The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.

New answers tagged

-1

True knowledge is identical with its object and all other knowledge is questionable. I believe this was known to Aristotle but have never found a definitive quote. It is a matter of logic. If there is a distance or distinction between knower and known then doubt is always possible as to what is known.


1

The basic problem with the OP is that the first numberic value of 98 percent or whatever already takes into account all possible assumptions. I am not saying the number is correct or whether arriving at any such value is even possible. But if it is at all possible. It has to be done in the first step itself. There is no need or possibility for further ...


1

The interpretation of QM via act and potency is most promising so far. You can check the book: Aristotle's revenge by Edward Feser. It is a good book that defends Aristotelian notions of act and potency, but it correctly shows that they are necessary presuppositions for modern science. Pretty much, QM is a viewpoint of reality where you look almost ...


0

Yes, there is some interesting things being written in this direction. I would recommend Dr. Wolfgang Smith as a reference, but there is some mistakes and clarification that are needed in this approach. The first thing is an ontological distinction between the physical world and our world, and the distinction between the mathematical description and the ...


0

I am not sure that Bayesian probability can be applied to events that differ in nature. If John Smith says, "it is going to rain tomorrow", and it rains, then the probability that he will succeed in previewing weather next time will raise, but I don't think it affects positively the probability of any other predictions by Mr. Smith not in the field of ...


2

Probability is something that must be considered at a specific point in time, otherwise it would have no purpose. Considering this Universe is based on duality, of balance of energy (because it otherwise could not maintain its integrity), it can be safely said that the default probability for something unknown is 50%. Therefore, just not know the ...


2

Your setup and experiment are analogous to the following more general scenario: Suppose you want to provide evidence for the claim that all As are Bs. To do so, you design an experiment that only ever looks at Bs, and willfully ignores anything that isn't a B. If you find a B that isn't an A, no big deal; this doesn't contradict your hypothesis that all As ...


0

What is the justification for the claim that observing something that is neither a raven nor black increases the likelihood that all ravens are black? This isn't a formal answer, but it might help understand the reasoning behind the apparent paradox. Suppose you have a box that contains N birds, R of which are ravens, and B of which are black. You don't ...


0

The question is given a positive, odd integer n can we check two things n is a raven number based on some effective method run by a machine n + 1 is a black number based on another effective method run by a machine and then claim, based on empirical testing of positive, odd integers up to 10 decimal digits, that the following is true for every positive, ...


1

In short, propensities are, precisely, the quantum mechanical probabilities. In a classical, deterministic, world we set up approximations to the ideal of a repeatable experiment being understood that each experimental run differs from the others in small mechanical variations. In a classical context propensities are thus extracted from the deterministic ...


0

Classical physics is not the limit of quantum mechanics in which Planck's constant tends to zero. Classical behaviour, lack of quantum interference and entanglement, is a result of interactions that copy information out of a system: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0306072 There are quantities that can be calculated to tell whether quantum interference and ...


0

As noted in the comments, tracking the real sources of randomness is controversial, and depends on metaphysical views about determinism. As we are ignorant of the "true metaphysics", one could say that our world itself is (for now) just such a system. Instead, I'll give a mathematical example. An accessible exposition of the related issues is a recent survey ...


Top 50 recent answers are included