RE: Against Fundamentalism!
It's perfectly clear to me which of the two is more important: prediction or explanation? Now that I have been self-liberated from fear of circularity, it's clear that: each is more important than the other! Lee P.S. Someone pointed out to me off-list that I was far from the first to have had this epiphany about circular reasoning: However, I think Bruno already has this idea. Hence a Reality, yes. But not necessarily a physical reality. Here is the logical dependence: NUMBERS - MACHINE DREAMS - PHYSICAL - HUMANS - PHYSICS - NUMBERS. --- Bruno Marchal
Re: Against Fundamentalism!
Le 07-juin-05, à 08:27, Lee Corbin a écrit : It's perfectly clear to me which of the two is more important: prediction or explanation? Now that I have been self-liberated from fear of circularity, it's clear that: each is more important than the other! Here I think you contradict yourself (it's a bit worst than circular). Lee P.S. Someone pointed out to me off-list that I was far from the first to have had this epiphany about circular reasoning: However, I think Bruno already has this idea. Hence a Reality, yes. But not necessarily a physical reality. Here is the logical dependence: NUMBERS - MACHINE DREAMS - PHYSICAL - HUMANS - PHYSICS - NUMBERS. --- Bruno Marchal But then you said to me: As for circular, too bad your theories aren't circular! They'd explain more. But ok, I should have written: PLATONIST NUMBERS - MACHINE DREAMS - PHYSICAL - HUMANS - HUMAN NUMBERS. I don't think I was circular there. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Re: Against Fundamentalism!
...but of courseexplanation is more fundamental than prediction.
Tom Caylor-Original Message-From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: everything-list@eskimo.comSent: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 10:24:42 -0700Subject: Against Fundamentalism!
Hal Finney writes
Lee Corbin writes:
But in general, what do observer-moments explain? Or what does the
hypothesis concerning them explain? I just don't get a good feel
that there are any "higher level" phenomena which might be reduced
to observer-moments (I am still very skeptical that all of physics
or math or something could be reduced to them...
[Yes] I would say that observer-moments are what need explaining, rather than
things that do the explaining. Or you could say that in a sense they
"explain" our experiences, although I think of them more as *being*
our experiences, moment by moment. As we agreed:
An observer-moment is really all we have as our primary experience of
the world. The world around us may be fake; we may be in the Matrix or
a brain in a vat. Even our memories may be fake. But the fact that we
are having particular experiences at a particular moment cannot be faked.
Nothing could be truer.
But, alas, I now contend, almost totally irrelevant! True yet irrelevant!
That is the sense in which I say that observer-moments are primary;
they are the most fundamental experience we have of the world.
Everything else is only a theory which is built upon the raw existence
of observer-moments.
I cannot help but vent here.
VENT
Pan-critical rationalism is very critical of the whole idea of
taking *anything* as "fundamental", as is well-known.
The whole quest for trying to find that which is "fundamental"
is deeply misguided, I submit. PCR takes absolutely nothing as
fundamental; it even, as is also well-known, invites you to
start anywhere with your conjectures.
What science (or all sensible thinking) strives to do is to
*reduce* one phenomenon to another as a means of providing for
(i) explanations (ii) predictions. Each is more important
than the other.
Giving into the urge to found things on some basis, the ancient
Cartesian rationalistic program, is nothing more than Euclid-envy.
A horrific quest for *certainty*, which is known to be impossible
and---perhaps if all our epistemologies were better---would be
an obvious wild-goose chase.
>From Descartes ("all that is certain is that I think therefore
I am") to Ayn Rand ("ethics and everything else can be derived
starting from A is A), I contend that this misguided quest has
caused no end of trouble and nonsense.
Does it really matter *what* is primary? I think not. When
you write "everything else is a theory built on OMs" I want
to scream. Nothing is built! Fie on rationalism! Fie on
fundamentalism!
Everything else is only a theory which is built
upon the raw existence of observer-moments.
No, no, no!
