For example, the phenomenon of water flowing downhill is essentially a
random event, the illusion caused by trillions of odd-shaped molecules
bouncing around any way they want. But somehow, water *always* flows
downhill.


Wally wrote:
The correct statement is: In every instance that we have observed, water has
flowed downhill.


I stand corrected.

But the big prize is still the same: Person A bets the farm that water
flows downhill. Person B figures it's just random motion and might go up
hill at any time... who wins?

DSK

DSK wrote:

But the big prize is still the same: Person A bets the farm that water
flows downhill. Person B figures it's just random motion and might go
up hill at any time... who wins?

Why should person B figure it's just random motion?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm
www.wally.myby.co.uk

But the big prize is still the same: Person A bets the farm that water
flows downhill. Person B figures it's just random motion and might go
up hill at any time... who wins?


Wally wrote:
Why should person B figure it's just random motion?


Because he skipped over that part of the physics lesson.

Actually, it truly is random... because our human minds are built to see
patterns where none exist, we have invented a subtle force called
"gravity" to explain why this random action always gives the same
result... so far.

DSK

DSK wrote:

Actually, it truly is random...

How can we tell if that's the case?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm
www.wally.myby.co.uk

Actually, it truly is random...


Wally wrote:
How can we tell if that's the case?


First of all, because somebody on the internet said so ;)

Then, a long time ago a man named Brown was watching paint chips dance
around under a microscope, and it occured to him that one way to explain
it would be water molecules bouncing off the paint chips in random
vectors. This explanation is of course just another example of the human
mind seeking to find patterns where none exist, but it fits nicely in
with a number of other such explanations... none of these explanations
can be proven false and together they seem to explain & predict (to a
large extent) behavior... does that make it true?

What would Aristotle say?

DSK

DSK wrote:

Then, a long time ago a man named Brown was watching paint chips dance
around under a microscope, and it occured to him that one way to
explain it would be water molecules bouncing off the paint chips in
random vectors. This explanation is of course just another example of
the human mind seeking to find patterns where none exist,

It could just as easily be an example of the human mind imposing a notion of
randomness where none exists.


... but it fits
nicely in with a number of other such explanations... none of these
explanations can be proven false and together they seem to explain &
predict (to a large extent) behavior... does that make it true?

Nope. Empirical generalisations yield no truths - unless you redefine
'truth' to fit (and are willing to deal with the notion of 'truer' truths
than the redefinition accounts for).


What would Aristotle say?

No idea.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm
www.wally.myby.co.uk

Then, a long time ago a man named Brown was watching paint chips dance
around under a microscope, and it occured to him that one way to
explain it would be water molecules bouncing off the paint chips in
random vectors. This explanation is of course just another example of
the human mind seeking to find patterns where none exist,




Wally wrote:
It could just as easily be an example of the human mind imposing a notion of
randomness where none exists.



Except that this is not the way the human mind seems to work. Other
mammals share the characteristic, too... as far as psych researchers can
determine... we all are struggling to bring order out of chaos!




... but it fits
nicely in with a number of other such explanations... none of these
explanations can be proven false and together they seem to explain &
predict (to a large extent) behavior... does that make it true?


Nope. Empirical generalisations yield no truths - unless you redefine
'truth' to fit (and are willing to deal with the notion of 'truer' truths
than the redefinition accounts for).


Sure. As you said earlier, it is only "true" to the extent that it has
been observed consistently for about 400 years. After all, just because
the sun rose in the east every morning for the last gazillion years,
does not prove that it will rise in the east tomorrow morning.



What would Aristotle say?


No idea.


Aristotlean physics was based on the very intuitive notion that heavy
things fall faster. Of course I'm not sure, but I suspect he would
consider it silly to propose that water might flow up hill and the sun
might rise in the west.

DSK

What would Aristotle say?

He'd say the various humours are phlogistinated.

William Dampier, famous Navigator

All this crap is off-topic. You guys are as bad as the meow catbox litter crowd.
It's bad enough we've got to put up with them but now you're doing the same thing
trying to ruin the group.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.cum



"DSK" wrote in message . ..
Then, a long time ago a man named Brown was watching paint chips dance
around under a microscope, and it occured to him that one way to
explain it would be water molecules bouncing off the paint chips in
random vectors. This explanation is of course just another example of
the human mind seeking to find patterns where none exist,




Wally wrote:
It could just as easily be an example of the human mind imposing a notion of
randomness where none exists.



Except that this is not the way the human mind seems to work. Other
mammals share the characteristic, too... as far as psych researchers can
determine... we all are struggling to bring order out of chaos!




... but it fits
nicely in with a number of other such explanations... none of these
explanations can be proven false and together they seem to explain &
predict (to a large extent) behavior... does that make it true?


Nope. Empirical generalisations yield no truths - unless you redefine
'truth' to fit (and are willing to deal with the notion of 'truer' truths
than the redefinition accounts for).


Sure. As you said earlier, it is only "true" to the extent that it has
been observed consistently for about 400 years. After all, just because
the sun rose in the east every morning for the last gazillion years,
does not prove that it will rise in the east tomorrow morning.



What would Aristotle say?


No idea.


Aristotlean physics was based on the very intuitive notion that heavy
things fall faster. Of course I'm not sure, but I suspect he would
consider it silly to propose that water might flow up hill and the sun
might rise in the west.

DSK