Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:43:16 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams), freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Newest Pentium bug (fatal) Message-ID: <199711121543.IAA03784@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199711120909.CAA07713@usr01.primenet.com> References: <199711120750.AAA02612@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199711120909.CAA07713@usr01.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > Simpler != correct.
> > >
> > > We've been here. Simpler == provisionally correct in the absence of
> > > empirical evidence to the contrarary.
> >
> > We've been here, but I don't agree to your 'waving of the hands' that
> > claims it's provisionally correct.
>
> It's a definition for a rule set called the "scientific method".
No, it's not. Again, waving your hands and making bogus claims don't
make it true.
> > But, the environment is similar enough that in many cases their siblings
> > are more alike in certain behaviors to one twin than the two are alike.
>
> I don't accept this statement without empirical evidence to back it;
> can you point to the studies that back this up?
I know the girls personally. I went to 5 years of college with them,
and also know their brother quite well. (*sigh*, I wanted to marry one
of them, but alas she didn't feel the same way about me....)
> > Hence, you cannot model human behavior since it essentially a
> > chaotic system. But, even completely chaotic systems exhibit some
> > 'patterns', which makes is down-right frustrating when you start
> > to rely on those patterns, or make the assumptions that those
> > patterns are adequate to fully model the behavior and fall on
> > your face. :) :)
>
> When is the last time you saw an insurance company go bankrupt?
> The insurance industry relies on actuarial tables. These tables
> predict with a high degree of accuracy what will occur within a
> large population. They model a chaotic system that exhibits
> patterns, and they do not "fall on their face" as a result.
Actually, in some cases they 'do'. But, they are big enough to swallow
the losses, cancel the policies for everyone in that area and move
onto greener pastures. And, they're not relying on random human
behavior here, but rather very conservative models based on very basic
built-in values, such as not wanting to die.
> > > > Yes, but you've only described a subset, not the entire thing.
> > >
> > > How do you think "proof by induction" works?
> >
> > Proof by induction assumes that the behavior of the system is the same
> > across all of the space, and it fails since the behavior and/or model we
> > know is incomplete. It works well with numbers since we've arbitrarily
> > limited the model to something simple for communication purposes.
>
> Yet we cannot observe that which we cannot observe, and therefore we
> must leave it out of our models if we want them to work at predicting
> that which we can observe.
You hit the nail on the head. You cannot accurately model that which
you can not accurately quantify. By George, I think he's got it.
Science cannot model anything that is not quantifiable, which is one of
the biggest points I've been trying to make here.
Science cannot even begin to answer all of the questions in life, and
believing it can/does leaves you in a 2-D world, with a whole other
dimension missing.
> > Should I bring in Brian Handy, who *almost* has a Ph.D in Solar
> > Physics. And, don't think I'm not willing to use/abuse his knowledge
> > and talents. :) :)
>
> Feel free. A Solar Physics person (him) is probably going to be at
> least as well versed on Cosomology as a Quantum Physics person (me),
> and we can both argue ourselves blue about the missing mass, and both
> being outside our specialties, will probably resolve nothing. Then
> we'll have to appeal to authority. Like Hawking. 8-).
A Sci-Fi writer isn't someone I would consider an authority.
> But if we fail at that, then we can take the standard cosmological
> question by the roots ("where did the universe come from") to its
> reductio ad absurdum conclusion that it's simpler to say the Universe
> has always existed (steady state or not) than that God has always
> existed.
See above. Simpler != correct.
Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711121543.IAA03784>