Philosophy Versus Statistics in Decision Making

The use of statistical inference/probabilities can, by essence, never lead to truth, no matter how well done. Philosophy, however, when done correctly, necessarily leads to truth.

Even the notion of statistical fact is paradoxical. Because something should not both be fact and statistical.

One summary of the philosophical enterprise whose formalisation has helped humanity greatly is the scientific method. It put a structure to some aspect of the practice of philosophy.

The book title by Sir Isaac Newton, ‘the mathematical principles of natural philosophy,’ hints clearly at the place of mathematics in the world: the pursuit and appreciation of truth — and beauty. The same, obviously, is the object of philosophy.

Experientially, a lot of our reasoning, decision making, and things we’ve come to ‘know’ in general follow from some application of the scientific method — up to a point at least. However, like basically everything in life, it’s ‘garbage in, garbage out’ (GIGO). Hence the criticality of critical reasoning.

Philosophy is fundamental to ‘political’ decision making, for instance utilitarianism, capitalism, feminism, socialism, Rastafarianism etc, and it’s not perfect here because of the GIGO factor. And because these are high level philosophical views whose foundations might themselves be ‘truthly’ flawed.

let’s stop making legislation (that is, absolute decisions) based on statistical/probabilistic inferences alone. Philosophy, true philosophy, fundamentals philosophy, philosophy in the sense of Lao Tzu or Aristotle should be used in some way as an arbiter in this regard.

Advertisements

A déjà vu speaks…

Ever had the recollection that made you think “I’ve been here before,” having the experience that a scene in your life was on replay for a few moments. Did it feel like you had a vision and it just came to pass? You had seen the future, and knew it only after knowing it.

Yes, the experience was real, to you, but the reason is psychological; it’s a kind of self delusion where one anticipates the ability to see the future subconsciously. [But that’s not going to do for an explanation. What, particularly, tickles one to have the experience, and what determines when or if it happens for any individual? …] There certainly are known unknowns, but the answers don’t change anything.

Trash all that, I had the experience and I know it’s real; it isn’t any delusion. I saw some scene in my future before I experienced it. You can’t just explain it away and blame me on top of it. [You’re in denial ma’am.] Like, seriously?

Pause.

Déjà vu’s say that a specific kind of time travel is possible.
That we can see the future makes prophecy not implausible.
And the future is (or can be) known exactly,
by some one,
or someone.
Human beings have the faculty to perceive the yet to be.
Or, perhaps, even be able to originate this
and follow through (like God):
guiding randomness towards a certain order.

So the randomness in life may be called into question. Materialism, certainly, becomes questionable. And causality (physical, volitional…) has another dimension emphasised: spiritual causality? Fate, destiny, becomes a convolution of action, and some ‘divine’ ordination; it seems fixed, but is it really. We have volition—like God. Yet volition is complicit in the fate that was seen after it was quietly told.

Information, Being, and Living

From information theory, we might want to say these things relating to life, nature, and society. Each thought has significant consequences.

1.)
Wherever there is change, information has been generated or effected. This is the establishment of purpose and meaning, since a destination becomes implied by change, or because of it.

E.g. Movement (physical, emotional, mental, spiritual …).

Every change is a cause. And we change as we move, exercise, take action, make action….

2.)
Change, or information, does not have to be perceived for it to exist. However, that it exists should mean that it is perceivable.

E.g. The cycle of cell replacement in the body. Healing and repentance. Impression of righteousness, faith, hope, love….

3.)
A state of constancy (like a change with difference only in time) is itself information: speaking either of a powerful inertia, or of a balance of influences. Constancy tells one that another can be trusted to be/do ….

E.g. Attitudes and character. God. Commonsense. Physics. Satan. Chemistry. Fidelity. Biology.

4.)
If an apparently random system, or system far from equilibrium, continuously produces information, then over time, that system will arrive at an equilibrium position or system (even if complex).

