Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jul 20, 2021 14:53:03 GMT
So, there is a kind of problem when we try to predict something. What makes certain that an event will happen? We need a theory to predict? There is logic when Comte says "to know in order to predict, to predict in order to control"? We need to know something to predict? And what kind of thing we need to know to predict? And more, what we can control when we know what will happen?
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jul 20, 2021 14:56:15 GMT
We need obviously to know the thing we are predicting. And, what makes us certain about some future event like death or a hurricane? Maybe what is determined in the past? What kind of problem we are trying to solve in a prediction?
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jul 20, 2021 14:59:39 GMT
But maybe the main question is: what is a prediction (or a prevision)? We can foretell future? In science, is obviously, but we have some problems when we are talking about society and people in general. What makes us certain, again, of a future event?
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jul 20, 2021 15:07:20 GMT
There are true determinations of an phenomena, but there are our expectations. The determinations which are true give the schema of what is happening, and by the means of this schema, we can deduce future events.
Abstracting expectations and seeing what is true determinated, and deduce for the schema future events, by the certainty of what cannot fail to happen. Because somethings which we see by this schema cannot fail to happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jul 20, 2021 17:51:57 GMT
Cassandra
I predicted that the crony virus would die out as soon as it reached China's "polluted" cities, as all other viruses have done throughout the industrialized world. Was I wrong in not expecting the global Lockdown, which allowed the virus to survive? If I had not been excluded by the regime's kennel of dogmas, the Lockdown wouldn't have happened, or at least the authorities would have realized that I was right when it didn't prevent massive death. Further proof would have come when the end of the Lockdown meant the end of the virus.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jul 20, 2021 18:25:34 GMT
CassandraI predicted that the crony virus would die out as soon as it reached China's "polluted" cities, as all other viruses have done throughout the industrialized world. Was I wrong in not expecting the global Lockdown, which allowed the virus to survive? If I had not been excluded by the regime's kennel of dogmas, the Lockdown wouldn't have happened, or at least the authorities would have realized that I was right when it didn't prevent massive death. Further proof would have come when the end of the Lockdown meant the end of the virus. To exercize thought in the future is the key. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 22, 2021 10:06:02 GMT
To predict something one cannot escape using only known information about something what he tries to predict. I'll explain:
{i} If A is what has to happen soon, then to know that A has been performed is to recognise it.
{ii} To recognise something is to be able to find in our objects the known set of features or signs and to positively identified them
An example:
1) we tries to predict "abcdefg" (whatever it is); to say "abcdefg" has been performed is to say that a phenomenon we've got has features the abcdefg has; if the abcdefg has features 'p', 'q', 'r', and our object has 'p', 'q', 'r', 's', 't', then it might the evidence of our prediction has been verified
1.1) as it has to be seen it can be occur that our object of investigation might be different, than the abcdefg
1.2) anyway having the features 'p', 'q', 's' we can recognise our object of prediction
2) this step as steps 1-1.2) show cannot be guaranteed performed as soon as we can identify a certain features, but not all of them
2.1) to make this step be more qualified we have to use more powerful methods as, for instance, the Bayesian proof has. So, the more things are checked and separated (and then deleted from the process of identification), the more predictably the result will be
2.2) if our object of prediction has a set of signs and no other object (that happened at the time) don't have the same, our prediction has been performed completely.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jul 22, 2021 11:40:06 GMT
To predict something one cannot escape using only known information about something what he tries to predict. I'll explain: {i} If A is what has to happen soon, then to know that A has been performed is to recognise it. {ii} To recognise something is to be able to find in our objects the known set of features or signs and to positively identified them An example: 1) we tries to predict "abcdefg" (whatever it is); to say "abcdefg" has been performed is to say that a phenomenon we've got has features the abcdefg has; if the abcdefg has features 'p', 'q', 'r', and our object has 'p', 'q', 'r', 's', 't', then it might the evidence of our prediction has been verified 1.1) as it has to be seen it can be occur that our object of investigation might be different, than the abcdefg 1.2) anyway having the features 'p', 'q', 's' we can recognise our object of prediction 2) this step as steps 1-1.2) show cannot be guaranteed performed as soon as we can identify a certain features, but not all of them 2.1) to make this step be more qualified we have to use more powerful methods as, for instance, the Bayesian proof has. So, the more things are checked and separated (and then deleted from the process of identification), the more predictably the result will be 2.2) if our object of prediction has a set of signs and no other object (that happened at the time) don't have the same, our prediction has been performed completely. I am a little confused, haha |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 22, 2021 13:26:46 GMT
