Question for dB

[swatcher]

Mike and Rob,

What is your take on Laplace's hypothesis? Wouldn't this be the ultimate test for science?

The French mathematician Pierre Laplace (1749-1827) had the following idea. If a "super being" knew the positions and motions of all the particles in the Universe then Newton's laws of motion could be used to predict the future or reconstruct the past exactly. The exact prediction of a future state uniquely and completely from the present is usually called determinism. Here is what Laplace said about his imaginary superbeing:

"An intellect which at any given moment knew all the forces that inanimate nature and the position of the beings that compose it, if this intellect were vast enough to submit its data to analysis, could condense into a single formula the vast movement of the greatest bodies of the universe and that of the lightest atom: for such an intellect nothing could be uncertain; and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes."

I'm looking forward to your responses.

 

[mike]

[Are you saying that a test that is unable to predict anything is still good science, simply because it's a test?

tests dont make predictions, tests yeild results
he made the prediction that if he analysed a set of data that he could predict the sucess or failure of the marriage, the tests yeild the results that that limited set of data and the conclusions he drew from it, were not a guarantee of a sucessful marriage

science is just as much about proving what is , as what isnt.
sometimes it doesnt prove something works, but rather that it doesnt.

and the results are relative, another couple using the same data might live happily ever after.
extrapolate to a hundred couples and the results might have more relevance, expand to a 1000 couples and the results change again, perhaps a trend appears, perphaps its doesnt. the results will be the results.

our scientist simply used bad data and thus arrived at an unexpected result. had he known then, what he did when he got divorced, had that snippet of data been available to his original equation he would not have married her.

its still good science prediction ,test ,result.

further i submit that the "reason" they split and she got half the money didnt factor in his original equation. if it had, he would never had married her in the first place.

all the experiment proves is that he missed an important factor in his original equation.
a factor he will no doubt give considerably more attention too should he contemplate marriage a second time

he will have "closed the gap" based on what hes learned from experience

thats just good science

 

[Rick Deckard]

its still good science prediction ,test ,result.

So, how do we apply that to the UFO question? Let's take the prediction that some UFOs are ET craft. Now, please explain how I test that prediction?

 

[mike]

its still good science prediction ,test ,result.

So, how do we apply that to the UFO question? Let's take the prediction that some UFOs are ET craft. Now, please explain how I test that prediction?

again the answer is in the jargon, the expression "Little Green Man"
doesnt convey much data as a label

whereas the following does.

one description is closer to describing the reality than the other

assuming we did get our hands on an "apparent alien creature" this is just one of many process that could be applied in order to further our body of knowledge in regards to the nature of this specimen

 

[Rick Deckard]

again the answer is in the jargon, the expression "Little Green Man" doesnt convey much data as a label
...
...
assuming we did get our hands on an "apparent alien creature" this is just one of many process that could be applied in order to further our body of knowledge in regards to the nature of this specimen

That's a fine answer, Mike.

Now, have you got an answer to the question I asked?

 

[BrandonD]

tests dont make predictions, tests yeild results

Yes, tests yield results. They yield results in order to make accurate predictions.

our scientist simply used bad data and thus arrived at an unexpected result. had he known then, what he did when he got divorced, had that snippet of data been available to his original equation he would not have married her.

further i submit that the "reason" they split and she got half the money didnt factor in his original equation. if it had, he would never had married her in the first place.

Yes, if could get in his delorean and go into the future he would not have married her. But we cannot see the future. Thus we have science. Which is also why the successful test of science is the *ability to predict*. Which ties back to my original point.

One example out of a hundred trillion: He decides to marry her, and the wedding chapel catches fire and they both die.

Would've been better not to marry her, eh? So perhaps if he had factored in the "fire factor" he would've gotten the correct results and decided not to marry her?

Another example for the UK readers: He decides to marry her, and then discovers she is his sister. Would've been better not to consummate that particular relationship eh? Perhaps he should've factored in the "incest factor".

What I'm saying is that there is just no possible way to predict the outcome of this situation with the human brain. There is no "missing factor" that he forgot to take into consideration. Thus it is a worldly phenomenon outside the realm of science. That is my opinion.

 

[Rob]

Mike and Rob,

What is your take on Laplace's hypothesis? Wouldn't this be the ultimate test for science?

The French mathematician Pierre Laplace (1749-1827) had the following idea. If a "super being" knew the positions and motions of all the particles in the Universe then Newton's laws of motion could be used to predict the future or reconstruct the past exactly. The exact prediction of a future state uniquely and completely from the present is usually called determinism. Here is what Laplace said about his imaginary superbeing:

"An intellect which at any given moment knew all the forces that inanimate nature and the position of the beings that compose it, if this intellect were vast enough to submit its data to analysis, could condense into a single formula the vast movement of the greatest bodies of the universe and that of the lightest atom: for such an intellect nothing could be uncertain; and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes."

