Re: Implications of Recent Developments in Network Science

On 13 Feb 2013, at 09:56, Alan Forrester wrote:

>
> On 11 Feb 2013, at 11:41, JAG jaguarnight2012-/[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > --- In [email protected], "hibbsa" wrote:
> >> Here's the extra implication to the domain of 'philosphy of  science' as
> >> I see it.
> >
> > Greetings to all.....
> >
> > not exactyly a respond to the topic discussed here but here is another real-LEGIT implication to the domain of philosophy of science (that is, according to Hume's following idea):
> >
> > "How is 'experimental reasoning' about causes and effects itself
> > justified? In terms of deduction? that is impossible since the
> > conclusion of inductive arguments are not deductively derivable from
> > their premises. In terms of experimental reasoning? that is arguing
> > in circle."
> > -Hume
>
> It isn't justified. Justification is unnecessary and impossible.
>
I can justify "experimental reasoning" in the computationalist theory  
of mind (and matter).

I hope you agree that some justification can exist. I can justify, for  
example, that there are no natural nulbers x and y, different from 0,  
such that 2x^2 = y^2. I am pretty sure that you can justify this too  
by yourself.
May be you are using "justification" is some other sense.
It seems to me, also, That Deustch does justify the belief in the MWI  
from the two (four actually) slit experiments. I don't understand the  
critics on justification and inductive inference, despite I do have  
the feeling of sharing some critics on 'justificationism' and  
'inductivism'.

Bruno



> See "The Beginning of Infinity" by David Deutsch and "Realism and  
> the Aim of Science" by Karl Popper.
>
> Alan
> 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]