On Friday, September 13, 2013 9:31:56 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 12 Sep 2013, at 17:47, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > Which reasoning is clearly false? > > Here's what I'm thinking: > > 1) The conclusion "I won't be surprised to be hanged Friday if I am not > hanged by Thursday" creates another proposition to be surprised about. By > leaving the condition of 'surprise' open ended, it could include being > surprised that the judge lied, or any number of other soft contingencies > that could render an 'unexpected' outcome. The condition of expectation > isn't an objective phenomenon, it is a subjective inference. Objectively, > there is no surprise as objects don't anticipate anything. > > 2) If we want to close in tightly on the quantitative logic of whether > deducibility can be deduced - given five coin flips and a certainty that > one will be heads, each successive tails coin flip increases the odds that > one the remaining flips will be heads. The fifth coin will either be 100% > likely to be heads, or will prove that the certainty assumed was 100% wrong. > > I think the paradox hinges on 1) the false inference of objectivity in the > use of the word surprise and 2) the false assertion of omniscience by the > judge. It's like an Escher drawing. In real life, surprise cannot be > predicted with certainty and the quality of unexpectedness it is not an > objective thing, just as expectation is not an objective thing. > > Or not? > > > That's not to bad. In fact to get the paradox you need to assume that the > teacher (for the unexpected exam) is rational, but it can't be. > > Bruno > > > Thanks Bruno!
> > > > Craig > > On Thursday, September 12, 2013 5:33:24 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: >> >> Time for some philosophy then :) >> >> Here's a paradox that's making me lose sleep: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox >> >> Probably many of you already know about it. >> >> What mostly bothers me is the epistemological crisis that this >> introduces. I cannot find a problem with the reasoning, but it's >> clearly false. So I know that I don't know why this reasoning is >> false. Now, how can I know if there are other types of reasoning that >> I don't even know that I don't know that they are correct? >> >> Cheers, >> Telmo. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
