Comment on Query the LessWrong Hivemind

Wed, 09 Nov 2011 17:28:57 GMT

So you are against induction, in general?

It's not that I am against induction (in fact, I routinely refer to Popperian Falsificationism as the resolution to Hume's Problem of Induction). Instead, I am acknowledging that induction has limits. What inductive process will allow you to derive the words written on the can in front of me as I type this?

Nothing directly unobservable is knowable?

No. All things which are entirely unobservable are unknowable. Indirect observation qualifies as a form of observation. That which is outside of our lightcone is entirely unobservable (as yet.)

Do you really think that the assumption that the physical laws are the same outside Earth's light cone as they are inside is an error?

We have no basis for the assumption at all. It furthermore rests on the additional assumption *that there is even a "physical" at all there.

Furthermore: there is some disagreement at the "bleeding edge" of physics as to whether gravity is a constant. And that's just what we can observe.

I recall the admonition that "The Universe is Queerer than we can suppose". From it, I have a generalized principle: when I have no information to make assertions with, I acknowledge my ignorance. When, however, I observe that no information is available, I note this fact and move on.

Making 'guesses' as to the 'probability' of assertions when you know your priors are entirely arbitrary is ... counterproductive. It can only serve to prime you.

Discuss