TimS comments on Rationality Quotes March 2012 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: Thomas 03 March 2012 08:04AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (525)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Bugmaster 02 March 2012 06:55:00PM -1 points [-]

No, that's not how you prove it, but you can check it pretty easily with right triangles. Similarly, if you believe that Pi == 3, you only need a large wheel and a piece of string to discover that you're wrong. This won't tell you the actual value of Pi, nor would it constitute a mathematical proof, but at least the experience would point you in the right direction.

Comment author: TimS 02 March 2012 06:59:28PM 2 points [-]

If you find a right triangle with sides (2.9, 4, 5.15) rather than (3,4,5), are you ever entitled to reject the Pythagrean theorem? Doesn't measurement error and the non-Euclidean nature of the actual universe completely explain your experience?

In short, it seems like you can't empirically check the Pythagorean theorem.

Comment author: Bugmaster 02 March 2012 09:17:42PM 0 points [-]

If you find a right triangle with sides (2.9, 4, 5.15) rather than (3,4,5), are you ever entitled to reject the Pythagrean theorem?

That is not what I said. I said, regarding Pi == 3, "this won't tell you the actual value of Pi, nor would it constitute a mathematical proof, but at least the experience would point you in the right direction". If you believe that a^2 + b^2 = c^5, instead of c^2; and if your instruments are accurate down to 0.2 units, then you can discover very quickly that your formula is most probably wrong. You won't know which answer is right (though you could make a very good guess, by taking more measurements), but you will have enough evidence to doubt your theorem.

The words "most probably" in the above sentence are very important. No amount of empirical measurements will constitute a 100% logically consistent mathematical proof. But if your goal is to figure out how the length of the hypotenuse relates to the lengths of the two sides, then you are not limited to total ignorance or total knowledge, with nothing in between. You can make educated guesses. Yes, you could also get there by pure reason alone, and sometimes that approach works best; but that doesn't mean that you cannot, in principle, use empirical evidence to find the right path.

Comment author: MaoShan 04 March 2012 06:57:53AM -1 points [-]

Peer review. If the next two hundred scientists who measure your triangle get the same measurements from other rulers by different manufacturers, you'd be completely justified in rejecting the Pythagorean theorem.

My challenge to you: go out and see if you can find a right triangle with those measurements.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 04 March 2012 08:37:15PM 4 points [-]

Sure, how about a triangle just outside a black hole.

Comment author: MaoShan 05 March 2012 04:19:51AM -1 points [-]

That was a quick trip. Which black hole was it?

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 05 March 2012 05:02:42PM 3 points [-]

You're completely justified in rejecting Euclid's axioms. You're not at all justified in rejecting the Pythagorean theorem.

Comment author: MaoShan 06 March 2012 03:52:17AM 0 points [-]

Upvoted for your excellent demonstration of peer review ;) I stand corrected.