not, then it does not belong to the domain of > science, by definition! This is an important episthemological > principle. I speculate that Nature might be essentially more complicated; > there can occure events which do not > satisfy the principle of statistical stabilization, but, although they do not > belong to science, they are not less real than those which are described by > homogeneous laws, describing repeatable phenomena, see > for details A. Khrennikov, Interpretations of Probability. De Gruyter, > Berlin, 2009, second edition (completed). > > Yours, > Andrei Khrennikov, Professor of Applied Mathematics, > International Center for Mathematical Modeling > in Physics, Engineering, Economics, and Cognitive Science > Linnaeus University, Växjö-Kalmar, Sweden > ________________________________________ > From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Steven Ericsson-Zenith [[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 1:04 AM > To: Jerry LR Chandler > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Fis] On Uniformity > > Dear Jerry, > > A world of change and diversity does not at all imply that the underlying > laws are not uniform. A move from antecedent to consequence is the first > response, it is not the ultimate response of constructive science which seeks > to overwhelm the superficial by the identification of basis. > > The fact that science is a process of refinement, and consequently > incomplete, only serves to indicate that there is more work to do. > > You contexts illustrate only the continuing need to unify science, to provide > a single context for the description of nature. Chemical elements are merely > differences, they still adhere to the same underlying laws and principles. > > Your conjecture that the uniformity of nature is the ploy of mathematical > physicists to justify the ability of their conceptions to describe the world > is cute. But, unfortunately, this is no more than saying that God is the ploy > of theologians. Of course, both are the case but one is demonstrably more > effective than the other. > > With respect, > Steven > > > -- > Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith > Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering > http://iase.info > http://senses.info > > > > > On Apr 3, 2011, at 7:29 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: > >> Vol. 547.20 Steven "On uniformity" >> >> >> >> Thank you for your reference to your blog. >> >> Here are some assertions from your blog: >> >> >>> >>> >>> The concept of uniformity in nature underpins the whole of scientific >>> knowledge. >>> >>> This profound uniformity is necessary to enable any scientific statement, >>> without it there can be no science. >>> >>> To say the world is profoundly uniform is an existential statement, not an >>> epistemological one; yet it has direct consequences for scientific >>> epistemology and provides its foundation. >>> >>> The universe, independent of any conception, is then necessarily and >>> profoundly uniform if we are to have any scientific knowledge. >>> >>> This uniformity is that which underlies the laws and principles of our >>> observations; it is the scientific assertion that the determinant features >>> of the world, apprehended as laws and principles, are everywhere the same. >>> >>> The profound uniformity of the existent universe is the necessary basis of >>> scientific knowledge; without it all bets are off. >>> >>> >> >> If you want to invalidate science you need only demonstrate one case in >> which the uniformity is denied. >> >> >> >> Ordinarily in scientific philosophy, the arguments run from antecedents to >> consequences. >> >> Your blog simply iterates, in somewhat varied rhetorics, your singular >> belief in uniformity. It appears to be an initiating belief of your personal >> philosophy. >> >> >> >> My response to your assertions is simply that the principle of uniformity is >> contrary to my experience. >> >> I experience a world that is richly textured with diversity and uniqueness, >> one that changes second by second, minute by minute, day by day, month by >> month, year by year, decade by decade, and, if I believe history, generation >> by generation and even from branch to branch on the tree of life. >> >> >> >> I have many forms of logic to interpret by experience, one of then, emergent >> from the logic of Lavoisier / Dalton, operating on invisible particles, is >> that matter has an identity that is preserved under transformation of >> properties. This uniqueness of identity is not a uniformity, rather the >> properties of an identity is a basis for separating this from that. >> >> >> >> The formal logic of this system is a number system, the atomic number >> system. The atomic number system is based on the principle that each >> chemical element is non-uniform with respect to other chemical elements. The >> notion of the alchemists that a hidden uniformity existed in matter was >> rejected after several centuries of failure. The formal logic of the atomic >> number system is irregular, valences are irregular, they are not uniform. >> Further, valencies are context sensitive, the non-uniformity of contexts >> changes the behavior of valences. This context-sensitivity is amply >> demonstrates by the change of inorganic matter into living matter by life >> itself. >> >> >> >> Thus, I assert that my examples do NOT invalidate science in general but do >> demonstrate, in any extremely rough way, non-uniormity of the chemical and >> life sciences. It is not the efficient causality of Aristotle, the >> manifestation of space and time, of which I write, rather, it is material >> causality of Aristotle that generates biological reproduction. >> >> >> >> The philosophy of physical uniformity is known to me from other sources. It >> appears to be rooted in notions of continuity of the line and the existence >> of Newtonian derivatives. In other words, it is my conjecture that the >> concept of uniformity is merely a ploy to express a belief in continuous >> mathematics and higher order mathematical structures essential to express >> physical beliefs. >> >> >> >> The quotation from Einstein expresses his view about mathematical uniformity >> rather succinctly: >> >> ""As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they >> >> are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not >> >> refer to reality." >> >> >> >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > [email protected] > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis _______________________________________________ fis mailing list [email protected] https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
