• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Epistemology, logic, and problem solving

R

rousseau

Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
13,508
If memory represents a set of data points that can be manipulated to find solutions, then the quality of the solution is directly dependent on the number of data points that are inputted into the solution.

Take some basic logic here:
Code: 
boolean dataPointOne
boolean dataPointTwo

if(dataPointOne AND dataPointTwo)
    Solution One
else if(dataPointOne AND NOT dataPointTwo)
    Solution Two
else if(NOT dataPointOne and dataPointTwo)
   Solution Three
else
   Solution Four

But if we add another data point or information, more solutions are possible:
Code: 
boolean dataPointOne
boolean dataPointTwo
boolean dataPointThree

if(dataPointOne AND dataPointTwo AND dataPointThree)
    Solution One
else if(dataPointOne AND dataPointTwo AND NOT dataPointThree)
    Solution Two
else if(dataPointOne AND NOT dataPointTwo AND dataPointThree)
   Solution Three

etc

So having more knowledge about a system adds more conditional logic that can lead to a better solution.

The implications of this are that in some cases if we don't know the conditions that can lead to the solution we need, then it is impossible to reach that solution because we have no logical path to it. The logic tree is absent of the solution we want.

The other implication is that more knowledge is more power. If we approach any given problem from only one perspective, and are missing whole domains of data points, then it's possible we're not approaching the problem from the angle we need to.

If you've ever wondered what I think about when I go to make a tea and use the washroom at work, this is it.
 
rousseau said:
If memory represents a set of data points that can be manipulated to find solutions, then the quality of the solution is directly dependent on the number of data points that are inputted into the solution.

Take some basic logic here:
Code: 
boolean dataPointOne
boolean dataPointTwo

if(dataPointOne AND dataPointTwo)
    Solution One
else if(dataPointOne AND NOT dataPointTwo)
    Solution Two
else if(NOT dataPointOne and dataPointTwo)
   Solution Three
else
   Solution Four

But if we add another data point or information, more solutions are possible:
Code: 
boolean dataPointOne
boolean dataPointTwo
boolean dataPointThree

if(dataPointOne AND dataPointTwo AND dataPointThree)
    Solution One
else if(dataPointOne AND dataPointTwo AND NOT dataPointThree)
    Solution Two
else if(dataPointOne AND NOT dataPointTwo AND dataPointThree)
   Solution Three

etc

So having more knowledge about a system adds more conditional logic that can lead to a better solution.

The implications of this are that in some cases if we don't know the conditions that can lead to the solution we need, then it is impossible to reach that solution because we have no logical path to it. The logic tree is absent of the solution we want.

The other implication is that more knowledge is more power. If we approach any given problem from only one perspective, and are missing whole domains of data points, then it's possible we're not approaching the problem from the angle we need to.

If you've ever wondered what I think about when I go to make a tea and use the washroom at work, this is it.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that you trust logic perhaps too much. What if the logic you use is wrong? How would you know it's wrong to begin with?

And more conditions usually help narrow down the possibilities, not multiply them, so that we can decide what to do.

There's also a view of logic based on the idea of belief. We believe the conclusion if we believe the premise and accept the validity of the inference from one to the other. This way, we don't need to pretend we actually know something just because we have some cool logical proof.
EB
EB
 
Speakpigeon said:
What if the logic you use is wrong? How would you know it's wrong to begin with?
Click to expand...

If it is wrong you will soon discard it if after using it a few times it consistently fails. Take that one to the bank.

As suggested by my above response, one can test the logic in an observable and repeatable situation to see if it is wrong.
 
Speakpigeon said:
rousseau said:
If memory represents a set of data points that can be manipulated to find solutions, then the quality of the solution is directly dependent on the number of data points that are inputted into the solution.

Take some basic logic here:
Code: 
boolean dataPointOne
boolean dataPointTwo

if(dataPointOne AND dataPointTwo)
    Solution One
else if(dataPointOne AND NOT dataPointTwo)
    Solution Two
else if(NOT dataPointOne and dataPointTwo)
   Solution Three
else
   Solution Four

But if we add another data point or information, more solutions are possible:
Code: 
boolean dataPointOne
boolean dataPointTwo
boolean dataPointThree

if(dataPointOne AND dataPointTwo AND dataPointThree)
    Solution One
else if(dataPointOne AND dataPointTwo AND NOT dataPointThree)
    Solution Two
else if(dataPointOne AND NOT dataPointTwo AND dataPointThree)
   Solution Three

etc

So having more knowledge about a system adds more conditional logic that can lead to a better solution.

The implications of this are that in some cases if we don't know the conditions that can lead to the solution we need, then it is impossible to reach that solution because we have no logical path to it. The logic tree is absent of the solution we want.

The other implication is that more knowledge is more power. If we approach any given problem from only one perspective, and are missing whole domains of data points, then it's possible we're not approaching the problem from the angle we need to.

If you've ever wondered what I think about when I go to make a tea and use the washroom at work, this is it.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that you trust logic perhaps too much. What if the logic you use is wrong? How would you know it's wrong to begin with?

And more conditions usually help narrow down the possibilities, not multiply them, so that we can decide what to do.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply.

I think you need to invert your perspective here. I'm suggesting a model where new data opens up new possibilities, with the ramification being that if something knows more, they behave more effectively, because they know how to reach better outcomes.

This maps to the model you've brought to light by better concluding which solution we want. In other words, if less data concludes with two possible solutions we definitely know we don't want, and more data identifies a third solution we know we do want, then my model is narrowing us toward the final result, but broadening the possible outcomes from which we choose.

There's also a view of logic based on the idea of belief. We believe the conclusion if we believe the premise and accept the validity of the inference from one to the other. This way, we don't need to pretend we actually know something just because we have some cool logical proof.
EB
EB
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're suggesting here.
 
fromderinside said:
Speakpigeon said:
What if the logic you use is wrong? How would you know it's wrong to begin with?
Click to expand...

If it is wrong you will soon discard it if after using it a few times it consistently fails. Take that one to the bank.

As suggested by my above response, one can test the logic in an observable and repeatable situation to see if it is wrong.
Click to expand...
It may be wrong in a way that wouldn't affect any of the current applications so you wouldn't know. But one day some application may get to use one of the class of logical relations that make our logic wrong. See? Well, may be not. There is in effect an infinity of logical relations we could possibly have a use for. We ordinarily only use a very small array of them but that may change in the future. So we haven't tested any singificant number of these relations and people aren't usually so suspicious that they would test properly them before using them. In any system that's a bit complex or complicated, there is what's called combinatorial explosion. For all you know we may well one day send a spaceship with thousands of people on board and they may die because of that.
EB
 
Intuitive reasoning supports the idea that for any problem, there exists more bad solutions than good solutions. In any situation, one is very fortunate if more than one viable solution exists. A direct result of this basic observation is that smart people are predictable, while an idiot has an infinite number of paths before him.
 
Bronzeage said:
Intuitive reasoning supports the idea that for any problem, there exists more bad solutions than good solutions. In any situation, one is very fortunate if more than one viable solution exists. A direct result of this basic observation is that smart people are predictable, while an idiot has an infinite number of paths before him.
Click to expand...

Having been thrashed in many games of chess, I must add that one only only predict that actions of smart people as long as one is at least as smart as they are.
 
Bronzeage said:
Intuitive reasoning supports the idea that for any problem, there exists more bad solutions than good solutions. In any situation, one is very fortunate if more than one viable solution exists. A direct result of this basic observation is that smart people are predictable, while an idiot has an infinite number of paths before him.
Click to expand...

Deserved answer.

My intuition is that game theory-decision theory provides better results. In that world there are many viable solutions. But only a few are best for the particular situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom