(sorry about the long post, bear with me)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ZeraCook
To say that something is unlikely when we really know very little of it, just seems pointless to me.
Here is a contraption. You and I both have no idea what it is:
http://www.kitchencontraptions.com/i...ed_f.20161.jpg
When I first saw it, I thought about a few things it might be. Among those ideas were:
- metal cutter that allows cutting metal into specific types of curves using spirograph-like mechanics
- some kind of printing/branding device that requires multiple stages (maybe branding + cooling)
- some sort of cleaning/buffing unit
Now, those guesses were all wrong. It's actually a dish-making (and recycling) machine, developed at MIT. Kind of cool. here is where I found it. :)
If someone here had started a thread saying, "what if it's a replica of the reloading mechanism of an old revolver?" that might have been interesting. But if someone had started a thread saying, "what if it's a donkey kong arcade machine?" I may have replied that it's highly unlikely. Why? Because for all the other examples I gave, it's pretty easy to fit it with the machine. But for the donkey kong arcade, it would take a REALLY good explanation.
The point is, it's perfectly legit to say something is unlikely about something we know very little about in some cases, because while we may not know a lot about the thing, we're pretty good about eliminating things that they are not. With enough observation, you don't need to know what something is to have a good idea about a small subset of what it isn't.
Quote:
I mean no one really knows what black holes are, we have theories, but we have never actually proved anything to my knowledge.
Okay. We need to have a digression here and clarify language before we get into another DV-esque argument about linguistic semantics. In science, a "theory" is NOT a hypothesis - it's a "model" of something that is holding up to scrutiny, and that is allowing us to make predictions about the world, which can be tested independently. Also, "proof" is something that only exists in Mathematics, where a set of axioms (premises, basically) that we start with, lead to a logical conclusion. In the real world, we only have "evidence" that points to a certain model being accurate (to within some operating range). For example, Newtonian mechanics is a model that is quite accurate on the macro level, but it doesn't apply to things that are incredibly small, or incredibly large, or moving incredibly fast. There are OTHER models for those cases (quantum mechanics, relativity, etc.)
However, to say "Newton was wrong!" in light of those newer models is incorrect. Newton's model still holds firm, but we now have a better understanding of its operational range. You can STILL use it to predict the flight of a baseball, or in fact, the movement of planets in the solar system.
But what the original post was suggesting is an idea that is akin to someone suggesting something that would completely violate well-established models, well-within their operational ranges. Flippant ideas are fine, and in fact, welcome, but they require REALLY good evidence, because of the mountain of evidence against it, just like explaining the Donkey Kong arcade idea would take a lot of evidence.
Quote:
also I don't really see how the universe is expanding, and I haven't seen any proof yet of this either. If you could show me some actual proof then I would be ok its unlikely but right know I have no links or prior knowledge of what black holes are, and I have heard people say they think that the universe is expanding but I never heard anyone say they know for sure, or that it couldn't start coming back. Even our earths temperature waxes and wanes, the light on our moon, the water lvls the plant life, almost everything.
Sure thing! I think I understand your reaction to my saying it was unlikely. You assume we know less than we actually do.
Re: "the universe is expanding" - This is something Hubble observed almost a century ago, and that has since been further observed and tightened. Basically, using the redshift (doppler effect applied to light) of stars and galaxies, it's clearly visible that the further they are (in all directions), the faster they appear to be moving away.
You can read more about this stuff here.
Quote:
Keepin it going I don't see how you can Judge a set probability rate based on something that isn't set like the "Current Observation". By me saying you stated it like a sure thing, I meant the current observation, so you really misinterpreted that. I never meant it that you saying unlikely meant it happening impossible. So by "It" I was referring to the observation. The little paragraphs where you went off on me stating that really ignored everything I meant by it till the last sentence where you basically mention it off hand like.
Ooh, capital J for Judge. How biblical. ;)
I disagree with the statement in the first sentence. I *CAN* "Judge a set probability rate based on something that isn't set like the "Current Observation"" for the simple reason that the fact that all we have is a current observation is the only reason why it IS a probability to begin with. If we knew it, it wouldn't be a probability. We wouldn't be using words like "unlikely" - cause ultimately, it either IS or it ISN'T. However, GIVEN what we do know and have observed, the "ISN'T" is much more likely. So the probability DOES depend on the observation, and the probability itself is NOT an unchanging thing. In other words, it is most definitely not a "set" probability.
Take, as an analogy, a video clip of a coin being flipped. We know the answer. Let's say it's heads. However, to someone who has only seen say 3/4 of the video (so the coin is on the way down, but it's flipping around still), they may make some calculations and say "65% that it's heads." However, if you wind the video clip forwards to the microsecond before the coin lands, a similar calculation will yield that it's like 99.9% sure that it will land as heads. So, at that point, "tails" becomes "highly unlikely." The probability changes with the observations, yes. But with the CURRENT observation, the claim of "tails" is highly unlikely.
Quote:
Here is another statement that I feel represents yours,
"Right now my current observation is that it has been getting steadily hotter the past few months, It is highly unlikely Montana Will ever have snow again."
^My current observation ^The opposite being highly unlikely because of the current observation.
I used about as much knowledge of the subjects in my statement as I feel we have of the universe and the way it works. So of course I really don't believe this or would ever say it and mean it.
I totally understand what you're getting at. You're saying that things are always in flux, and that I shouldn't assume something will remain a certain way just because that's what it's looking like now. And what I've been trying to break through to you is that that's not at all what I'm doing. Like I said, we know a lot more than you think we do.
Look, I'm assuming you've studied "escape velocities" in high school physics. So let's pretend it's a day without air resistance. If I throw a baseball into the air as hard as I can, it's pretty much certain that it will fall back to the ground. But if I shoot a baseball up with a cannon, at DOUBLE the escape velocity, then it is almost impossible that it will come back on its own. You know, maybe it'll bounce off the moon or something, but that's HIGHLY unlikely. I think this analogy better captures the knowledge of the subjects in the statement. I'm not saying we know everything, but we do know more than you're letting on.
peace
