What this reveals is that ALL our causal inferences could be coincidences. That means causality, as we perceive it, could simply be nothing more than a coincidence. We can't know for sure. — TheMadFool
So you are saying that every time I reach for a cup and actually get hold of a cup is just a coincidence? — Rich
So you consider ignoring your everyday experience as an approach to discovering the "truth"? — Rich
If the coin is loaded — TheMadFool
I've never heard of a loaded coin. — Michael Ossipoff
If the weight of the coin were to be unevenly distributed that would be a loaded coin. — TheMadFool
No, it does not mean that.What this reveals is that ALL our causal inferences could be coincidences. That means causality, as we perceive it, could simply be nothing more than a coincidence. We can't know for sure. — TheMadFool
However, there is no necessity that the coin will NOT show heads throughout a series of a million flips. The only thing is such events are highly improbable.
But improbable is NOT impossible.
That means all our inferences of causality (not a coincidence) are actually cases that are highly improbable. We can't say for sure that a causal event is NOT a coincidence. A series of a million heads in a row is improbable, yes, but could be a coincidence. — TheMadFool
You move here from a million heads being 'highly improbable', to 'not impossible', to 'all' inferences being 'highly improbable'. That's a magic trick. — mcdoodle
No, it does not mean that. — Uneducated Pleb
The laconic version is better, thank you. I presented a poor argument for a contradiction using the square.The contradiction of 1 is
5) some causal inferences are not coincidences.
5 can't be proven. My argument demonstrates that. — TheMadFool
I can agree with some inference as coincidence and some as mechanism. A one-off result is different than repeated results. Even if we state we still don't "know" after thousands of trials, that is not the same level of ignorance inherent in the first trial. (I refer back to the 1.9999... vs. 2.0 distinction)What this reveals is that ALL our causal inferences could be coincidences. That means causality, as we perceive it, could simply be nothing more than a coincidence. We can't know for sure. — TheMadFool
Does it? Or does it actually give the tools to doubt any paradigm that supplies "causal inferences" with 100% accuracy?This matters to me because it puts in doubt the current paradigm of scientific knowledge. — TheMadFool
How is that success measured for science?Science has been used to undermine religion by always insisting on naturalistic explanations of events and succeeding in this endeavor. — TheMadFool
An argument is not "sound science", it is a only an argument - a hypothesis, correct? The results of "sound science" performed with the hypothesis would include both physical and mathematical investigation backed with repeated trials and have results that cohere with each other.However, if my argument is sound science, its entire content, could simply be a coincidence - highly improbable BUT not impossible. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.