E.g. The development of the United States. Origin of the world. Rockefeller’s increase in wealth. Socialism. Scientology. Increase in people giving away their virginity during their teenage years. Gluttony in food, drink etc. Divorce. Social organisation ….

Between Pressure and Pain

Between pressure and pain
is a connectrix
that doesn’t exist
One blends into the other
Nay, one is the other
For pain places pressure
and pressure is a pain

Between pressure and pain
is a basin
into which they flow
It holds neither only pressure
and neither only pain
Never mixing though
but together both present

Why is there something rather than nothing

Why is there something rather than nothing?
An answer is that we cannot say.
Explorations in physics may explain the beginnings of the universe,
but not its origin, we could say.
The mantra of bombardment and collision
looking for that which is fundamental
and to explore it further
might dwell inside of sceptical regress,
one of the Trilemmas of Agrippa.
Another of which leads back
to where we started.
That is, the question.
And the last, a certainty
To which we may ascribe the trait:
no beginning and no end.
It is what it is.

If the Higgs is the last,
or string theory be right,
what we have is still some thing.
So we trace again to the lemma,
saying that there was a first:
energy or matter,
it doesn’t matter.
For by Einstein,
they are linked by a thing:
we call it light.
A constant effect,
simply present.

Which came first,
somethingness or nothingness?
If it were to be nothingness, then how did anything come to be;
and if it were somethingness, how did it come about.
Which of these two did you choose to be true;
your preferred mystery.
Marvel!

Forgiving: Comparing Man’s Memory with God’s

Oh forgive and forget
How could that ever happen?
To forget, I mean
The offence has registered its presence
Has its own folder in my cabinet
Forget?
Never
Maybe

The hurts have passed
Yet the memory remains
Just a scratch away?
Or buried deep, never to be seen
Hopefully

How do you forgive like God?
His memory is neither short, nor long
It is present, just present
When He forgets
It is that what he forgot never was
So that there was nothing He forgot

God forgives with forgetting
Literally

So if when God forgives, He forgets
It becomes awkward when one tries
To remind Him of something that
He has no memory of.
Therefore, “what in My Name are you talking about?”

Randomness and Free Will

Is history, destiny? Is the will capable of arbitrary decisions despite our past experiences? The justice system must believe it is, otherwise, the ‘excuse’ of poor upbringing, bad friendships, accidental opportunities for misbehaviour … may be tenable for reduced sentences.

According to Dr. Stephen Wolfram in his book, ‘A New Kind of Science,’ there are three mechanisms for randomness. In the context of the randomness of the outputs of our volition, we have,

Mechanism 1:
There are continuously and variously applied trips and taunts; in some sense, stochastic inputs throughout a sequence of volitional events or progression of will.
The continuous taunts have ‘led’ to some people choosing, wittingly or not, to behave (ir)rationally, land some other person a theoretical jab, appreciate the simplest of things etc.

Mechanism 2:
There’s an initial input, and that’s all.
Like the smile from his wife before he went off to war. He’d better come back alive. Or a traumatic experience that leads to a fixation or a mind that says something like, “I shall never eat cupcakes again.”

Mechanism 3:
Intrinsic randomness. A case where there is no input, but there is output.
The system (or person) comes up with its own madness, or coolness, or mad genius, or whatever. It generates its own output, independent, or regardless of extraneous signals and previously reached conclusions.

The third mechanism properly marks free will, I think. Sounds a little crazy to speak of outputs with no inputs, but maybe we can identify with it. Your experience probably says so. And though acausal actions seem like God’s prerogative, we’re made in His likeness, right?

Three examples of landmark free will events are the sin by Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden; the devil saying that he wanted to overthrow God; and the birth of Jesus Christ. Have any positive personal examples?

We are free to will what we will; to will what we think; and to think what we will: The will can will anything it wills.

Although we may have little control over extraneous signals, that we could generate our own suggestions internally tells us that we could counter or enhance these signals; that we could create our own stream of consciousness to make for a healthy soul — if we will.