More on the rationality of induction

[plmqas]

Hello :) I have similar interests I think you should read about Algorithmic probability, universal induction, Kolmogorov complexity, Levin distribution and compressability.

Find "Algorithmic_probability " on scholarpedia first. problem of induction is realy interesting.

[EverettsVLOG]

this was a good response, but not all types of order can be discovered using induction... many forms of order will simply never repeat themselves so induction wouldnt help you.

[CousinoMacul]

From a perceptual perspective, how is a "non-repeating" order distinguishable from disorder?

[EverettsVLOG]

its not, i guess you were right in this vid

[sagabreaker62]

It's hard to follow you when you talk. You're sentences keep running on and you sometimes put more than two independent clauses in the body of one continuous sentence.

[malignantpoodle]

Your presentation is mostly run-on sentences. Sometimes, you are putting more than two independent clauses in the body of one continuous sentence. I must disagree with you over this practice, because it's improper. :)

[CousinoMacul]

Thank you for the advice. But I must ask how you know that the sentences were run-ons since run-ons are generally a form of improper punctuation in written language. However, I will try to be more careful in the future. :-)

[malignantpoodle]

Run-ons are typically demonstrated in the written form because it is easier to demonstrate that way, do not confuse this with the concept being exclusive to the written form.

[11110111101]

i guess the whole point of all of this is to say that your f(n)=n is no more likely to be true given your current observations (1, 2, 3, 4) than any other possible function that validly explains the current observations.

[GodlessStephen]

Counter-induction means that the answer we get from a set of data is opposite to what induction would tell us.. For example, the sun has risen every day for a million years, ergo, the sun WON'T raise tomorrow.

Anyways, I'd just argue that induction is inherent in the human psyche and that we presume it works because we have to (our brain is wired that way). Asking "why" we should use induction is like "why" we should assume that noises other people make form language..

Sorry for huge comment.

[CousinoMacul]

I completely agree with your second paragraph.

As for counter-induction, that only makes sense in a very narrow definition for induction. As I illustrated with the different formulas, anything that follows from the premises is considered induction, and in that sense, counter-induction makes no sense.

[CousinoMacul]

Also in my first video, I laid out my view of induction as making a general statement about something based on the limited information you know about it. So in the sun example, "the sun will rise tomorrow" would be a deductive prediction made from the general statement "the sun always rises" which was induced from the sun having always risen as far back as we know. In this context, the concept of counter-induction also doesn't fit. What general statement would be counter-inductive?

[GodlessStephen]

"What general statement would be counter-inductive?"

In a counter-inductive universe, we'd assume that the world was ordered in a backwards way.. An example of a general CI statement would be like: I see ashes coming from fire, so I counter-induce that ashes DON'T come from fire. I know that doesn't make sense but that's how counter-induction works.

[gklr]

"So in the sun example, "the sun will rise tomorrow" would be a deductive prediction made from the general statement "the sun always rises" which was induced from the sun having always risen as far back as we know."

Not before the earth existed it didn't. You cannot deduce anything about the future. The sun will rise tommorow is inductive, not deductive. It is an assumption. A belief. There are no truths for the future. The future doesn't exist, so there can be no deductions for it.

[EverettsVLOG]

godless stephen - are you proposing this as a solution? Lots of irrational things are hardwired into our brain: self-as-mind/dualism, free will, folk psychology etc. Doenst mean we have to believe them.

[ncompleteness]

Also, I'm not sure how far down the epistemological rabbit hole you've gone, but you might check out Wittgenstein, Kripke, Popper, Feyerabend, Nelson Goodman, and Quine.

There are so many interrelated concepts it's difficult to properly explain. If you wrestle with enough of the concepts, though, you might find that a proper understanding of values can help clear up a lot of philosophical problems. I also recommend Quine's naturalized epistemology and Jaegwon Kim's discussion of it.

[ncompleteness]

I remember wrestling with the problem of induction back when I was a philosophy student. I think you have more or less arrived at the answer if you've come to understand how parsimony and other epistemological values are not purely logical or rational but based on mortal concerns. If you're still saying it's rational relative to such concerns (e.g. time), well maybe it is, but many philosophers (not to mention non-mortals) will never be happy until you eliminate all relativity.

[CousinoMacul]

Brilliant deduction ... I mean indu... never mind. :-)

btw, what's your answer to the question in the description box? ;-P

[EverettsVLOG]

also, on the topic of the 'definition' of induction, i said before that it was very possuble to lump every possible type of predictive scheme (besides random) together as 'induction' but then instead of the 'problem of induction' you have the 'problem of chooosing among inductive methods'.

[Loreleila]

I don't go much on theories, and I haven't followed this whole discussion, so my response is ill informed as regards to the specifics, but there are always a virtually infinite number of ways one can examine anything, and it is not impossible to effect the outcome of whatever based that examination. In other words the self fulfilling prophecy may play a part, or not at all. Hmm, strangely erotic. lol

[Mjhavok]

I need to relearn my maths. Not used it in a while. Well apart from statistics. Poisson equation. Too much biology lol.

[yasumi07]

You example made sense. But how about more complex problem, such as prediction of stock price - it was $1 on Monday, increased by $1 a day till Thursday. What will be the stock price on Friday?

[EverettsVLOG]

cousino: the point of my vid is that your 'rational choice' forks into a huge number of arbitrary choices (mathematical functions), and so you can no longer figure out which one is more rational, and so you havent demonstrated rationality by your definiton. the upper left-hand corner box contains still more choices which you must resolve rationally.

none of the more complciated mathematical functions can be 'discovered' via induction, i argued.

if you add 'S', your argument probably works

[EverettsVLOG]

And, as i said in my last video, you coudl resort to a P.F. Strawson-type definition of rationality, which is exactly what your S-factor introduces.

To make sure we are on the same page, do you agree that we can know nothing about the future, regardless of whether your argument suceeds? (Know = justified true belief, but to justify the belief we need to justify induction).

im not stuck in the truth/false mindset, ive alluded to P.F. strawson and hans reichenbach who have diff views.

[EverettsVLOG]

finally i've said that strawson/Reichenbach's ideas make perfect sense as a solution, as long as we wcknowlege the limitation of the view (i.e., we cannot even know if anythign is likely to be true in the future w.r.t. our reality)

I understand the 'rationality' approach to questions, i have a soft spot for it, but its important to recognize the limitations from a true/false/deductive/probabili­tic standpoint, which is my fav. perspective to take.

[yasumi07]

If there is no free will, than we can know everything about the future, it is just a matter of collecting and analyzing the data.

[CousinoMacul]

"To make sure we are on the same page, do you agree that we can know nothing about the future, regardless of whether your argument suceeds? (Know = justified true belief, but to justify the belief we need to justify induction)."

I've said it more than once in my videos. Of course not! That's why you're NEVER going to solve the problem of induction as long as those are your standards.

[EverettsVLOG]

cousino - i remind you that they are not 'my' standards but rather the standards of the most reliable forms of human reasoning/deduction.

To redefine knowledge as rational belief would be to spit in the face of what "knowledge" MEANS. According to your outlook, we "Know" the future even though we CANNOT "Know" if the future is even probably going to be a particular way.

to say it is rational to believe in induction is fine. To say that we "know" induction will work to any degreeis false

[pyrrho314]

the critique of induction shows that it's not the "most reliable" standard... it's totally untenable!

Once you realize that there is no knowledge by those standards, and yet, we do "know" things... that is, there are ideas we know, and we can use, and which are demonstrable, and useful "as knowledge"... well we need a better definition of what that stuff actually is.

[EverettsVLOG]

pyrrho - i like what you are saying

[EverettsVLOG]

pyrrho - seems like it would simply be psyhological bias.

[CousinoMacul]

Yes, I probably should have added 's' in the first video.

[EverettsVLOG]

how do you define knowledge?

[pyrrho314]

knowledge is a category of believe we use as reliable assumptions and presumptions. We may doubt them in the long run, but in the short run, we just use them.

The test for knowledge is "can I demonstrate it"... i.e. if you "know how to make spaghetti" you demonstrate that by making some.

[EverettsVLOG]

interesting, pyrrho

[matereymate]

using believe with knowledge can be dangerous.

[CousinoMacul]

"using believe with knowledge can be dangerous."

But yet when you break it down, knowledge is merely a very strongly held belief. If you think that you "know" better, then perhaps you need to examine what in this world you actually "know" to a higher standard than strong belief. ;-)

[trick0171]

I define knowledge as truth + belief. I don't think we can ABSOLUTELY know what is true, but we can know that something has a probability or a possibility of being true given the information and context we have, and maybe even narrow things down more specifically depending on what they are. That is where induction can be utilized as a tool. It can also help determine the unlikelyness of a statement.

[CousinoMacul]

"I don't think we can ABSOLUTELY know..."

By using the adverb "absolutely" here, you are in fact conceding that there are degrees of knowledge. That however seems to be inconsistent with your definition of "truth + belief." Are you saying that you don't absolutely believe what's true, or that what is true isn't absolutely true?

[trick0171]

Your right...I somewhat explained that poorly. I meant our knowledge is limited to the TRUTH that something is probable, not the truth of the actual thing that is not a statement of probability (which is what I was confusingly calling absolute truth, but I suppose knowing the truth of something having a probability can be considered "absolute" as well). So we can only have knowledge of probabilities (belief + truth of them).

[trick0171]

...and my point was that I was somewhat agreeing with you in regards to induction as a tool to help with undersatanding those probabilities or possibilities (gaining knowledge of them)in the context of the information we have.