More on the rationality of induction

Everett,
Thank you for your video response.

I was never trying to justify as rational every decision I ever make. Only that the principle of induction (a guess based on what you know) is more rational than the alternative (a random guess).

A couple things I didn't cover in the video.

Order is where there are relationships between the elements. But since I'm looking at utility, some orderings would be classified as random from my perspective. So in the case where there isn't a direct but rather an indirect relationship between the elements I know and those I'm trying to predict, then they would fall under the random category. For example, the sequence of digits of the base of natural logarithms e could be said to be ordered since they are related via the Taylor series that generates them. But since I know of no way to backwards engineer a Taylor series from an arbitrary string of digits--perhaps Taylor does, how about it Taylor? :-)--I would count that as random.

I read up on Hume and his view of induction was pretty close to the dictionary definition. Here's how my dictionary defines induction:

1. Any form of reasoning in which the conclusion, though supported by the premises, does not follow from them necessarily.
2. The process of estimating the validity of observations of part of a class of facts as evidence for a proposition about the whole class.

My definition from my first video was a little closer to dictionary definition #2, though perfectly compatible with #1. I'm not a big fan of using the dictionary as the ultimate authority, but it seems to me that Webster, Hume and I would all agree that your infinite orderings all fall under the general umbrella of induction. So contrary to your comments, I'm not the one who's changing the definition to suit my needs.

Cheers,
~Javier

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Induction
• rational
• rationality
• 42
• everettsvlog
• cousinomacul

[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?

[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. :-)

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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).