I feel that I am being drawn in to an enemy encampment, but: Developing a proof would be far better than choosing to rely on inference, if the goal is to develop a larger-scale understanding of a system.
Take "dark energy" as an example. Its presence is inferred from having observed that the rate of expansion of the observable universe began to accelerate relatively recently, on a cosmological time scale. In response to this, the cosmologists have inferred the existence of a mysterious energy with magical gravitational repulsive properties as a means to explain away an otherwise inexplicable observation. A much more satisfying approach will be to develop a sufficient understanding of the underlying physics of our universe from which a rigorous proof of the phenomenon could be derived. But, without that understanding, we are left with cosmological "magic dust", instead of a real understanding of the observed dynamics. --Doug On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Nicholas Thompson < nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Interesting. How did you arrive at that conclusion?**** > > ** ** > > *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On > Behalf Of *Douglas Roberts > *Sent:* Saturday, March 24, 2012 2:38 PM > > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way**** > > ** ** > > So, NIck: after an hour long mountain bike ride to reflect upon > induction, as the practice of inferring generalities from specifics, I'd > have to conclude that it was overrated. In my opinion, of course. Aside > from giving philosophers something to endlessly discuss, it'd say the > practice is just a non-mathematical way of playing the odds. **** > > ** ** > > --Doug**** > > On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Douglas Roberts <d...@parrot-farm.net> > wrote:**** > > Nope, didn't get that one, Nick. I'll get right on this...**** > > ** ** > > On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Nicholas Thompson < > nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:**** > > Doug, **** > > **** > > I sent this response at 9.39. did you not get it. I think the server > throws away one in five of my messages, just for fun. **** > > **** > > *From:* Nicholas Thompson [mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net] > *Sent:* Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:39 AM**** > > > *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'**** > > *Subject:* RE: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way**** > > **** > > Of course. Sorry. **** > > **** > > Inductive reasoning consists of inferring general principles or rules from > specific facts. **** > > **** > > Nick **** > > **** > > *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On > Behalf Of *Douglas Roberts > *Sent:* Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:18 AM**** > > > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way**** > > **** > > I'll be happy, perhaps even thrilled to share my thoughts on induction, > Nick. First, however, we need to narrow the question down to be a bit more > specific. The word *induction* has many applications and connotations. > Here are a few:**** > > **** > > In *biology and chemistry*:**** > > § Inductive effect <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_effect> is > the redistribution of electron density through molecular sigma bonds**** > > § **** > > § Induction period <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_period> - the > time interval between the initial cause and the appearance of the first > measurable effect**** > > § **** > > § Regulation of gene > expression<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_gene_expression>, > a process in which a molecule (e.g. a drug) induces (i.e. initiates or > enhances) or inhibits the expression of an enzyme**** > > § **** > > § Induction (birth) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_(birth)>, > induction of childbirth**** > > § **** > > § Asymmetric induction<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_induction> is > the formation of one specific stereoisomer in the presence of a nearby > chiral center**** > > § **** > > § Inductive reasoning > aptitude<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning_aptitude>, > an aptitude or personality characteristic**** > > § **** > > § Morphogenesis <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphogenesis>**** > > § **** > > § Regulation of gene > expression<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_gene_expression> > **** > > § **** > > § Cellular > differentiation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_differentiation> > **** > > § **** > > § Enzyme induction and > inhibition<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme_induction_and_inhibition> > **** > > § **** > > In *mathematics*:**** > > § Mathematical > induction<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction>, > a method of proof in the field of mathematics**** > > § Strong induction <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_induction>, or > Complete induction, a variant of mathematical induction**** > > § Transfinite induction<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfinite_induction>, > a kind of mathematical induction**** > > § Epsilon-induction <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epsilon-induction>, a > kind of transfinite induction**** > > § Structural induction<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_induction>, > a generalization of mathematical induction**** > > § Statistical induction<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_inference>, > also known as statistical inference.**** > > § induced > representation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_representation>, > in representation theory: an operation for obtaining a representation of an > object from one of its subobjects.**** > > § Parabolic induction <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_induction>: > a method of constructing group representations of a reductive > group<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductive_group> from > representations of its parabolic > subgroups<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_subgroup> > .**** > > In *philosophy*, *logic*, and *computer science*:**** > > § Inductive reasoning <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning>, > a form of reasoning often confused with scientific reasoning**** > > § Backward induction <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_induction> in > game theory and economics**** > > § Concept learning <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept_learning> is > the induction of a concept (category) from observations**** > > In *physics*:**** > > § Electromagnetic > induction<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction> in > physics and engineering**** > > § Induction heating <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_heating>, > the process of heating an electrically conducting object**** > > § Induction cooker <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_cooker>, > which uses induction heating for cooking.**** > > § Electrostatic > induction<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_induction> in > physics**** > > § Forced induction <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_induction>, with > combustion engines, is the use of a gas compressor added to the air intake > **** > > **** > > So, you could perhaps pick which application of *induction* you are > interested in, and I will be, as I said, just tickled pink to expound on it. > **** > > **** > > --Doug**** > > **** > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Nicholas Thompson < > nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:**** > > I, too, can make an argument for the validity of induction; However, > that's > not the point. > > I wanted to hear Doug;s > > Nick**** > > > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On > Behalf**** > > Of Russell Standish > Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 11:22 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way > > When we put it in a computer, it works. My email spam filter > (spamassassin) uses a machine induction technique called Bayesian networks. > It is remarkably effective at keeping spam out, and learning, in the > process, what I consider to be spam. > > In order to persuade me that induction is invalid, you would need to > explain > why the above is not an example of induction. I have read David Deutsch's > books where takes a swinging hammer to induction. I found these to be less > than convincing. Moreover, the examples he gives of induction (and of > induction failing) seem very similar to the spamassasin example above > (which > also fails, from time-to-time, as the occasional spam gets through). I have > been on the lists Fabric of Reality and Beginning of Infinity, until I got > kicked off for the suspected crime of being a Bayesian epistemologist, > where > such discussions have taken place, with the anti-induction crowd providing > little substance other than to suggest read tomes and tomes of Popper, > which > I'm unlikely to do without a compelling reason. Surely, if induction is so > incoherent, it can be demolished effectively in 100 words or less. > > BTW - I do agree with Deutsch that conjecture and refutation is a superior > way of gaining knowledge, than what I would call induction. But it seems > that to say induction doesn't exist or doesn't work is going too far. > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:42:15PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > So, Doug, explain to me how you come to believe in the validity of > > induction? > > > > > > > > From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On > > Behalf Of Douglas Roberts > > Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 2:43 PM > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way > > > > > > > > So, for reference: a 2X intelligence delta that we have all probably > > experienced, perhaps without knowing it, would be from talking with a > > person who had an IQ of 70, followed by engaging with a person having > a140 > IQ. > > > > I will ignore quibbles about the accuracy of IQ as an intelligence > > measure for the purpose of this discussion. > > > > I suspect the less intelligent person truely believes the religious > > dogma he's been taught. No ambiguity: true belief. > > > > I've observed that the more intelligent people put part of their > > intellect to sleep when it comes to religion. They call this process > > "taking it as an article of faith" when one of the irrational elements > > of their religion is brought into the spotlight. > > > > So the question that I would have, were we all to suddenly evolve 2X > > intelligence is: to what extent would we collectively be willing to > > suspend our intelligent thought processes in order to continue to > > believe religious bullshit? > > > > Working from my phone today... > > > > -Doug > > > > Sent from Android. > > > > On Mar 23, 2012 1:58 PM, "Robert J. Cordingley" > > <rob...@cirrillian.com> > > wrote: > > > > For starters what would you consider to be good and bad - assuming you > > are still a human being, with human interests at least? It's a > > problem because I haven't premised whether you have infinite knowledge > > to go with the infinite intelligence 'cos the two together is/are > > looking like an omni-something being etc. > > > > Ok, so let's assume humans evolve collectively to be 2x or 10x more > > intelligent than now. How would society change? Would anyone vote > > for Republicans? or Democrats? Would we even have a voting system? > > Would the jails be empty? > > > > Thanks > > Robert C > > > > On 3/23/12 1:23 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: > > > > Good question about infinite intelligence. Try to even frame a > > reference for answering that one. > > > > Sent from Android. > > > > On Mar 23, 2012 12:14 PM, "Robert J. Cordingley" > > <rob...@cirrillian.com> > > wrote: > > > > I'm told many find comfort in the teachings of <insert your spiritual > > leader > > here>. I thought it odd/insightful that Joseph Cambell > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_campbell> found the same core > > message in the world's major religious teachings. I can believe moral > > atheists share the same core teachings. Then there are those from all > > persuasions that hijack a religion for their own purposes: political > > or financial power > > - they can all burn in hell! :) But hey if it works even as a social > > phenomenon, i.e. allows one to enjoy life and live longer and die in > > peace, can we knock it? > > > > Otherwise I must congratulate Father Doug in becoming a man of the > > cloth at the CotFSM <http://www.venganza.org/> and following in a > > long line of inspired spiritual teachers. I liked the bit about ' we > > are anti-crazy nonsense done in the name of religion.' (see the About > page). Noodle on. > > > > Thanks, > > Robert C > > PS What would you believe if you had infinite intelligence? R > > > > On 3/22/12 11:31 PM, Russ Abbott wrote: > > > > Doug, I don't want to pick on you, but your certificate strikes me as > > indirect bullying. > > > > > > > > I'm as atheistic as they come, but I know a number of people who (for > > reasons that I don't understand) take religion quite seriously. They > > are intelligent, pleasant people, not the sort to rub their beliefs in > > anyone's face. Most are politically left of center. One has a bumper > > sticker that reads "A proud member of the religious left". > > > > > > > > Why pick on them? I'm sure you don't intend to. I'm sure you are > > making fun of the Rick Santorums of the world. It's just that by > > casting as wide a net as the Flying Spaghetti Monster does, it also > > makes fun of everyone with religious feelings. > > > > > > > > The answer someone like Sam Harris would give is that what they say is > > either false or without any shred of objective support. But the people > > I'm thinking of don't go around proclaiming their beliefs as The > > Truth. They go about their business simply wanting to experience the > > world through a different lens. The fact that I don't understand it -- > > and I don't; I'm completely mystified by their way of thinking about > > certain things -- doesn't give me the right to ridicule it. > > > > > > > > Sorry for the rant. > > > > > > > > > > -- Russ > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Douglas Roberts > > <d...@parrot-farm.net> > > wrote: > > > > Don't want my FRIAM friends and acquaintances to be the last to know: > > > > > > > > If you feel like getting married, I can now conduct the ceremony. > > > > > > > > "With this rigatoni, I thee wed, etc." > > > > > > > > -Father Doug > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Doug Roberts > > drobe...@rti.org > > d...@parrot-farm.net > > > > http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins > > > > > > 505-455-7333 - Office > > 505-670-8195 - Cell > > > > > > >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
