Daily Archives: November 6, 2012

機會率哲學 2.2

Posted on by

The problem of induction 1.2 | 西瓜 6.2

這段改編自 2010 年 4 月 3 日的對話。

第二個「解答」，來自英國哲學家 A. J. Ayer。那不是一個正式的「解答」，而是指出「歸納法是理性的」這句說話，根本是重言句。又或者說，「歸納法為何符合理性」這個問題，根本是多餘的，問來也沒有意思。根據正常人對「理性」和「歸納法」這兩個字眼的用法，「理性」已經包含了「歸納法」。正如「亞洲人是人」是重言句，因為「亞洲人」的意思，已包括了「人」。

換句話說，「歸納法」這個概念，一早已經裝嵌於「理性」之中。「理性」的其中一個必要元素是，懂得使用「歸納法」。例如，有一個嬰兒，手指不慎接觸到蠟燭的火光，感覺到痛，他就立刻縮手，以免再受傷。自此以後，他對蠟燭的火光，都存有戒心，不敢再接觸。那樣，我們會覺得那個嬰兒，是一個「理性的嬰兒」。「理性」的地方在於，縱使不自覺，他也運用了「歸納法」：「上次我手指碰到火光時，感覺到痛。下次碰到時，很可能都會那樣，所以最好避之則吉。」

相反，如果有另一個嬰兒，太早有哲學思考的話，他就可能會質疑「歸納法」：「雖然我上次被火灼傷，但那並不代表，我下次都會被火灼傷，所以，我可以再把手指，放於火光之中，再試一試。」那樣，我們會覺得那個嬰兒，是一個「瘋狂的嬰兒」。

這個答法的問題在於，「歸納法」和「理性」的關係，並不如「亞洲人」和「人」的關係那麼明顯。「亞洲人」這個概念，很明顯包括了「人」的元素。我們不會追問，究竟「人」這個概念，是如何嵌入「亞洲人」之中？但是，我們卻可以繼續追問，究竟「歸納法」這個概念，是如何嵌入「理性」之中呢？

— Me@2012.11.05

2012.11.06 Tuesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Quantum entanglement

Posted on by

EPR paradox, 4

Entanglement is said to involve “correlations” of states, but the correlations are not the result of a transmission of information, electrodynamic fields, or other known ways of projecting energy across the space between two physical systems. Therefore, it is argued, no demonstrations of entanglement can involve causation as strictly defined. This argument is tautologically true, but it does not explain how entanglement can be explained.

One solution that has been attempted is to argue that the correlations are predetermined by some kind of hidden variables. But these arguments have been strongly questioned by the Bell inequalities test, and although loopholes have been urgently sought[,] the consensus so far has been that the test validly rules against hidden variables.

— 19:03, 29 March 2012

— Wikipedia on Quantum entanglement

The EPR paradox is already solved. Please refer to my relevant blog posts by searching “EPR paradox” here. The above Wikipedia paragraph is stored here for my personal historical interest only. 

— Me@2012-11-06 01:37:51 AM

2012.11.06 Tuesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK