09-09-2016, 01:58 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-09-2016, 02:16 PM by Thomas Ray.)

Hi secur,

You wrote, "Within a year of accessing that data, Kepler figured out the key: elliptical orbits. Any other competent thinker would have gotten the same result - in a month, or a decade, it doesn't matter. Once the data is there all it takes is a normal genius to come up with the theory."

I don't agree. However, the reason that I don't agree is the last piece of convincing I needed to fully embrace Popper's philosophy.

In 2011, I realized the deep implications of Buridan's Principle http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/p...ml#buridan while reading Leslie Lamport's 1984 paper which was published in 2012. Lamport wrote:

"To understand the meaning of Buridan’s Principle as a scientific law, consider the analogous problem with classical mechanics. Kepler’s first law states that the orbit of a planet is an ellipse. This is not experimentally verifiable because any finite-precision measurement of the orbit is consistent with an infinite number of mathematical curves. In practice, what we can deduce from Kepler’s law is that measurement of the orbit will, to a good approximation, be consistent with the predicted ellipse."

So Kepler could not have deduced the law from any amount of observation. This 'bold conjecture' led to his counterintuitive second law -- that the orbit sweeps "equal areas in equal times".

You seem to be saying competence = intelligence. I don't buy it; however, I admit my bias -- I agree with Stephen Jay Gould on the 'mismeasure of man'.

"Thomas Ray wrote: What boundary conditions satisfy Bell's inequality?

If I understand the q. correctly: SO(3) space."

Precisely. How can a connected space (vice the simply connected space S^3) accommodate the time reversibility demanded by Einstein's theories of relativity?

I should add, re intelligence: that there is no general theory of intelligence. So we see the result of reasoning by induction, rampant in the social sciences.

You wrote, "Within a year of accessing that data, Kepler figured out the key: elliptical orbits. Any other competent thinker would have gotten the same result - in a month, or a decade, it doesn't matter. Once the data is there all it takes is a normal genius to come up with the theory."

I don't agree. However, the reason that I don't agree is the last piece of convincing I needed to fully embrace Popper's philosophy.

In 2011, I realized the deep implications of Buridan's Principle http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/p...ml#buridan while reading Leslie Lamport's 1984 paper which was published in 2012. Lamport wrote:

"To understand the meaning of Buridan’s Principle as a scientific law, consider the analogous problem with classical mechanics. Kepler’s first law states that the orbit of a planet is an ellipse. This is not experimentally verifiable because any finite-precision measurement of the orbit is consistent with an infinite number of mathematical curves. In practice, what we can deduce from Kepler’s law is that measurement of the orbit will, to a good approximation, be consistent with the predicted ellipse."

So Kepler could not have deduced the law from any amount of observation. This 'bold conjecture' led to his counterintuitive second law -- that the orbit sweeps "equal areas in equal times".

You seem to be saying competence = intelligence. I don't buy it; however, I admit my bias -- I agree with Stephen Jay Gould on the 'mismeasure of man'.

"Thomas Ray wrote: What boundary conditions satisfy Bell's inequality?

If I understand the q. correctly: SO(3) space."

Precisely. How can a connected space (vice the simply connected space S^3) accommodate the time reversibility demanded by Einstein's theories of relativity?

I should add, re intelligence: that there is no general theory of intelligence. So we see the result of reasoning by induction, rampant in the social sciences.