😅i😊u Jimmy 9⁹9opmnbb

Second this. Properties tend to come in groups, therefore it is REASONABLE for us to expect recognizing these patterns through various experiences (think up down in differing contexts and on different things) to give us probabilistic certainty.

​@@nopara73so probability can give you total certainty? cool guess problem solved, Just like Pompeii were 100% certain mount Vesuvius wouldn't erupt because of probability.

@@metrab8901 cryptography is the mathematics of probabilistic certainty, which protects not only the bitcoin network, but pretty much all of cyberspace, so yeah, pretty much, otherwise humanity would be doomed😂

@@nopara73 do you have probable certainty of probability?

Great point!

@@PhiloofAlexandria isn't it also something Al-Ghazali refers to in the Divine causality, which both theologians and philosophers accept, albeit in widely divergent ways, is not at issue, but what is usually termed “secondary causality” (that is, those sequences of effects which seem to ripple from one cause to the next: when I move my hand, the ring on my finger moves too, and so on). For the philosophers, a cosmos not bound together by interlocking chains of secondary causality represented an absurdity; nature as well as reason were at stake. (Ibn Rushd - and later, Maimonides, following in his footsteps - argued that if you remove causality from the scheme of things, you also remove rationality, for the very processes of the mind depend upon cause and effect, as in argument itself.) But for the theologians, especially those of the Ash‘arite persuasion, such a cosmos suggested a dangerous autonomy a world in which necessity inheres in the nature of things infringes divine agency and compromises omnipotence.For Ash‘arites, God is the sole agent whose will determines and effects every action. What we think of as causality is nothing but “God’s habit” (or “custom”). The world functions as it does, with apparent cause and effect, only because it is God’s habit for it to do so. Miracles are nothing more than “breaches of habit.” There are neither “laws of nature” nor natures intrinsic to things. God can alter His custom whenever He will; no reality exists in things themselves, despite appearances. All ultimately are fictive; subject to alteration or annihilation from moment to moment, and in the twinkling of an eye. Things as they are exist as they do only because God creates them, atom by atom, instant by instant, in continual pulsations of His will. If He were to decide that the rain should fall upward, it would instantly do so; this would represent a “breach of God’s habit,” a miracle, not a reversal of “nature.” What we call nature is itself nothing more than God’s habit.

What you're dscribing is known as abduction, but it doesn't actually solve anything. (if what you want in true universability) In order to calculate the probability of something, you need to know the demoninator, and the problem of induction shows us that we can't know it. Suppose I wanted to say something about the probability of a star being the same size as our sun. I might start by counting 10 stars, finding only one of them is the same size as our sun, and conclude it's 10%. I observe some more, and the probability drops to 8%. Then I discover an error in one of my observations, and it goes up to 9% again. Eventually I have observed all the stars in the observable universe, and come to a probability of 5%. But then what about all the stars *outside* the observable universe? How many are there? We don't know, so you can't actually extrapolate the 5% number out to the rest of the universe. The same thing applies for ravens or anything else. We don't know how much we don't know, by the definition of it being unknown, and thus we can't, strictly speaking, put a probability on it. You would have to assume you have the full data set at some point, in order to put a probability on it. But *if* you choose to do that, the utility of your supposed probability, goes out the window. It no longer has any predictive power, for you've assumed to have observed the full data set. But the bigger problem is much deeper, for the point you stop and assume the full data set is arbitrary - why not stop after counting after 2 ravens?

Good idea!

You're right. I included it to cover all possibilities, even though it's one Hume would not recognize, and to prepare the stage for Kant.

@@PhiloofAlexandria thanks so much for clarifying. I appreciate it.

You are mistaking an evaluation with a solution, Hume isn't trying to solve the problem of Induction but clarify it's faults.You just restated Hume's whole criticism of why we trust the inductive method. Hume's whole point is we trust it because of habit, but that means induction isn't logically or reasonably trust worthy, it's faith based. We trust that the future will be like the past because that's what we are accustomed to, there is no logical way to prove this will always be the case, therefore just like Pompeii didn't think mount Vesuvius would erupt and destroy them, we can never be 100% sure induction is reasonable.

Yes. TAG says so and Hume being an atheist concludes skepticism

​​@@delgandeit shows many are irrationally committed to atheism.

evolutionary advantage doesn't equal truth, or usefulness in the current world.

@@Google_Censored_Commenter which is more useful truth or evolutionary advantage?

@@kallianpublico7517 truth, without a doubt, obviously. I don't go around raping every woman I see to spread my genes for evolutionary advantage either. Evolution is purely descriptive, it cannot tell you what is true, nor what is good.

@@Google_Censored_Commenter truth without context doesn't exist. Ignorance of the truth maybe more useful than you know.

@@kallianpublico7517 My measure of usefulness is defined as what's true. So definitionally, that can't work for me. What's yours? Whatever arbitrarily has happened to work for you on a given day? Oh wow, how grand. A bridge won't hold if newton's laws aren't approximately true. Medicine won't cure you if the germ theory of disease isn't approximately true. Even non-physical things, like the observations psychologists have made about trends in human brain development and the mind, have truths to them. What fucking usefulness could there be, for modern humans, to be ignorant of the truth? I get it. If I'm a caveman trying to get by, believing there's a snake in the bushes every time I hear it rustle, even though what's true is it's caused by the wind, will make me more likely to survive, since I don't wander into bushes where predators might be lurking as often. If I believed in a God that most likely isn't true, but it's the only way my caveman brain can motive itself, that's gonna ba useful too. But it ain't useful in the modern age, dude. Grow up.