Anytime we have an urge to "start somewhere", or to regard X as
more basic than Y, danger flags should go up. Now again, we
should cheerfully reduce Y to X, and Z to Y, when we can, because
this helps us with (1) and (2), but we shouldn't even be troubled
in the slightest if we also end up reducing X to Z! No big deal!
Circular explanations are probably in the end even better than
ones that aren't circular! (Example: a dictionary defines all
the words in it.)
The only purposes when trying to achieve understanding
are, again, (1) explanation and (2) prediction.
/VENT
Lee
Re: Against Fundamentalism!
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 12:40:03PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...but of course explanation is more fundamental than prediction. Tom Caylor I wouldn't say that! Both of these properties are orthogonal to each other. Typical scientific theories exist on a tradeoff curve (Pareto front for those in the know) between explanatory power and predictive power. Cheers -- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which is of type application/pgp-signature. Don't worry, it is not a virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely ignore this attachment. A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile) Mathematics0425 253119 () UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 pgpNCzj49DsR0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Against Fundamentalism!
Welcome to the list Tom, I agree with you. Explanation is much more important. It is also much more difficult to agree on what *is* a good explanation. Prediction could remain important, at least in principle, to possibly destroy our favorite explanation, or to put doubt on them. Have you read the book by René Thom: prédire n'est pas expliquer Bruno Le 06-juin-05, à 18:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : x-tad-bigger ...but of course explanation is more fundamental than prediction./x-tad-bigger x-tad-bigger /x-tad-bigger http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Against Fundamentalism!
Hal Finney writes Lee Corbin writes: But in general, what do observer-moments explain? Or what does the hypothesis concerning them explain? I just don't get a good feel that there are any higher level phenomena which might be reduced to observer-moments (I am still very skeptical that all of physics or math or something could be reduced to them... [Yes] I would say that observer-moments are what need explaining, rather than things that do the explaining. Or you could say that in a sense they explain our experiences, although I think of them more as *being* our experiences, moment by moment. As we agreed: An observer-moment is really all we have as our primary experience of the world. The world around us may be fake; we may be in the Matrix or a brain in a vat. Even our memories may be fake. But the fact that we are having particular experiences at a particular moment cannot be faked. Nothing could be truer. But, alas, I now contend, almost totally irrelevant! True yet irrelevant! That is the sense in which I say that observer-moments are primary; they are the most fundamental experience we have of the world. Everything else is only a theory which is built upon the raw existence of observer-moments. I cannot help but vent here. VENT Pan-critical rationalism is very critical of the whole idea of taking *anything* as fundamental, as is well-known. The whole quest for trying to find that which is fundamental is deeply misguided, I submit. PCR takes absolutely nothing as fundamental; it even, as is also well-known, invites you to start anywhere with your conjectures. What science (or all sensible thinking) strives to do is to *reduce* one phenomenon to another as a means of providing for (i) explanations (ii) predictions. Each is more important than the other. Giving into the urge to found things on some basis, the ancient Cartesian rationalistic program, is nothing more than Euclid-envy. A horrific quest for *certainty*, which is known to be impossible and---perhaps if all our epistemologies were better---would be an obvious wild-goose chase. From Descartes (all that is certain is that I think therefore I am) to Ayn Rand (ethics and everything else can be derived starting from A is A), I contend that this misguided quest has caused no end of trouble and nonsense. Does it really matter *what* is primary? I think not. When you write everything else is a theory built on OMs I want to scream. Nothing is built! Fie on rationalism! Fie on fundamentalism! Everything else is only a theory which is built upon the raw existence of observer-moments. No, no, no! Anytime we have an urge to start somewhere, or to regard X as more basic than Y, danger flags should go up. Now again, we should cheerfully reduce Y to X, and Z to Y, when we can, because this helps us with (1) and (2), but we shouldn't even be troubled in the slightest if we also end up reducing X to Z! No big deal! Circular explanations are probably in the end even better than ones that aren't circular! (Example: a dictionary defines all the words in it.) The only purposes when trying to achieve understanding are, again, (1) explanation and (2) prediction. /VENT Lee