To predict something one cannot escape using only known information about something what he tries to predict. I'll explain: {i} If A is what has to happen soon, then to know that A has been performed is to recognise it. {ii} To recognise something is to be able to find in our objects the known set of features or signs and to positively identified them An example: 1) we tries to predict "abcdefg" (whatever it is); to say "abcdefg" has been performed is to say that a phenomenon we've got has features the abcdefg has; if the abcdefg has features 'p', 'q', 'r', and our object has 'p', 'q', 'r', 's', 't', then it might the evidence of our prediction has been verified 1.1) as it has to be seen it can be occur that our object of investigation might be different, than the abcdefg 1.2) anyway having the features 'p', 'q', 's' we can recognise our object of prediction 2) this step as steps 1-1.2) show cannot be guaranteed performed as soon as we can identify a certain features, but not all of them 2.1) to make this step be more qualified we have to use more powerful methods as, for instance, the Bayesian proof has. So, the more things are checked and separated (and then deleted from the process of identification), the more predictably the result will be 2.2) if our object of prediction has a set of signs and no other object (that happened at the time) don't have the same, our prediction has been performed completely. I am a little confused, haha I apologize for using many ambiguous terms. Anyway, briefly I wanted to underline that there's no prediction where's no known information. We have to recognize in future what we're gonna predict. Because, if we couldn't recognize what we're predicting would mean we would never know about what we predict something. It's interesting if to compare this to the question "what new can we predict?". And really, can we predict something new, or what we predict is just what we've already known? |
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jul 22, 2021 13:33:09 GMT
I am a little confused, haha I apologize for using many ambiguous terms. Anyway, briefly I wanted to underline that there's no prediction where's no known information. We have to recognize in future what we're gonna predict. Because, if we couldn't recognize what we're predicting would mean we would never know about what we predict something. It's interesting if to compare this to the question "what new can we predict?". And really, can we predict something new, or what we predict is just what we've already known? But what kind of information? So, the prediction can be something new? I try to think about the future at the limit and reach a mental (not verbal) certitude. But I can only express the correspondence, not the event. |
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jul 22, 2021 13:35:06 GMT
It's kind of naïfy but works. Not as a prediction or a prevision but a mental certitude about future events. But not a day long in the future, or a hour, but some moments.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 22, 2021 13:40:13 GMT
I apologize for using many ambiguous terms. Anyway, briefly I wanted to underline that there's no prediction where's no known information. We have to recognize in future what we're gonna predict. Because, if we couldn't recognize what we're predicting would mean we would never know about what we predict something. It's interesting if to compare this to the question "what new can we predict?". And really, can we predict something new, or what we predict is just what we've already known? But what kind of information? So, the prediction can be something new? I try to think about the future at the limit and reach a mental (not verbal) certitude. But I can only express the correspondence, not the event. Let's say that I want to say that tomorrow some apples becomes white. To predict it I have to know what apples are, I have to know what kind of color is white, and I have to comprehend to does it mean to "become ___". Another example is this, I want to say that in three days Bruce Lee will present us his new movie. So, to claim it I have to know who is that Bruce Lee, I have to know what movie are, and I have to understand what does it mean to present something. I think that almost every prediction is built up to these upper schemes. |
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jul 22, 2021 15:21:36 GMT
But what kind of information? So, the prediction can be something new? I try to think about the future at the limit and reach a mental (not verbal) certitude. But I can only express the correspondence, not the event. Let's say that I want to say that tomorrow some apples becomes white. To predict it I have to know what apples are, I have to know what kind of color is white, and I have to comprehend to does it mean to "become ___". Another example is this, I want to say that in three days Bruce Lee will present us his new movie. So, to claim it I have to know who is that Bruce Lee, I have to know what movie are, and I have to understand what does it mean to present something. I think that almost every prediction is built up to these upper schemes. Well, maybe is a little more clear to me, we have to know that we predict? Comte says the same, haha. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 22, 2021 19:29:37 GMT
Well I have been warning people for the last decade that
there will be an increase in fascism on a global scale
unless something is done to curb population growth.
And no end insight.
Let me make another prediction:
world war 4 is spitting distance away,
and its quite likely there will be a series of nuclear
strikes, or perhaps something less forboding, but
just as nasty within a month.
Whether it goes down under the radar
or not, still remains to be seen.
|
|