I'm looking forward to your responses.

Sure, I don't see why you couldn't say it would be the ultimate test for science, but even if it were realisable, Monday mornings will still be horrible...

It was proposed by Laplace as a thought experiment, a way of thinking about and possibly understanding the universe based on his philosophical convictions (largely determinism, like you mentioned) and not an actual empirical test.

I don't really having anything to say about it that hasn't already been said elsewhere. A good summary of "Laplace's demon" is found at this wikipedia page. It goes into the testable limits of the theory as a science experiment, but also it's philosophical consequences which are highly interesting.

My own thoughts are that it will continue to be inescapable to know if the Totality (in the sense of everything - the universe, multiverse, infinity) is distinguisable from the invention of an imaginary being. Who made the being, etc?

 

[dorkbot]

I thought I would just briefly interject with a pointer over to my last post on the suggested guests thread. Denzler's book seems like it is directly relevant to the direction this thread has gone. Chapter 3 is available online.

 

[mike]

That's a fine answer, Mike.

Now, have you got an answer to the question I asked?

sigh, ok

pop hiss crackle.......que the darth vader theme

its the year 2208, the fleet of space shuttles has evolved into a fleet of super star destroyers. Mankind now dominates the galaxy in exactly the same way he did his micro envirnonment pre FTL (faster than light) space travel. (reverse imaginered from the roswel craft)

as he did on earth he has risen to the top of the foodchain as the supreme predator.

"best predictor of future behavior is past behavior"
Dr Phil

the homeworlds of the greys are now subject to the Empire.

metalurgy and atomic analysis have confirmed that the roswell craft was made of metal found only on worlds inhabited by these creatures
further manufacturing facilities and plans/programs/templates matching the roswel craft are identified.
a check of the catalogue of the other 1,435,345 species in this galaxy finds no other such matchs exist
further an interface with the creatures machine databases confirms they did indeed visit our planet in its pre FTL days and administer anal probes.

this is duly noted in the Empires records before oppenheimer class planet busters are launched and the planets destroyed.

final library edit: update star charts in sector 33.336 -vgh63gf (new astroid fields)

 

[Rick Deckard]

its the year 2208, the fleet of space shuttles has evolved into a fleet of super star destroyers. Mankind now dominates the galaxy in exactly the same way he did his micro envirnonment pre FTL (faster than light) space travel. (reverse imaginered from the roswel craft)
...

So, you're saying that UFOs ARE extra-terrestrial craft and it's only a matter of time before one falls into the scientist's lap for them to examine. Until that time, science is helpless to get any nearer the 'truth'. Therefore, what you are saying is that if we never get our hands on one, then science will not be able to get us any closer to the truth about their nature.

That sounds more like the argument I was making than your original statement about your confidence in science.

 

[mike]

[ Until that time, science is helpless to get any nearer the 'truth'.

why should that be, this is the premise of my argument.

that the jargon of science is still evolving, if it could answer the question for you today it would.

its very very much about time and focus.

the internet is less than 50 years old. michelangelo was a graverobber, the science of the human body is only a few hundred years old.
complex questions require complex answers/jargon and that takes time to formulate.

my confidence is in the emperical process itself not any specific branch of science

the following should clear it up for you
http://www.stat.wmich.edu/s160/book/node40.html

or this one
http://www.stat.wmich.edu/s160/book/node36.html

julius sumner miller would have been proud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Sumner_Miller

 

[Rick Deckard]

why should that be, this is the premise of my argument.

that the jargon of science is still evolving, if it could answer the question for you today it would.

its very very much about time and focus.

the internet is less than 50 years old. michelangelo was a graverobber, the science of the human body is only a few hundred years old.
complex questions require complex answers/jargon and that takes time to formulate.

my confidence is in the emperical process itself not any specific branch of science

That's the most concise answer that you have given on this topic and is much appreciated. Thanks.

the following should clear it up for you
http://www.stat.wmich.edu/s160/book/node40.html

or this one
http://www.stat.wmich.edu/s160/book/node36.html

julius sumner miller would have been proud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Sumner_Miller

Arghhh - I'd have to go back nearly 20 years and dig out my maths books to even begin to comprehend all that 'shorthand' - so no, that didn't clear anything up at all.

Care to go it through it, step-by-step? I'll understand - if you don't..

(How did I ever manage to think on my own - what I need, is a set of rules to tell me how to think...)