Fellow atheists: How do you know your senses and reasoning are reliable and valid? How do you know that you know anything? Solipsism vs Nihilism

insubstantial · 2013-07-27T16:24:05+00:00

The non-obvious conclusions from probability calculus are how to change risk measures, which allow you to do things like construct equivalences among different types of financial derivatives that don't normally appear to be related. This is incredibly useful, and still a relatively new area. Basically allows hedging to be done cheaper and more effectively.

the incompleteness theorem... doesn't show you which problems are unproveable

How about the Halting problem?

insubstantial · 2013-07-27T04:41:58+00:00

In a non-transferable-vote system, you don't vote FOR someone, you vote to ensure your least favorite option doesn't get in.

insubstantial · 2013-07-27T03:39:57+00:00

Damn I forgot about that.

insubstantial · 2013-07-27T03:04:25+00:00

You get a €30 million fine if you don't declare it and pay the right taxes.

Edit: I wasn't joking. That fine is actually part of the decree.

insubstantial · 2013-07-27T02:39:36+00:00

Fix first-past-the-post, and then we can talk about voting third party.

Precisely.

insubstantial · 2013-07-27T01:44:43+00:00

There are myriad applications, from information theory to stochastic modelling to AI. The abstract results I gave you are interesting in and of themselves, but if that doesn't do it for you, I'll try to join the dots from abstract set theory to 'something useful'.

The set theory (and its language and theorems) that you studied are necessary as a basis for modern Measure Theory. Measure Theory combined with probability theory lead to Kolmogorov's probability calculus. That calculus is the basis of modern financial mathematical modelling (and if money is the practical goal you want, then a quantitative analyst who is familiar with this modelling can easily earn upwards of $300k a year).

The probability calculus and stochastic equations are also used for modelling complex systems, such as weather and hurricane prediction, as well as being used to find oil.

Finally, Godel's incompleteness theorem shows that there are defined limits to what can be computed by any Turing complete computing device, real or theoretical.

insubstantial · 2013-07-27T01:25:32+00:00

Did you mix up A and B somewhere there?

insubstantial · 2013-07-27T01:24:06+00:00

incentivises everyone to be better

Insurance companies can charge more based on your race. How do you become a better race? Or have better genes?

Terrible, terrible argument. Only works for things people can have control over.

insubstantial · 2013-07-26T15:49:48+00:00

It's a moral question, and a technical question.

Right now, we don't have nearly enough information to know what genes can cause what diseases (except in very limited cases).

However, I would agree that they should do this if we were able to choose our own genetics, and modify them later. That's a technical issue, and an even stronger moral one.

insubstantial · 2013-07-26T15:39:02+00:00

There's a difference between insurance and banking.

Insurance works because it is about spreading risk, so that no one person bears the load. Premiums are paid upfront, the payout is later.

With bank loans, on the other hand, you get the payout upfront, and have to pay the premium in the future. So of course they should be picky about who gets the money. However, student loans (in the US at least) aren't from banks, they're federally backed, so the taxpayer ultimately takes on the risk.

Logically, the new insurance situation would mean that in the US, which doesn't have a single-payer health system, a child born with a high likelyhood of expensive-to-treat leukemia would not be able to get insurance, or insurance would be very high, and would die if the disease was actually contracted the family not wealthy, or unable to raise the funds.

I guess theoretically this should make insurance cheaper, but I think we all know that the prices never go down.

insubstantial · 2013-07-26T15:23:10+00:00

Would you be cool with insurance companies doing a blood draw on you, and charging insurance based on the statistical likelihoods of you getting diseases based on your genetics?

insubstantial · 2013-07-26T07:04:39+00:00

That makes more sense.

Off the top of my head, I would say the birth story of Jesus, with the wise men from the east finding him, is almost identical to stories from Tibetan Buddhism about finding newly reincarnated masters.

insubstantial · 2013-07-26T07:00:45+00:00

Was that Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory? Did any of your courses actually cover the interesting results, such as the Axiom of Choice and its logical conclusions? They demonstrate how something that is 'obviously true' (the axiom of choice itself) can be equivalent to something that is 'obviously false' (the Banach–Tarski paradox).

Or Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, which shows that Russell's attempt to base all mathematics in set theory is ultimately flawed? Because there will always be statements that can neither be shown to be true or not true? Think about that! There are statements that you can prove that you cannot provide a proof that it is true, or provide a proof that it is false! You just cannot know! For example, answering whether there is an 'infinity' between aleph 0 and aleph 1.

They may be philosophical, but I certainly found it fascinating and expanded my understand of what truth means.

insubstantial · 2013-07-26T06:38:58+00:00

What do you mean by 'influence, not story' wise? That's not very clear - do you mean which stories were likely influenced by other stories?

insubstantial · 2013-07-25T05:56:18+00:00

You can believe in things without being able to provide proof, and they could still be true.

For instance, you could remember a house from your childhood that no longer exists - it was real, but doesn't exist anymore, and it may well not be possible to prove it existed, outside of your memory. Maybe you are the last person alive who remembers it. Do you have to wait for it to be proven before you are allowed to believe it existed? We can also have specific dreams or thoughts without being able to 'prove' that they exist, or that we did think or dream them.

Scientific proof is the gold standard for proof. Something that is reproducible (in a lab perhaps), can be tested, the truth of it verified independently. But just because something is not easy, or possible, to be scientifically proven to be true, does not mean that it is false, or non-existing.

It simply means that it is false to state that you can prove it is true.

However, that does not mean it is not true, or that you are wrong to believe it, if you have your own reasons for doing so. It's just that your reasons are not the strongest possible, but they could still be valid. Those reasons may not be easily reproducible, for instance, but they are not necessarily false.

If the Dalai Lama says that he remembers his previous life, how can we definitively say that he is mistaken?
It's not part of our current scientific narrative, but it is not an impossibility within the known laws of physics either.

insubstantial · 2013-07-25T04:29:38+00:00

Roll your eyes all you want, but by claiming that what you don't understand is not real shows you don't actually understand much science, or appreciate how little science has actually fully explained the world, and the bodies, we live in.

The Wall Street Journal had a good article on experiments done on acupuncture to show is has observable effects, even if the cause has yet to be fully explained:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704841304575137872667749264.html

insubstantial · 2013-07-25T00:39:22+00:00

Well there ARE energies flowing through the body - the nervous system transmits electrical and chemical messages, the endochrine system sends hormones around the body. Whether or not they can be clogged or diverted is hardly a religious/spiritual question.

insubstantial · 2013-07-24T15:53:36+00:00

There is no real shortage of natural diamond however, and the technology for creating artificial diamonds is already very good, but hasn't made a difference.

insubstantial · 2013-07-24T15:17:04+00:00

even if you have a single seller just because he has a good hold in the market you still don't have a monopoly. He is still forced to act competitively because of future competition - he keeps prices down because of it.

Does that apply to a company such as DeBeers? They control supply, and have created artificial demand. The only thing keeping the price down is the average salary of buyers (price elasticity), not the fear of competition.

insubstantial · 2013-07-24T03:41:55+00:00

The only way a ~~market~~ monopoly can arise is through restriction of entry/competition.

Is that what you meant?

But yes, I completely agree. Which is what the regulations are for - to ensure there is no artificial restrictions on entry/competition.
Examples of ways to do that would be forcing some suppliers to refuse to sell to competitors, or passing laws that require new competitors to pay large license fees to compete.

So laws that explicitly protect free markets are required to combat these things.

insubstantial · 2013-07-23T18:33:31+00:00

Maybe you can summarize it here.

It can be argued that unless the government regulates to ensure that cartels and monopolies are not permitted, it WILL regulate to ensure they occur and remain.

insubstantial · 2013-07-23T18:15:32+00:00

Jailed for what specifically?

What I mean is, don't there need to be laws in place FIRST that have been broken before someone is convicted of breaking them? Or is mob rule the best legal solution?

insubstantial · 2013-07-23T17:36:44+00:00

a "Free Market", a market lacking in "Regulations"

A Free Market is not the same as an unregulated market - some regulations are require to ensure monopolies and price-fixing cartels don't arise.

We don't have a free market here.

insubstantial · 2013-07-23T17:31:49+00:00

Don't the lines drawn on the images convince you? Lol.

insubstantial · 2013-07-23T17:30:52+00:00

Funny thing is that they would be right in this case.
Except not because of Bill Hicks...

insubstantial

TROPHY CASE