- Thank you received: 0
Meta Model and theory "patching"
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
18 years 11 months ago #16988
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
For anyone that has read the book and didn't see the first three chapters in this light, I urge you to read it again.
FWIW, the first time I read the book I didn't pick up on this point. After following TVF through a few years of on-line discussion with main stream physicists such as Steve Carlip I began to suspect I had missed an important point. It was an eye-opener, to say the least.
I hope this helps,
LB
FWIW, the first time I read the book I didn't pick up on this point. After following TVF through a few years of on-line discussion with main stream physicists such as Steve Carlip I began to suspect I had missed an important point. It was an eye-opener, to say the least.
I hope this helps,
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 11 months ago #17107
by EBTX
Replied by EBTX on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In deductive logic you begin with a set of assumptions (postulates) and reason forward to whatever they require.
With inductive logic you start with a current observation and reason backwards, trying to guess what might have resulted in the observed phenominon. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
"In deductive logic you begin with a set of assumptions ..."
Why? What is your purpose? Are you trying to explain something? What?
Answer: the observed phenomena
How did you obtain the "set of assumptions".
Answer: by induction
"With inductive logic you start with a current observation ..."
And then deduce from it ... and if it doesn't work out ... you try again ... and again ... and again.
You can't do induction or deduction by itself. They go together like the front and back of the same door. They are inseparable. What your statement really comes down to is "You begin with a set of assumptions and get all correct answers because you guessed right in the first place", i.e. deduction is when you only have to do induction ... just once. Dream on ... ;o)
The real bone of contention is ...
What theory explains the mostest with the leastest ?
With inductive logic you start with a current observation and reason backwards, trying to guess what might have resulted in the observed phenominon. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
"In deductive logic you begin with a set of assumptions ..."
Why? What is your purpose? Are you trying to explain something? What?
Answer: the observed phenomena
How did you obtain the "set of assumptions".
Answer: by induction
"With inductive logic you start with a current observation ..."
And then deduce from it ... and if it doesn't work out ... you try again ... and again ... and again.
You can't do induction or deduction by itself. They go together like the front and back of the same door. They are inseparable. What your statement really comes down to is "You begin with a set of assumptions and get all correct answers because you guessed right in the first place", i.e. deduction is when you only have to do induction ... just once. Dream on ... ;o)
The real bone of contention is ...
What theory explains the mostest with the leastest ?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 11 months ago #17109
by Tommy
EBTX makes a point. Thanks Larry, for this explanation. I want to repeat it...
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In deductive logic you begin with a set of assumptions (postulates) and reason forward to whatever they require. Mostly this leads to things that don't match reality, at which point you abandon the reasoning and start over with a new set of assumnptions.
With inductive logic you start with a current observation and reason backwards, trying to guess what might have resulted in the observed phenominon. It is fairly easy to come up with a reasonable answer using this approach, and that is its primary weakness. It is so easy to find an answer that if you don't stop with the first one you think of, you can find another. And another, and so on.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
If the two were looked at as if they formed a system, then each would be like opposite sides of a coin. And if they are a system, then there is a relationship between them. Emergence is a primary characteristic of a system, imposes constraints on how and when we begin our logic. For example, if sub-elements form emergent wholes having unforsen properties, it would be impossible to reason using inductive logic, and expect to come up with the right answer. With deductive logic, the emergent wholes are seen as natural consequences.
Biologist/systemist Bertalanffy thought of the search for knowledge as an inquiry, and he proposed that the study be found first in the philosophy, and then the science and tehn the techology. This has been accepted by the ISSS Primer group, and adapted to include Praxis as the fourth domain. The process is recursive, in that the fundamental begins with philosophy, and ends with action, knowledge of the action is fed back to the beginning adjusting ti to produce the desired outcome. It goes from the general to the specific to the methodology to the application. These can be integrated as knowledge and being. And those could integrate as Becoming.
As far as deductive and inductive, which my mind wants to reverse, I can see a problem in the logic. Granting emergents, and likening these emergents to "bridge crossings, I can see where deductive reasoning would not be able to tell where a bridge crossing was to be made. Whereas with inductive reasoning, the bridge crossing are obvious when they are come upon.
