RoR: Forum

Ed:
"Perhaps, you are merely being rhetorical and entertaining a hypothetical: that being the incorrect view that 100% precision is needed for 100% certainty?"

Sam:
There is no such thing as absolute certainty. And there is no such thing as absolute precision.

Ed:
"Sam, computers cannot make ANY intuitive leaps (something which may be explained as merely "several lines of linear logical thought" operating simultaneously to inform a grand unforeseeable conclusion). The lack of this unique human power in computers will prevent them from being as "smart" as us (they will always require outside programming to update them according to unforeseeable situations - programming discovered by thinking humans)."

Sam:
O.K.

Ed:
Sam, perhaps this was a simple error, but your use of the word "accuracy" above ought to be replaced with the word "precision."

Sam:
O.K., I agree.

Sam:
"This is not to say that in our everyday lives that we should view events as out of our control. We live our lives at the macro level and we know by experience that certain actions lead to (almost) reliable results."

Ed:
"And we know by the application of logic to experience that certain actions are the right actions over relevant, available alternatives WITH 100% ACCURACY."

Sam:
In order for your argument to prevail you must show that you know everything about everything as the input to your logic.
One person's experience isn't identical to another's. The conditions relevant to the decision-about-to-be-made aren't identical to those that generated the experience.

Ed:
"If, in my Thought Experiment 1 (from above), there was someone chained to the wall inside the colder room and about to freeze to death, then the absolutely correct decision for helping them is to open the door to the warmer room (even though this actually cooled down the colder room in this 1-in-a-trillion situation).

And even though the situation got transiently worse, we should still - without question - leave the door open (warmer rooms tend to warm up cooler rooms - while losing their relative warmth - when they are conjoined by an air passageway; this is a law that, while sometimes "bent" by odd circumstances, can never be "broken").

We can know exactly what the "one best thing to do" is in these well-defined situations. And in most situations, the available options allow us to discover (by applying logic to experience) what the "one best option of all those available" is."

Sam:
This doesn't contradict anything that I have said. In fact, it underscores my statement that there is no absolute certainty.

Post 41

Monday, July 26, 2004 - 12:54pm

Hi Sam,

It's all a matter of precision.

There is always that, and sometimes that, "ignorance," will be interpreted as randomness.

In the case of quantum mechanics, even if measurements could be made perfectly, scientists would still claim randomness, due to an odd characteristic of the mathematics used to describe quantum behavior.

Fourier transforms are used to describe the behavior of quantum particles, due to their wave characteristics. But Fourier transforms only work for analog (continuous) scales. Quantum values turn the "wave" like phenomena into discrete particles, and are discontinuous. If particles could exist at all wave lengths at all energy levels there would be no problem, but they are quantized, and only "exist" (react with other things) at discrete energy level/wave length combinations (think Planck's constant). This may be simplified as "gaps" in the continuous scale of the Fourier transform, which show up is the "imprecisions" in determining a particle's precise position and momentum (or a particle's precise energy at any precise time).

I am surprised more scientists have not pointed out the apparent randomness of quantum phenomena, which is interpreted as a lack of cause, is based entirely on an inadequacy of the method by which quantum behavior is described. There is randomness at the quantum level, but it is not causeless.

Regi

Post 42

Monday, July 26, 2004 - 1:39pm

Sam,

What do you mean by, "absolute certainty."

I can name thousands of things about which I am absolutely certain, and almost everyone else is absolutely certain about them too.

Unless you mean something very strange by absolute certainty, to say "There is no such thing as absolute certainty," is absurd or meaningless.

Certainty is the most common thing in the world. It is uncertainty that has to be discovered, learned, and proved.

Regi

Post 43

Monday, July 26, 2004 - 2:09pm

Sam:
"There is no such thing as absolute certainty. And there is no such thing as absolute precision."

Ed:
Axioms are absolutely certain; and there is absolute precision in mathematics. The performance "hoop" that humans need to jump through (before they can be called logical) is to identify that math is used to approximate the ideal - or most intellectually lucrative - situations.

You offered the common example in physics texts (utilize a formula - initial velocity, projection, angle, etc. - to predict where a cannon-ball will land). Although this equation will not predict an absolute precise matching distance to each particular cannon firing, the physics equation is accurate enough for winning wars (it is 100% accurate AS IT HAS BEEN USED by humans).

Sam:
"In order for your argument to prevail you must show that you know everything about everything as the input to your logic."

Ed:
No, I merely need to explain and control >50% of the variability in outcome to know (with 100% accuracy) which of a given limited set of alternatives is the best one. This is possible in most (>50%) of the common ethical scenarios that are presented as a decision between limited options. In other words - for the most part - moral dilemmas are illegitimate when presented simultaneously as "valid" exercises but without definite solutions.

Post 44

Monday, July 26, 2004 - 2:35pm

Sam, here's a hypothetical example of "explaining and controlling" >50% of the variability. Let's say that we're a 2-man fitness instruction team exercising people on a treadmill. On a treadmill, there are 2 options for manipulating the intensity of exercise: speed and "degree of incline."

As our clients get on the treadmill for a workout, I choose to vary the speed, leaving you to vary the degree of incline. If I control the speed, I control the intensity (speed - within allowable ranges for speed and incline - dictates >50% of exercise intensity on treadmills).

Armed with this knowledge, I am empowered to make the right decisions regarding a client's exercise intensity NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO with the "degree of incline." In other words, I do not need to control the whole situation to control the whole (relevant) outcome.

Because I can explain and control more than half of the variability in outcome, I have enough information and power to consistently make the right decisions and produce grateful clients (even if you - or even things like "randomness" or "minute details" - were to attempt to get in the way and thwart my efforts).

All this simply means that I don't need 100% precision to identify - with 100% accuracy - what the best decision is in most scenarios, given the limited alternatives that most scenarios entail.

Ed

Post 45

Monday, July 26, 2004 - 4:38pm

Regi:
You most certainly haver a firmer grasp of quantum mechanics than I do. I am arguing that even at the atomic level, that we have more everyday acquaintance with, that in the example of a billiard ball traveling across a table we cannot know the exact center of the ball or its radius so, as a consequence, we cannot know its precise velocity or location at any time. Thus, we are saddled with some degree of uncertainty with respect to physical events. The radius and center are statistical averages only.

Neither I, nor you, can say with absolute certainty that a cannon ball fired with the same inclination, velocity at a target that you have hit a million times before will hit it again. You must have absolute knowledge that the metal of the barrel has not become fatigued by repeated stress, that a meteor or bird will not intercept the ball in flight, and innumerable other possible, but improbable events intercede. In other words, you have to know everything about everything.

You have said: "I can name thousands of things about which I am absolutely certain." Please describe a physical event so that I may get my teeth into it. :-)

Sam

Post 46

Monday, July 26, 2004 - 5:37pm

Sam,

You said flatly, and without qualification, "There is no such thing as absolute certainty."

Now, I am fond of rhetoric and realize you may have been somewhat rhetorical in that statement, but if you meant it explicitly, you ought to have answered my explicit question, "What do you mean by, absolute certainty."

You explained again what you already explained and concluded with this:

You have said: "I can name thousands of things about which I am absolutely certain." Please describe a physical event so that I may get my teeth into it.

Now, it is beginning to look like you are only applying your "no absolute certainty," assertion to physical events, and although you did not say so, only those which are being predicted, because events which have already occurred are known with certainty. You may not know ahead of time if I can run the table, (which accumulates a whole lot of physics predictions about pool balls), but when you are paying me off, you will know it with absolute certainty.

Still, I would like to know what you mean by "absolute certainty."

Regi

Post 47

Monday, July 26, 2004 - 6:32pm

Regi:
This whole thread has been based in the context of physical events and that is the only context that I am making my assertions and I think that you are trying to broaden the scope in order to prevail. I aver that no physical event can be predicted with absolute assurance, that is, there may be an unanticipated disruption of the claimed future event. In order to have that absolute assurance one would have to know everything about everything.

Your examples of quantum effects have to do with predictions ... will a particle behave in a certain way, will it be at one place or another, etc.? Your example of running the table is one of after the fact. Surely, if something has occurred it can be verified with 100% certainty.

If you agree with all the above then we have no argument.

Sam

Post 48

Monday, July 26, 2004 - 6:41pm

Ed:
Your discussion is based on human decisions related to probabilities and experience. Of course one should decide to take a certain action if the probabilities favor it. You're talking to a guy that actively trades stocks. If I judge that I'll have greater than 50% chance of making a profit, I'll make the trade.

There's no argument here.

Sam

Post 49

Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 7:02am

Sam,

I think that you are trying to broaden the scope in order to prevail.

Prevail in what? Is there some kind of contest here. If there is, I summarily declare you the winner.

Just kidding. I know you mean. But that really is not my intention at all.

I am quite concerned about statements like, "There is no such thing as absolute certainty," because others use statements exactly like that to mean true knowledge is not possible, as you probably know if you've followed some of the other threads.

If you only mean it is impossible to predict with absolute certainty and absolute precision future events, I have no argument with that. But leaving out absolute precision, even future events can often be predicted with absolute certainty, especially when those events are already in progress, like the progress of a nuclear explosion once it is initiated. There is very little that could possibly interfere with that progress once it is started, and actually nothing we know of. Once we learned how that process works, we can predict with absolute certainty how it will progress whenever it happens.

I also think it is silly to say about many large scale events, like the movement of planets, they cannot be predicted absolutely. While it is possible for something to interfere with the movement of the heavenly bodies, it is not possible for such interference to, "sneak up on us," so to speak. The reappearance of Halley's comet is absolutely predictable, and even if some future event could interfere with that appearance, (for example some rogue object colliding with Halley's comet) it is not an event that could happen without our knowledge or that could surprise us. We may not be able to predict the exact position of Halley's comet to the micro-meter and nano-second, but within the limits of our precision, it can be predicted absolutely.

Regi

Post 50

Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 8:26am

All I was saying is that a thing is "random" if I don't know its driving formula. Once I am made aware that it either has one, or I know what that driving formula is, then it's "pseudorandom".

Put another way, a thing can actually have a driving formula which I just don't know of... in other words, it's really "pseudorandom". For my intents and purposes, however, because I don't know that it has one, I can call it "random". It boils down to your vantage point. And if you want to be even more fully precise with regard to quantum mechanics, those systems aren't fully random. Because they are a distributed blend of perfect randomness and perfect predictability... tendency waves... I think it makes the most sense, to call them "semi-random" or "quasi-random".

It's just semantics: the use of a controlled vocabulary, where certain words are used to convey a very specific idea. You may not agree that a specific word should go with a specific definition, but at least you have to iron out that you're agreeing on the validity of what the definition says.

Puh-TAY-tuh, puh-TAH-tuh; tuh-MAY-tuh, tuh-MAH-tuh... Let's call the whole thing off.

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 7/27, 2:12pm)

Post 51

Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 8:42am

Regi:

Apparently we have no disagreements. My original point was that we don't normally view everyday physical objects as being composed of atoms that vibrate constantly, thus our notions of center of gravity, radius, etc. have no meaning at that level. The best we can do is regard them as statistical averages. Thus, when we plug in these variable into equations of motion, the solution is only approximate.As an engineer, I appreciate that these approximations have lead to untold prosperity for mankind; but this is a forum of philosophy.

I agree with you, Regi, about the predictability of Haley's comet orbit but just want to observe that the larger the event, such as the movement of celestial bodies, a longer the time frame has to be considered before we can reasonably expect unforeseen events. For instance, I can be reasonably sure that the sun will rise tomorrow but I can also be reasonably sure that the sun will not rise 3 billion years from now as it has today.

Sam

Post 52

Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 1:31pm