“That, of course, is a completely different statement. But then you are suggesting that Bayes-Language is incapable of representing a false statement—which is an obvious lie.”
Bayes-language can represent statements with very small probabilities, but then, of course, they will be assigned very small probabilities. You cannot assign a probability of .1% to the Sun rising without fudging the evidence (or fudging the priors, as Eli pointed out).
“—Yes, it is Bayes-language.”
So much for begging the question. Please do a calculation, using the theorems of Bayes (or theorems derived from Bayesian theorems), which gives an incorrect number given correct numbers as input.
“Mathematics does NOT describe the universe,”
Using mathematics to describe the universe goes all the way back to Ptolemy. It isn’t going away anytime soon.
“Mathematics is a modeling language no different from any other save in precision.”
Ah, here we have found one who does not comprehend the beauty of math. Alas, it is beyond my ability to impart such wisdom in a blog comment. Just drive down to your local university campus and start taking math classes- you’ll get it eventually.
“All variables are variables on some coordinate system or another, after all, if not a spacial one.”
Neither GR nor QED requires a coordinate system of any sort. This is, admittedly, hard to wrap your head around, especially without going into the math. To name a simple example, it is mathematically impossible to cover the surface of a sphere (or, by topological extension, any closed surface) with a single coordinate system without creating a singularity. Needless to say, this does not mean that there must be some point on Earth where numbers go to infinity.
“—You missed the point—we can’t predict what the next law of physics we’ll discover will be.”
We can predict that they won’t violate the earlier ones.
“You didn’t perform the appropriate transformations.”
You simply flip the sign on the gravitational constant G. No geometric transformations required.
“Okay. So evolutions don’t give organisms’ brains any knowledge.”
Evolution gives brains a system for acquiring knowledge, which is pseudo-Bayesian but operates under different surface rules. See Judgment Under Uncertainty or any other H&B textbook.
“That, of course, is a completely different statement. But then you are suggesting that Bayes-Language is incapable of representing a false statement—which is an obvious lie.”
Bayes-language can represent statements with very small probabilities, but then, of course, they will be assigned very small probabilities. You cannot assign a probability of .1% to the Sun rising without fudging the evidence (or fudging the priors, as Eli pointed out).
“—Yes, it is Bayes-language.”
So much for begging the question. Please do a calculation, using the theorems of Bayes (or theorems derived from Bayesian theorems), which gives an incorrect number given correct numbers as input.
“Mathematics does NOT describe the universe,”
Using mathematics to describe the universe goes all the way back to Ptolemy. It isn’t going away anytime soon.
“Mathematics is a modeling language no different from any other save in precision.”
Ah, here we have found one who does not comprehend the beauty of math. Alas, it is beyond my ability to impart such wisdom in a blog comment. Just drive down to your local university campus and start taking math classes- you’ll get it eventually.
“All variables are variables on some coordinate system or another, after all, if not a spacial one.”
Neither GR nor QED requires a coordinate system of any sort. This is, admittedly, hard to wrap your head around, especially without going into the math. To name a simple example, it is mathematically impossible to cover the surface of a sphere (or, by topological extension, any closed surface) with a single coordinate system without creating a singularity. Needless to say, this does not mean that there must be some point on Earth where numbers go to infinity.
“—You missed the point—we can’t predict what the next law of physics we’ll discover will be.”
We can predict that they won’t violate the earlier ones.
“You didn’t perform the appropriate transformations.”
You simply flip the sign on the gravitational constant G. No geometric transformations required.
“Okay. So evolutions don’t give organisms’ brains any knowledge.”
Evolution gives brains a system for acquiring knowledge, which is pseudo-Bayesian but operates under different surface rules. See Judgment Under Uncertainty or any other H&B textbook.