So maybe we need deduction to set the goal and induction to find the way to the goal. To use deduction for both goal and means is a conflict of interest.
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
EBTX makes a point. Thanks Larry, for this explanation. I want to repeat it...
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In deductive logic you begin with a set of assumptions (postulates) and reason forward to whatever they require. Mostly this leads to things that don't match reality, at which point you abandon the reasoning and start over with a new set of assumnptions.
With inductive logic you start with a current observation and reason backwards, trying to guess what might have resulted in the observed phenominon. It is fairly easy to come up with a reasonable answer using this approach, and that is its primary weakness. It is so easy to find an answer that if you don't stop with the first one you think of, you can find another. And another, and so on.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
If the two were looked at as if they formed a system, then each would be like opposite sides of a coin. And if they are a system, then there is a relationship between them. Emergence is a primary characteristic of a system, imposes constraints on how and when we begin our logic. For example, if sub-elements form emergent wholes having unforsen properties, it would be impossible to reason using inductive logic, and expect to come up with the right answer. With deductive logic, the emergent wholes are seen as natural consequences.
Biologist/systemist Bertalanffy thought of the search for knowledge as an inquiry, and he proposed that the study be found first in the philosophy, and then the science and tehn the techology. This has been accepted by the ISSS Primer group, and adapted to include Praxis as the fourth domain. The process is recursive, in that the fundamental begins with philosophy, and ends with action, knowledge of the action is fed back to the beginning adjusting ti to produce the desired outcome. It goes from the general to the specific to the methodology to the application. These can be integrated as knowledge and being. And those could integrate as Becoming.
As far as deductive and inductive, which my mind wants to reverse, I can see a problem in the logic. Granting emergents, and likening these emergents to "bridge crossings, I can see where deductive reasoning would not be able to tell where a bridge crossing was to be made. Whereas with inductive reasoning, the bridge crossing are obvious when they are come upon.
So maybe we need deduction to set the goal and induction to find the way to the goal. To use deduction for both goal and means is a conflict of interest.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 10 months ago #14824
by Dangus
Replied by Dangus on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If you do not know all the operative forces, no theory will be successful in explaining the trajectory. At best, you can simply model the trajectory with epicycles, for whatever that is worth<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Though the shortest of your answers, this one I think sums up the main point of my original post. That's what I worry about most, is the difficulty in tracing the operative forces involved in a certain event. I would agree that deductive reasoning is absolutely the right way to go(though I think it should work hand-in-hand with some inductive reasoning), but in some cases, actually being able to find the evidence is hard, and maybe not possible at all. I do think within our own solar system, we do have at least most of the evidence, if we can find it, to support EPH and much of Meta Model. I won't claim to totally understand the theories in every detail, but from a purely intuitive sense, Meta Model seems to make a lot more sense than more "conventional" models, and I think deduction is at the core of that, because I am going to guess deduction is a big part of intuitive logic.
"Regret can only change the future" -Me
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." Frank Herbert, Dune 1965
Though the shortest of your answers, this one I think sums up the main point of my original post. That's what I worry about most, is the difficulty in tracing the operative forces involved in a certain event. I would agree that deductive reasoning is absolutely the right way to go(though I think it should work hand-in-hand with some inductive reasoning), but in some cases, actually being able to find the evidence is hard, and maybe not possible at all. I do think within our own solar system, we do have at least most of the evidence, if we can find it, to support EPH and much of Meta Model. I won't claim to totally understand the theories in every detail, but from a purely intuitive sense, Meta Model seems to make a lot more sense than more "conventional" models, and I think deduction is at the core of that, because I am going to guess deduction is a big part of intuitive logic.
"Regret can only change the future" -Me
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." Frank Herbert, Dune 1965
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 10 months ago #14825
by Dangus
Replied by Dangus on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In general, I get the impression that you eschew induction in favor of deduction? Philosophically speaking, is it your opinion that deduction is an intellectually cleaner or nobler feat than induction?
Would you say that denigrating others, who have "induced" starting points for the universe other than what you have arrived at, is "psychologically defensive" rather than scientific? I get that impression at times. It's to be expected since you are denigrated yourself in many quarters. I think your model is wrong on many counts ... but I commend you for it. It's truly different ... and ... I accept that it might prove out to be correct after all. I may be the one in the wrong, else I wouldn't bother to post here.
It would be helpful to the Meta Model if you would reveal some bad starting points that helped you to narrow down the alternatives to
No creation ex nihilo
and
No action without proximate antecedent cause
In my experience, I find no confidence in the above at all. They may be true ... or false ... or the matter may be unknowable (though that course would lead necessarily to inaction and so is not pursued).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I do agree that sometimes Tom can come off a bit.... defensive? However, I think he's in kind of an unfortunate position. In the field of science, dogma should be secondary to observation and exploration, but that obviously is not the case. So, unfortunately, if he gives an inch, his critics take a light year. His entire line of work is under heavy attack by people who literally become enraged at the very suggestion there may be mistakes in commonly held assumptions. In some cases, I have seen, and experienced physical and verbal threats over this. My ex-girlfriend, for example, tried to run me over with her truck because we got in a bad fight over the EPH and Meta Model. People are attached to the standard line like a religion. If left alone in this fight, I think there would be a real risk of Tom becoming quite biased and isolated, but part of the beauty of forums like this is that he's not only given assistance by others, but is given a reasonable discussion space to put his ideas to informal review by people actually willing to consider them. In many regards, while a lot of the most intensive work of Meta Model is not done here, I think this is a resource which is vital to keep Meta Model from becoming over-confident, but also untested as a popular concept.
I too would like some examples of deductive starting points which members of Meta Research have found to be incorrect though. This would really help people understand the process involved.
I would point out as well that I do not believe Tom is saying inductive logic has no purpose at all. In fact, if I recall in his book, he did state something along the lines of inductive logic being necessary in the formulation of possibilities to be explored deductively. Also, I think inductive logic can be used to cross-check deductive logic. When you hit the correct answer, they should lead to indentical results(in reverse order of course).
"Regret can only change the future" -Me
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." Frank Herbert, Dune 1965
Would you say that denigrating others, who have "induced" starting points for the universe other than what you have arrived at, is "psychologically defensive" rather than scientific? I get that impression at times. It's to be expected since you are denigrated yourself in many quarters. I think your model is wrong on many counts ... but I commend you for it. It's truly different ... and ... I accept that it might prove out to be correct after all. I may be the one in the wrong, else I wouldn't bother to post here.
It would be helpful to the Meta Model if you would reveal some bad starting points that helped you to narrow down the alternatives to
No creation ex nihilo
and
No action without proximate antecedent cause
In my experience, I find no confidence in the above at all. They may be true ... or false ... or the matter may be unknowable (though that course would lead necessarily to inaction and so is not pursued).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I do agree that sometimes Tom can come off a bit.... defensive? However, I think he's in kind of an unfortunate position. In the field of science, dogma should be secondary to observation and exploration, but that obviously is not the case. So, unfortunately, if he gives an inch, his critics take a light year. His entire line of work is under heavy attack by people who literally become enraged at the very suggestion there may be mistakes in commonly held assumptions. In some cases, I have seen, and experienced physical and verbal threats over this. My ex-girlfriend, for example, tried to run me over with her truck because we got in a bad fight over the EPH and Meta Model. People are attached to the standard line like a religion. If left alone in this fight, I think there would be a real risk of Tom becoming quite biased and isolated, but part of the beauty of forums like this is that he's not only given assistance by others, but is given a reasonable discussion space to put his ideas to informal review by people actually willing to consider them. In many regards, while a lot of the most intensive work of Meta Model is not done here, I think this is a resource which is vital to keep Meta Model from becoming over-confident, but also untested as a popular concept.
I too would like some examples of deductive starting points which members of Meta Research have found to be incorrect though. This would really help people understand the process involved.
I would point out as well that I do not believe Tom is saying inductive logic has no purpose at all. In fact, if I recall in his book, he did state something along the lines of inductive logic being necessary in the formulation of possibilities to be explored deductively. Also, I think inductive logic can be used to cross-check deductive logic. When you hit the correct answer, they should lead to indentical results(in reverse order of course).
"Regret can only change the future" -Me
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." Frank Herbert, Dune 1965
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.324 seconds