4

A cursory search hints that Matthias Bartelmann is a serious researcher and he is coauthor of The Notion of Aether: Hegel versus contemporary physics, in Cosmos and History, 2015, vol. 11, no. 1, p.41-69, not a very serious journal, but the paper seems to be worth looking, at least for interested readers. Btw Hegel wrote a (youthful) dissertation on the ...


3

First it should be recognized that probability is one possible formalism we can use to model uncertainty. It is not the only possible formalism; Dempster-Shafer theory is another. And Bayesian inference cannot be applied to Dempster-Shafer theory without modifying it. So, we cannot say that Bayesian inference is completely universal. It only applies if ...


2

I want to understand is whether space and time are ontologically different or not? Well, given that nobody has a really good and persuasive conception about what is time and what is space it seems even less likely to have an answer about their ontological difference. The whole perspective might be faulty: Newtonian mechanics functions as a 4 dim geometry, ...


2

Bayesian epistemology does not solve or sidestep the problem of induction. Concrete Bayesian computations give you a way to update beliefs, as modeled in terms of probabilities on the basis of observations given a particular probabilistic model of the world. If that model is wrong, or if the world changes in such a way that now this model is wrong, the ...


1

There may be ontological single truth, or maybe not. But one thing is clear, the ways to higher relative truth than your current epistemic state may be multiple. For those normally well educated scholars who use natural language or other intellectual instruments like maths or computer languages all day long and indulge in them, he or she may necessarily need ...


1

Solely collecting information and theorizing is not exactly science. Science encapsulates both the organization of knowledge and a positive method to collect and interpret information. That is, unless you perform any statistically solid experimentation, you are not doing science. The process through which you come up with a logical explanation based on some ...


1

All of the sciences that use math to make predictions about the outcomes of experiments require precise measurement and the use of statistics to distinguish between an outcome explicable by random chance and one which contains a signal (the prediction). The case of Foucault's pendulum is a demonstration of a principle, in which the human eye is the judge, ...


1

Ooh yes there is. The idea to formalize Hegelian philosophy was proposed by William Lawvere, a reknown mathematician. You can find a partial formalization of Hegelian philosophy here. Unified theories of physics are derived from the progressive sequence of unity of opposites with stuff like fermions, bosons, pauli exclusion and gravity appearing there. ...


1

The statistical concept of random (lack of pattern, unpredictability) does not make any distinction between truly random (unintentional) and pseudo-random (intentional). The philosophical concept of random refers to the source of the value. A truly random value comes from a stochastic process that no-one controls. A pseudo-random value is deliberately ...


1

My take - based on The Question Concerning Technology - is that the turning represents the saving power found in the essence of technology. However, the paradox that Heidegger sets up is that technology is also the greatest danger. One interpretation of this is that technology, while 'bad' is also redeemable. Always keep in mind that Heidegger was raised as ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible