h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Maybe light is analogous with electrons. A photon is not an actual particle but a probability distribution for the location of a particle. Would that explain it?

Q: <<...it is at least consistent with itself.>>

P: <>

Umm... What about people? Rationality is defined (in economics and game theory, anyway) as consistency of choice. Some people just aren't rational. (By this definition, we can prove that murder is rational.)


I give this a relevance rating of .7 out of 10

[Although I acknowledge your relevance rating, Art. My (frivolous) point was that consistency is often estimated with respect to an external standard of some kind, so consistency with oneself is lacks meaning. I can see that this is a sloppy use of the term, but one I have seen often.]

Does 'rational' mean 'predictable', then?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

No, I was talking about my own relevance.

I think so. The definition, and the fact that everyone is assumed to be rational, is argued over a lot.

I didn't think I assumed everyone to be rational. I was making the point that the scientific method is a tool to help us be rational.

Queex: I've seen the term 'rational' used in the sense that says a human may not always act *logically*, but will usually (mental disturbances excepted ) act *rationally*. Using the words in this sense, I think the scientific method may help us to act *logically* (which we may not always choose to do ).

Art: I'm a little unhappy with "rational = predictable". It doesn't *feel* quite right to me....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

's why economists always argue over it. I don't really like it either. But I'm not an economist, so I don't argue.

<>

So is that the new 'cogito ergo sum", then: "I'm an economist, therefore I argue"? I assume economists aren't the only ones who argue?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Oh now you're just being difficult, Pattern-chaser.

Self-Paradoxical

Queex, before I comment on the scientific method, what do you mean by it? Popperian falsificationism?

<>

Not at all. Can I help being an economist?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Rational != Predictable

For a simple counter-example, Google for Langton's Ant.

Dogster: Umm. Tricky. Probably the most succinct definition I can come up with is to rebrand Bayesian statistics as scientific method.

Oh, pheh. PC, I meant I don't argue over the definition of rationality in the economic context because I don't /work/ in economics.

"pheh"?

So shall we try to define 'rational' and 'logical' for the purposes of this discussion, then? My first stab at it:

Logical: (even in an informal context,) behaviour that is in accord with the rules of logic. Example: Spock or Data.

Rational: behaviour that a 'normal' human being would consider to be 'sensible', 'reasonable' or 'normal'. Example: the 'man in the street'.

An example of behaviour that might be considered rational, but not logical:

Wife: "Are you warm enough?"

Husband: gets up and closes the window.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

* returns from Sweden *

Sorry, too lazy to read all the backlog, looks like you got in pretty deep on something I usually flounder at when I discuss it, so perhaps it's as well I missed it. Having just travelled a fair way (by my standards), I present you with a question: is the world different in different places? Not in terms of what it looks like or what shape it is ('cos it is, obviously, else we wouldn't be able to tell them apart), but does it behave differently? Does it feel different? Are there different things which are possible in different places? I'll let you know what I think when I've seen what some of you have to say.

From the subjective angle, you carry one 'version' of the world around with you.

In a soft sense, different things are possible in different places (buying goods with Euros, for example). The hard sense is trickier. Subjectively, there is no qualititative difference. However, you may be more likely to be exposed to certain stimuli in some places than in others.

In conclusion,

I agree.
However, my general sense is that the different state of mind induced by different social and environmental factors can cause a percieved change in the basic nature of the world, and as we've said, perception is all that matters to one's reality.

<>

Ah, Pattern-chaser, you do have a way with words.

Self-Paradoxical

As to whether the world is different in different places, I can't improve on what Artenshiur said so eloquently: "perception is all that matters to one's reality."

<>

Why thank you!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Wonderful!

The reason I asked was that when I was in Sweden, things did feel considerably different. It was probably just my state of mind (although we seem to have concluded that's all that's important anyway, so not really a problem), but the very nature of the planet felt different there. Of course, it all looks different, so that's got to have something to do with it...