Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 12-23-2005, 01:55 AM
maurile maurile is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 95
Default Re: probability question (pertaining to SM+P)

[ QUOTE ]
Question: why do we assume that the future will resemble the past?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because our brains have been wired to do so by natural selection.

In the past, the future has generally resembled the past. So the assumption that the future resembles the past has served our ancestors better than did the opposite view.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-23-2005, 01:57 AM
maurile maurile is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 95
Default Re: probability question (pertaining to SM+P)

[ QUOTE ]
Answer: Because it always has.

[/ QUOTE ]
Strictly speaking, of course, that is circular logic. That is the problem of induction. But circular shmircular, it works.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-23-2005, 01:04 PM
peritonlogon peritonlogon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 120
Default Re: probability question (pertaining to SM+P)

Hume thinks that
[ QUOTE ]

We form habits in our mind that constantly

[/ QUOTE ] ascribe [ QUOTE ]
cause and effect

[/ QUOTE ] to perceptions [ QUOTE ]
and for this reason, the relationship is

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
only a construct in our mind.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hume most certainly questioned cause and effect and determined that it was a human construct. As to whether or not he opined that the construct might be have a parallel in the phenomena, the hypothetical causes of our perceptions, he remained pretty silent.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-23-2005, 01:07 PM
peritonlogon peritonlogon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 120
Default Re: probability question (pertaining to SM+P)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hume is right; Kant is practical.

[/ QUOTE ] I disagree. Both make sense. We can't know which one, if any, is right.

edit: Oh my, did that statement make me look stupid. What I meant to say was: We don't know which one, if any, is right.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is demonstrable proof that Kant is wrong.... ie, NonEuclidean Geometry and Special Relativity.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.