In the World of Tomorrow!...Errr Induction

Foreword: I'm starting to like these prefaces. I meant to write on the what I thought the future might be on because I spent a night looking at futuristic models ranging from the cult-like "proofs" to philosophical "proofs" which ranged on topics such as the singularity, immortality, and "cyber souls." Very entertaining stuff, but something about the web sites claims sickened me, and I soon discovered it was their certainty in claims about claims of which no certainty could be determined.

This shall be some exercise in imagination rather than deductive logic. Pardon the pleonasm, and trite alliteration following. I don't believe in inductive logic; I find it to be a contradiction in terms. A small preface about logic should be entertaining at least.

In order to prove induction as a valid form of reasoning we must show order exists in the world, otherwise there is nothing by which to make probabilistic generalizations from. After all, induction, especially in the hard sciences is about making observations and generating the "laws of the world." To do this though would require induction itself. This results in circular reasoning, which I find in many of my science minded friends and acquaintances, prompting the quiet chuckle or friendly smile from myself as they continue on their claim to speak...logically...about the world.

And while I laud Kant for showing time and space need be a priori concepts in order for experience to occur, it doesn't patch up problems with the final result of experiences given all concepts that come into factor. I'm thoroughly unconvinced by his attempts to make the subjective experiences of the many, objective. Sounds far too much like rounding the square to my delicate ears.

I know not whether or not what I believe is correct, but I know I have the belief, and have some justification for it, now the matter of whether or not it is true. It's practical for me to assume induction, but practical is not a logical justification. And in all reality I presume I do not do it as much as the average person. Indubitably I do it when I expect everyone else to arrive at work, that the oven will work, that my lungs will continue to function, and so on. When dealing with people and activities though I always wing things and don't know what to expect. I don't claim to avoid it altogether. But I do admit I have no reason in making such assumptions. But that's all they ultimately are, and always will be. It will have to suffice for practicality's sake that in everyday events I come up with another term for "justification" when dealing with such assumptions. For it isn't justified in the true sense of the word, so instead of using it, I shall use some other word.

Perhaps this is part of why I detest having meetings to make plans for another meeting. Another part is that if I take it seriously it quickly become an ad infinitum occurrence if one doesn't keep an eye on their watch and calendar.

Furthermore I find the scientific methodologies fun but not entirely convincing due to this fun little problem of the inductive "argument." Statistics is fun to play with too, we throw on our "+5% margin of error" and since we mentioned it we pretend like everything is okay. Somewhere along the line we decided if we admit there's a problem we can still assert it. This is best to be left as a "practical justification," and those who talk about it in terms of "logic" or "proofs" ought to keep quiet, for one ought never to speak on matters they know not. And if they do know, they ought never to misuse language knowingly. There is something very twisted about the man who speaks with certainty about that which by definition cannot obtain certainty, for he is a danger to mankind.

Wow what a rant. This is a really old problem which is known as the "problem of induction" in philosophy of epistemology and sciences. I don't believe any secular answer has sufficiently solved it, though every now and then some claim to. Popper tried to in the 20th century but he did so by trying to turn the question around by saying that we hold beliefs and falsify them until we get down to reality. This is really a fancy way of saying all knowledge is empirical, which is only gotten through induction. And once again I'm going to ask the question: is induction valid? Popper is going to say you can't justify it, it just is that way. It's a clever way of making an assertion look like an argument at best, and at worst, trying to dodge circularity by shifting the question, which still turns out to be circular when he tries to give an answer. One possible solution is to make God that which binds all experiences as objective. While I'm perfectly capable of making such a claim, some are not willing to accept God's existence. that we're all modes of God an Look it up for more information. Do not use wikipedia...Also try honey on bananas and/or wheat bread with a glass of milk. It's heavenly.

So, In The World of Tomorrow!

I actually don't feel like writing about this anymore...

In other news, I received a phone call from Duke today. Looks like I shall be attending there in Fall of 2010. Divinity Devil it is, how...contradictory :) It makes me chuckle, much like induction.

God's servant,
blake