Saturday, December 25, 2010


"VViki said @

Naïve falsification

Two types of statements: observational and categoric In work beginning in the 1930s, Popper gave falsifiability a renewed emphasis as a criterion of empirical statements in science. Popper noticed that two types of statements are of particular value to scientists. The first are statements of observations, such as "this is a white swan." Logicians call these statements singular existential statements, since they assert the existence of some particular thing. They are equivalent to a propositional calculus statement of the form:

There exists an x such that x is a swan, and x is white.

The second are statements that categorize all instances of something, such as "all swans are white". Logicians call these statements universal. They are usually parsed in the form:

For all x, if x is a swan, then x is white.

Scientific laws are commonly supposed to be of this type. One difficult question in the methodology of science is: How does one move from observations to laws?

How can one validly infer a universal statement from any number of existential statements?

Inductivist methodology supposed that one can somehow move from a series of singular existential statements to a universal statement. That is, that one can move from 'this is a white swan', 'that is a white swan', and so on, to a universal statement such as 'all swans are white'. This method is clearly deductively invalid, since it is always possible that there may be a non-white swan that has eluded observation (and, in fact,

 the discovery of the Australian black swan demonstrated the deductive invalidity of this particular statement

End of VViki"

Looks like we are returning to that discussion over in Hazelnut's thread entitled "Metaphysics and the principles of reality" the measurement of qualities and "QUALE" in the singular and "QUALIA" in the plural.
I will rid the discussion of such naive notions. Lets spell the "LABEL" we attach to such an "IDEA" in the "STRING" of "LETTERS" as "QUALYA". Reduce every thing down to a single word or less denotes "QUALYA". Principle qualya general. Qualya valid in that position since it is both noun and verb in it name for it's action.

IF we have four letters A B C and D.
Then we have methods of ARRANGEMENT.
RULES OF CONSTRUCTION where no two SAME letters may be in the same string.
There then are only 24 available arrangements.


Dennet's brain is the fish tank idea proved nothing other than that it is a good idea to make sure the tank itself has no leaks. You do not desire to drown the fish in air do you? Remote control and action at a distance are still to this day elements of mystery. Dennet never solved the problem merely identified the problem. That is good. Today we take for granted infrared remote controls. When the battery fails you do not know it has failed or the unit has failed even when you point the unit at the CCD sensor of your digital camera. The BLACK BOX of Stafford Beer cannot be denied can it? If the unit functions it is good if not it is bad. While we do not need to know how the box works when it is functioning, when it malfunctions those who have knowledge of the parts constructing the said unit and WHY each of those parts are in the place, time location in the said unit then it can be either repaired or the parts rearranged so that FAILURE is minimized. The balancing FACTOR in a circuit is LOAD and distribution of the load is a BALANCING FACTOR.

The "TERM" is neither plural nor singular since it is coined to embrace the whole as a singular entity. Such a word is required if we are to measure accurately a term/word such as "GRACE" or "DISGRACE". It is so each term that is believed to be the "LABEL" that is "TO BE" as the "CODON" in the set of words labelled "ENGLISH" as "COMMUNICATED is it not? We attach to the "PART/PARTICULAR FACT" its "HISTORY" in terms of "BENEVOLENT" or "MALEVOLENT". To own a knowledge of a "WORD" is to know the "HISTORY" of "USAGE"/"ABUSE" of each and every word or term.

My reason is simple. It is a memory. We use the term "IS" very loosely and soon end up being sucked down the vortex tube, the worm hole of "PROBABILITIES" "BELL CURVES" and "LIKE" "UNLIKE" in graduations of "MEAN" and "MEAN VARIATIONS" measuured as "STANDARD DEVIATIONS".
"DEDUCTIVE" and "INDUCTIVE" methods have serious "LIMITATIONS" in that on one hand the particulars in the case that cause the thing in question to function are hidden from view in both the micro and tele as divisions of one and multiplications of one. How mch do you remember of what you did yesterday? Not very much but the events of the day in all likelihood saw you eating during some of that time. Same for all well some then who have access to a pantry or in other words a "STORE" which in itself is a "FORM" of "MEMORY".

 "EDUCTIVE" methods do not have any such limitations. To educe "ENTAILS" the "NOTION" that all things existing are "EXISTENTIAL". Known a'priori ontologically a'posteriori teleologically considerations similar to a walk on a tight rope in the one to one macro universe with small on the left and big on the right. A view of which is "OBSCURED" by clouds of numbers to as many decimal places as there are comma's to mark the thousands. With this no entity can ever claim ownership of it is general property not ones particular property. That will make the theologians sit up and think! All action that ever occurred has a before, during and after time of event. Find an exception I can't? Am I blind or are we all blind or only some of us blind?

Not to confuse the issue but to clarify the issue as to that which is/was/will be since the qualities inherent within a "SYSTEM" are "PRESENT" and NEVER were not there. Their is nothing new under the sun is the PRIME ASSUMPTION one that can never be denied. We remain ignorant and prejudiced till we fill the following condition.

The "ASSUMPTION" is to "KNOW" the "PARTICULARS" that "FORM" the "GENERAL".

No comments: