|
|
Post by goz on Feb 19, 2020 20:54:35 GMT
I don't know. If you attribute scientific, philosophical and mathematical/statistical knowledge to 'common sense', then you probably are. I attribute common sense to applying past learned knowledge of scientific, philosophical and mathematical/statistical information to life. I use common sense to know I’m no scientist or mathematician, but with a proper, well rounded education and life experience, I know I can philosophize as well as anyone. How about yourself, do you employ common sense? The problem I see with 'common sense' is in the term itself. What is either or both 'common' and' sense' is in the eye of the beholder, with an much variation as human kind itself. Everyone thinks that they use common sense. The corollary is, as you say if that the quality of your common sense is proportional to both your knowledge and application of it to a problem. I put it to you that your common sense is very different to a poster like Erjenious, Cody PlanetARlon Molarmaven or any other number of different posters on here, for example. Each one of them if asked would probably say that they practice 'common sense' in their lives, just as you do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 19, 2020 21:26:32 GMT
I attribute common sense to applying past learned knowledge of scientific, philosophical and mathematical/statistical information to life. I use common sense to know I’m no scientist or mathematician, but with a proper, well rounded education and life experience, I know I can philosophize as well as anyone. How about yourself, do you employ common sense? The problem I see with 'common sense' is in the term itself. What is either or both 'common' and' sense' is in the eye of the beholder, with an much variation as human kind itself. Everyone thinks that they use common sense. The corollary is, as you say if that the quality of your common sense is proportional to both your knowledge and application of it to a problem. I put it to you that your common sense is very different to a poster like Erjenious, Cody PlanetARlon Molarmaven or any other number of different posters on here, for example. Each one of them if asked would probably say that they practice 'common sense' in their lives, just as you do. "Common sense" is just practical judgment. Like if your boat is sinking, it would be common sense to fix the hole. And if you can't swim, it would be common sense to bring a life jacket with you.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 19, 2020 21:47:35 GMT
The problem I see with 'common sense' is in the term itself. What is either or both 'common' and' sense' is in the eye of the beholder, with an much variation as human kind itself. Everyone thinks that they use common sense. The corollary is, as you say if that the quality of your common sense is proportional to both your knowledge and application of it to a problem. I put it to you that your common sense is very different to a poster like Erjenious, Cody PlanetARlon Molarmaven or any other number of different posters on here, for example. Each one of them if asked would probably say that they practice 'common sense' in their lives, just as you do. "Common sense" is just practical judgment. Like if your boat is sinking, it would be common sense to fix the hole. And if you can't swim, it would be common sense to bring a life jacket with you. In your example, it would seem to be common sense to you. Were common sense more universal, I surmise that there would be fewer drownings and boating accidents. www.statista.com/topics/1138/recreational-boating/Boating accidents in the U.S. Total damages caused by recreational boating accidents $45.9m Number of recreational boating accidents in the U.S. 4,145 Number of deaths directly linked to boating accidents in 2017 635
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 19, 2020 21:54:54 GMT
"Common sense" is just practical judgment. Like if your boat is sinking, it would be common sense to fix the hole. And if you can't swim, it would be common sense to bring a life jacket with you. In your example, it would seem to be common sense to you. Were common sense more universal, I surmise that there would be fewer drownings and boating accidents. www.statista.com/topics/1138/recreational-boating/Boating accidents in the U.S. Total damages caused by recreational boating accidents $45.9m Number of recreational boating accidents in the U.S. 4,145 Number of deaths directly linked to boating accidents in 2017 635 Not fixing the hole or bringing a life jacket with you doesn't mean that it's not common sense to fix the hole or bring a life jacket with you.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 19, 2020 22:02:26 GMT
In your example, it would seem to be common sense to you. Were common sense more universal, I surmise that there would be fewer drownings and boating accidents. www.statista.com/topics/1138/recreational-boating/Boating accidents in the U.S. Total damages caused by recreational boating accidents $45.9m Number of recreational boating accidents in the U.S. 4,145 Number of deaths directly linked to boating accidents in 2017 635Not fixing the hole or bringing a life jacket with you doesn't mean that it's not common sense to fix the hole or bring a life jacket with you. With respect, that was not my point. My point involved the fact that what is common sense to one person is NOT necessarily universal. Example in this scenario: Person has a boat and uses their 'common sense' to justify that because they are a strong swimmer, that they don't need a life jacket. A further example: There is a small hole in the boat. The pumps are working and the person is only going on the water for a few minutes to pick up a lobster pot. My point involved the fact that what is common sense to one person is NOT necessarily universal. In the above examples, the 'common sense' decision is dependant on the individual's knowledge, behaviour, personality and past experience. People who think that they have common sense can be fuckwits.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 19, 2020 22:16:07 GMT
Not fixing the hole or bringing a life jacket with you doesn't mean that it's not common sense to fix the hole or bring a life jacket with you. With respect, that was not my point. My point involved the fact that what is common sense to one person is NOT necessarily universal. Example in this scenario: Person has a boat and uses their 'common sense' to justify that because they are a strong swimmer, that they don't need a life jacket. A further example: There is a small hole in the boat. The pumps are working and the person is only going on the water for a few minutes to pick up a lobster pot. My point involved the fact that what is common sense to one person is NOT necessarily universal. In the above examples, the 'common sense' decision is dependant on the individual's knowledge, behaviour, personality and past experience. People who think that they have common sense can be fuckwits. If someone believes that fixing the hole is not a good idea, he isn't employing common sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 19, 2020 22:21:53 GMT
With respect, that was not my point. My point involved the fact that what is common sense to one person is NOT necessarily universal. Example in this scenario: Person has a boat and uses their 'common sense' to justify that because they are a strong swimmer, that they don't need a life jacket. A further example: There is a small hole in the boat. The pumps are working and the person is only going on the water for a few minutes to pick up a lobster pot. My point involved the fact that what is common sense to one person is NOT necessarily universal. In the above examples, the 'common sense' decision is dependant on the individual's knowledge, behaviour, personality and past experience. People who think that they have common sense can be fuckwits. If someone believes that fixing the hole is not a good idea, he isn't employing common sense. That is your common sense and not his.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 19, 2020 22:36:30 GMT
If someone believes that fixing the hole is not a good idea, he isn't employing common sense. That is your common sense and not his. No, it's just common sense as he'll find out when his boat sinks.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 19, 2020 22:46:47 GMT
That is your common sense and not his. No, it's just common sense as he'll find out when his boat sinks. It won't if he doesn't use it, therefore uses his common sense not to spend the money on fixing a boat he no longer intends to use. Common sense is a flexible feast and non-universal hence ascribing things to common sense is meaningless due to variation of all the things I mentioned about a person and the variety of particular circumstances that make each instance unique and not a commonality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 19, 2020 22:55:16 GMT
No, it's just common sense as he'll find out when his boat sinks. It won't if he doesn't use it, therefore uses his common sense not to spend the money on fixing a boat he no longer intends to use. Common sense is a flexible feast and non-universal hence ascribing things to common sense is meaningless due to variation of all the things I mentioned about a person and the variety of particular circumstances that make each instance unique and not a commonality. If the boat is never taken out of the garage, it won't sink no matter how many holes it may have. That is also common sense. You can call it a misnomer, but no amount of semantic shuffling is going to keep that boat afloat with a hole in its hull.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 19, 2020 23:11:12 GMT
It won't if he doesn't use it, therefore uses his common sense not to spend the money on fixing a boat he no longer intends to use. Common sense is a flexible feast and non-universal hence ascribing things to common sense is meaningless due to variation of all the things I mentioned about a person and the variety of particular circumstances that make each instance unique and not a commonality. If the boat is never taken out of the garage, it won't sink no matter how many holes it may have. That is also common sense. You can call it a misnomer, but no amount of semantic shuffling is going to keep that boat afloat with a hole in its hull. Yes, however in the application of common sense at a particular time, that piece of information is irrelevant and not universal. The relevant information is that boats with holes sink eventually without some kind of corrective measure.. What a person does with that information is at issue here. Remember how the man went out with a hole in his boat and the pumps working for only a short time? Different circumstances and considerations are taken into account by different people depending on the things that I mentioned. In the circumstances I mentioned that happened.  A man used his common sense which involved knowledge and perhaps past experience to assess his level of danger in the circumstance of a holey boat. A person without the knowledge of the size of the hole, the capacity of the pump, the proposed length of time on the water etc etc ect were specific and not universal so' common sense' saying that you don't go out in a holey boat was irreleveant. My whole point. One person's 'common sense' is another person's fuckwittery!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 19, 2020 23:17:01 GMT
If the boat is never taken out of the garage, it won't sink no matter how many holes it may have. That is also common sense. You can call it a misnomer, but no amount of semantic shuffling is going to keep that boat afloat with a hole in its hull. Yes, however in the application of common sense at a particular time, that piece of information is irrelevant and not universal. The relevant information is that boats with holes sink eventually without some kind of corrective measure.. What a person does with that information is at issue here. Remember how the man went out with a hole in his boat and the pumps working for only a short time? Different circumstances and considerations are taken into account by different people depending on the things that I mentioned. In the circumstances I mentioned that happened. A man used his common sense which involved knowledge and perhaps past experience to assess his level of danger in the circumstance of a holey boat. A person without the knowledge of the size of the hole, the capacity of the pump, the proposed length of time on the water etc etc ect were specific and not universal so' common sense' saying that you don't go out in a holey boat was irreleveant. My whole point. One person's 'common sense' is another person's fuckwittery! If you don't know what a boat is, or if you aren't aware of the hole, it's not a lack of common sense that sinks the boat.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 19, 2020 23:24:15 GMT
Yes, however in the application of common sense at a particular time, that piece of information is irrelevant and not universal. The relevant information is that boats with holes sink eventually without some kind of corrective measure.. What a person does with that information is at issue here. Remember how the man went out with a hole in his boat and the pumps working for only a short time? Different circumstances and considerations are taken into account by different people depending on the things that I mentioned. In the circumstances I mentioned that happened. A man used his common sense which involved knowledge and perhaps past experience to assess his level of danger in the circumstance of a holey boat. A person without the knowledge of the size of the hole, the capacity of the pump, the proposed length of time on the water etc etc ect were specific and not universal so' common sense' saying that you don't go out in a holey boat was irreleveant. My whole point. One person's 'common sense' is another person's fuckwittery! If you don't know what a boat is, or if you aren't aware of the hole, it's not a lack of common sense that sinks the boat. What do you think common sense is, then?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 19, 2020 23:43:37 GMT
If you don't know what a boat is, or if you aren't aware of the hole, it's not a lack of common sense that sinks the boat. What do you think common sense is, then? Practical judgment. I said it's common sense to fix the hole if you don't want your boat to sink, but if the goal is to sink the boat, it would be common sense not to fix the hole. But yes, knowledge of the hole is required. That, too, is common sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 19, 2020 23:53:00 GMT
About the Monty Hall problem, I don't know nothing about no Bayer dudes, but... 1: You pick the car, the host shows a goat, you switch, you lose. 2: You pick Goat 1, the host shows Goat 2, you switch, you win. 3: You pick Goat 2, the host shows Goat 1, you switch, you win. In 2/3 of these scenarios, you win if you switch and lose if you don't. Seems like a no-brainer to me. On the other hand, if there's another possible scenario I'm not seeing, then I'm the no-brainer in this situation and I wasn't here and you never saw me. Bayes was a statistician who invented a theorem that can solve problems like this. Your solution is basically using Bayes on an intuitive level. Another way to word your solution in a more precisely Bayesian way is: 1. If you picked the car (33% of the time), the host shows one of two (50%) goats = .33*.5 = .165 2. If you picked the goat not shown (33% of the time), the host always (100%) shows the other goat = .33*1 = .33 If you divide the second possibility (.33) by the total of both possibilities (.5), it's .67. Meaning that 2/3 of the time you've picked a goat and should switch. Shorter methods like the one you used can work for a simple problem like this, not so well when problems get more complex, but Bayes can apply to any situation where conditional reasoning/probability is used to update prior probabilities. I'd like to. Got a link? Or are you going to make me read this thread?  Here's a brief timelines of mine and Arlon's discussion: Opening salvo (I'm referencing an old discussion we had on this in a different thread): IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/3663605/threadArlon's first attempt at solving/explaining it: IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/3667349/threadMy solution using long-form Bayes: IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/3672877/threadAlso, since we're (Arlon and I) are just two random dudes on an internet forum, I've linked (several times) to Jeffrey S. Rosenthal's (professor at the Department of Statistics at Toronto University) showing the importance of Bayes to the Monty Hall problem and variations on the problem: www.probability.ca/jeff/writing/montyfall.pdf At the end of the day, you're going to walk out with either a goat or a car. Seems 50/50 to me, but then again, I'm not a statistician. That said - and I should probably respond in the appropriate thread - hairy bag A is more probable than the others, but Q2 is probably best left to, well, statisticians. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 20, 2020 1:32:00 GMT
I essentially agree about reducing/minimizing philosophy in science. That's what I like about Bayes; it's simple. I honestly don't believe anything else is needed, philosophy-wise. Hypotheses are priors, experiments/evidence are conditionals, theories are what happens when the experiments/evidence make a hypothesis overwhelmingly likely. For the Jaynes book, I must stress it's meant as a textbook on probability theory, the kind of thing you'd read in college if you were taking a course of probability. When Jaynes is using examples it's perfectly readable, but there are also parts that are quite technical. I found it easy enough to skip over the confusing/technical bits, but still follow along with most of the examples. I don't think it's a book where one must understand every single page to get the substance; understanding every page would only be necessary if one was actually planning on becoming fully educated in probability theory. I think it's mostly interesting to see how he applies the same fundamental reasoning from everything to the most technical examples in science to everyday reasoning about ordinary things. The conservation of energy is a common complaint about MW, but it's unfounded. The reason being that nothing's actually being duplicated. When particles are in a state of superpositioning, that means they're already in multiple places at once. We see this in the double-slit experiment where even firing single particles at a double-slit shows a wave-pattern of single particles interfering with themselves. All of those states--say, a particle being "spin-up" and "spin-down"--are "worlds." When we measure, we (or our measuring devices) are also in multiple states. Our multiple states entangle with the multiple states of the particles, and they decohere from each other into the rest of the environment, essentially separating. Nothing is "duplicated" or "created" in this process; it's just multiple states of multiple systems entangling and decohering. A good overview is from the physicist Sean Carroll: www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/30/why-the-many-worlds-formulation-of-quantum-mechanics-is-probably-correct/What other interpretations like Copenhagen and Bohm do is that they add stuff to QM to essentially eliminate those other states. Copenhagen adds a stochastic collapse, so that observation causes the other states to go "poof" and disappear. How? Why? Nobody knows. Bohm adds a hidden variable, a kind of "pilot-wave" that "selects" one of the "worlds" so that the other "worlds" are empty. How? Why? Nobody knows. MWI just does away with those additional assumptions. There is, however, a legitimate criticism of MWI, and Sean Carroll addresses this, and it's this: where do the probabilities come from? The Born Rule is where all the predictive power of QM comes from, it tells us probabilities are given by the wavefunction squared. In MWI it's not clear why this is so, while in Shrodinger and Bohm the probabilities are just an innate part of wavefunction. Interesting discussion indeed!  As I was thinking about the energy "problem" and the computer simulation equivalent, where multiple copies of an object or thread consume more and more computing resources, it occurred to me that a quantum computer wouldn't have this problem. It would come naturally to a quantum computer to handle a multiplicity of threads simultaneously, with no change in the load/demand on computing resources. Maybe the universe is a large quantum computer? Maybe it will be possible to start out with an assumption-less version of QM, apply some knowledge learned from quantum computing to arrive at a MW scenario. It's certainly possible. That's what physicists like David Deutsch are hoping for with the advent of quantum computing. Because of this discussion I actually had a listen to a talk Sean Carroll on the history of QM last night, and one point he made about the conservation of energy is that really there is only one universal wavefunction for everything, and when worlds "split" what's happening is that each world "slice" is getting thinner and thinner. Most of the other stuff he said I already knew, but it was still interesting. The ending Q&A was especially fun because he was asked a lot of questions where he had to say "we don't know," which gives you an idea of just how many unknowns there still are at the frontier of physics. I also liked what he said about trying to derive gravity from QM rather than trying to quantize a classical conception of gravity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Feb 20, 2020 3:23:04 GMT
I attribute common sense to applying past learned knowledge of scientific, philosophical and mathematical/statistical information to life. I use common sense to know I’m no scientist or mathematician, but with a proper, well rounded education and life experience, I know I can philosophize as well as anyone. How about yourself, do you employ common sense? The problem I see with 'common sense' is in the term itself. What is either or both 'common' and' sense' is in the eye of the beholder, with an much variation as human kind itself. Everyone thinks that they use common sense. The corollary is, as you say if that the quality of your common sense is proportional to both your knowledge and application of it to a problem. I put it to you that your common sense is very different to a poster like Erjenious, Cody PlanetARlon Molarmaven or any other number of different posters on here, for example. Each one of them if asked would probably say that they practice 'common sense' in their lives, just as you do. Common sense as the concept of a universal rationality could be just the very reasoning based on given data. So there would be varied iterations but the essence would be essentially the same as a sameness can be recognized in states of awareness that are conclusions in theoretical or practical affairs based on experienced information.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
 
|
Post by fatpaul on Feb 20, 2020 3:31:13 GMT
So you're getting thrown by a basic subjective/objective distinction? If I find your explanation complicated and define it to be such, then you made it complicated as defined by that. Those two statements mean the same thing. We can disagree about that definition of "complicated" but that's how it works since nothing is innately "complicated" without our subjective say-so. Ok, so you're merely stating my explanation is complicated via your definition yet you compared it as more complicated than your explanation defined complicated by another, along with a summary of how yours was less complicated. So the intent of your comment is to set up a comparison even though nowhere in my posts have I implicitly or explicitly stated that your posts are complicated nor mine not uncomplicated nor mine less complicated than yours and so haven't disagreed at all with your definition of complicated nor have I implied that your definition of complication is not subjective You haven't said anything specific or general about my original post that caused you to comment on it in the first place such as maybe a theory/method to facilitate translation that, when applied to my post, causes you to reason it complicated. If it wasn't anything specific or general about my original post then why comment on it in the first place? If it was then I don't understand your reluctance to state this specific or general something about my post, surely it would have been entailed in the reason why you commented in the first place and so no effort to recite. If I haven't been clear before then I'll attempt clarity now: What was specific or general about my post that caused you to comment on it? Interaction with others not being a necessity for board attendance notwithstanding, not wanting to nor indicating to leave it to others to arbitrate which post was more complicated isn't not wanting to communicate with people in general. But apologies for accusing you of those fallacies because I would never in a million years thought that the intent of your reply to me was to forward a comparison and then leave it to others to arbitrate which post was more complicated. I actually thought you was making a rational critique.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 20, 2020 4:22:20 GMT
The problem I see with 'common sense' is in the term itself. What is either or both 'common' and' sense' is in the eye of the beholder, with an much variation as human kind itself. Everyone thinks that they use common sense. The corollary is, as you say if that the quality of your common sense is proportional to both your knowledge and application of it to a problem. I put it to you that your common sense is very different to a poster like Erjenious, Cody PlanetARlon Molarmaven or any other number of different posters on here, for example. Each one of them if asked would probably say that they practice 'common sense' in their lives, just as you do. Common sense as the concept of a universal rationality could be just the very reasoning based on given data. So there would be varied iterations but the essence would be essentially the same as a sameness can be recognized in states of awareness that are conclusions in theoretical or practical affairs based on experienced information. No. Just no. IF that were the case there would be no disparate religions, no wars, no people who voted for Trump and no political parties with diametrically oppose views. Thankyou for posting the absolute antithesis of common sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Feb 20, 2020 8:08:35 GMT
Common sense as the concept of a universal rationality could be just the very reasoning based on given data. So there would be varied iterations but the essence would be essentially the same as a sameness can be recognized in states of awareness that are conclusions in theoretical or practical affairs based on experienced information. No. Just no. IF that were the case there would be no disparate religions, no wars, no people who voted for Trump and no political parties with diametrically oppose views. Thankyou for posting the absolute antithesis of common sense. I said VARIED iterations, as in not exactly the same. Obviously people have different life experiences that shape the views they have. There is a rationality to all positions though and human beings all have the faintest shape of sameness to their cognition, a common Reason.
|
|
