Jump to content
Islamic Forum

Why I Reverted To Islam

Recommended Posts

Now you dismiss Bury's book as if everything it says is false. Arrogance again. Fanciful nonsense? You should look at the history of science and see how long on the one hand 'fanciful nonsense' lasted in the mind of scientists as well as what seemed like 'fanciful nonsense' turned out to be correct. That's your trouble, you think it's easy to decide.


You need to take to heart what Descartes said way back in 1683 "But so soon as I had achieved the entire course of study at the close of which one is usually received into the ranks of the learned, I entirely changed my opinion. For I found myself embarrassed with so many doubts and errors that it seemed to me that the effort to instruct myself had no effect other than the increasing discovery of my own ignorance.


We do not and cannot have perfect knowledge of any system, it's impossible and we know it is. Surely you know this and why it is so? Have you heard of Gödel's incompleteness theorem?


Everything in the Quantum world is based on probabilities. As Duncan Watts says in his book 'Everything is Obvious' predictions about complex systems are highly subject to the law of diminishing returns: The first pieces of information help a lot, but very quickly you exhaust whatever potential for improvement exists so it's you that does not understand the 'depth' but are deluding yourself that certainty is possible.


There is no adequate definition of random traditional or otherwise, is it not obvious that if you can define random it ceases to be random? Interesting your comment on Black Swan events, but tell me, would they be preventable with more data, well that's your view is it not?


Funny you mentioning calculus because you're essentially talking about events that lead to X/0 or places we have no idea what's going on.


Let me know if you still don't get it. It really far from simple.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not dismissed his book 'as if everything it says is false'. Go easy on the hyperbole.

There are some wonderful things in there, but with regards to our particular discussion

his ideas on the matter were already being proven faulty, elsewhere, at the time.


Gödel's incompleteness theorem does not apply to a system of this kind... You are mistaken.

A physician compounds further axioms to counter such discrepancies in real world scenarios.

'Surely you know this and why it is so?'


Never heard of Duncan Watts, but I'll have a look.


Everything (period) is based on probabilities.

Our ability to understand the cause of an event, improves the chances of our survival.

Which is to say that the 'random' associated with any given action, is reduced.


Random DOES cease to be random once defined. That is the point.

I can select a marble at random (ignoring all data) or I can take one based on all available data.

'Random' only exists when we are not looking at the pattern. Deliberately or otherwise.


'Only that thing is free which exists by the necessities of its own nature, and is determined in its actions by itself alone'.
Baruch Spinoza (critic of Descartes).

You might be tangled-up within your own misunderstandings here, especially with regards Black Swan events.

Please read more into this, I'm sure you wouldn't be asking me half these questions otherwise...


The Igon Value Problem describes:

Error/s in communication and/or comprehension attributed to the lack of pertinent knowledge on a topic.


It is not simple. It is very difficult.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

It always seemed to me that Bury has more to say about freedom than free will. But tell me what other books have you looked at?


What kind of system are you thinking about? If it's a physical system then in principle it could be described mathematically so please explain? Incidentally, I simply noted the theorem so it's hard to see in what sense I was 'mistaken' my intention was to show that some things cannot be proved to be true/false or even proven.


Not quite sure why you mentioned 'physician' but in any case one can only add consistent axioms into some minimum set.


Of course it is true that in general knowing more improves our chances of systems being predictable but we cannot always know the causes of failure only sometime a guess.


You seem to have created a paradox. You have or seem to have defined random as not looking for a pattern presumably in the sense that if one can't see a pattern it must be random? This looks circular to me.


I'm not sure I'm asking question only making comments on the impossibility of your certainty. You seem a little muddled since I did not describe Black Swan events simply pointed to the fact that uncertainty exists and can lead to catastrophic events


I take it you mention the Igon value problem to point out you are an expert and I am not? Fine, I'll pretend inferiority and encourage your arrogance for arrogance is the camouflage of insecurity. (I expect you know who said these two things).

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is growing rather tedious, Tanker.


I could probably teach you how to play the guitar or learn some Japanese,

but teaching you physics is likely to be a 10 year endeavour.

I haven't learned what I have, from Youtube videos and public forums. It was hard laborious work!


In a nutshell, Godels theorem applies to theoretical physics and not experimental.


A 'guess' is nothing but a step into the unknown. An admittance of ignorance.


A paradox can be posited but never created.

If no knowledge of the marbles is available or requested, the more random the outcome is said to be.

If you are ignorant of a thing and it's properties, how can the output be anything other than random?


If we were to find a completely new substance, we could say that until we establish something as consistent within it,

all data collected was nonsense, random, junk etc.


Deliberately going out of one's way to achieve 'random' is a completely different sort of random. I hope you can see the difference.


'...simply pointed to the fact that uncertainty exists and can lead to catastrophic events'.

Then you need not of said a thing, as this is obvious to us all.


I like Steven Pinker. It was he who coined the name of this problem.

Trying to teach you physics will naturally produce this effect (and I'm not even an expert).


Don't be ashamed of your ignorance and keep lashing out!

That last sentence is a bit immature. And I can't help but read it with the voice of a 16 year old adolescent inside my head.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't we have a proper discussion?


How about we start by you commenting on the truth or otherwise of the statement that the more we know only serves to widen our circle of ignorance.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm struggling, Tanker.


I'm guessing you don't see it.

But that question has very little specificity;

The language is muddy and unclear & is no basis for a 'proper discussion'.


The numerical value of our ignorance was once equal to 100%

Where 100% is equal to all the information it is possible to know.

Do you think that this percentage has increased or decreased?


Discovering new things will highlight the direction in which we should point our gadgets...

But does the number of things we are ignorant of, actually increase?


Please be more specific.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now