On 05/01/2021 10:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> The whole process is actually covered in philosophy: It is the problem
> of induction. How do you work back from results to causes?
>
> Given that the answer to Life The Universe and Everything was '42', what
> in fact was the question? (40+2)? (6x7)?
>
> There are an infinite number of expressions that give that answer, and
> an infinite number that don't.
>
> This is where Karl Poppers philosophy of science steps in. Instead of
> regarding there to be One True Reason why science works, namely that
> scientists are in the business of discovering the Truth, he pointed out
> that just because stuff worked (and 6x7 does indeed give 42) that was no
> reason to suppose that some other completely different construct might
> not work equally as well, and that had indeed happened with relativity
> and Newtonian gravity.
>
> The Problem of Induction is that many theories can give the same
> predicted result. Sherlock Holmes is a sham. The Dog That Didnt Bark in
> the Night didn't bark, allegedly, because it knew the thief. Why? It
> might have been abducted by aliens, drugged, actually out hunting
> rabbits, in a soundproof box, or the Russians did it using a robot. or
> just too plumb wore out with old age to care.
>
> The truth is not provable. All we have is stuff that works. Given
> running machine code, there are an infinite number of source codes that
> might have produced it, and an infinite number that did not.
>
> We aren't there, ultimately, to reproduce *the* exact source, but to
> arrive at *an* editable source, that we can use.
> Like science, and religion, it doesn't have to be true, to be useful,
> and like science, and religion, its ultimate content will be forever
> truth-indecidable.
>

That's an interesting and thought-provoking aside!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05