If you're right and that math, the most logical and "non-biased" way to approach the world, doesn't work, then it implies humans will never ever access the "actual reality", the objective truth, and that there's nothing to do. Experimentation itself is biased because we are humans and see the world with our eyes, not the eyes of an almighty being that knows everything [I]exactly[/I].
That being said, I think we should trust math. We've been trusting them, and hey, it's working! If maths were that bad, I don't think the technology humanity has at the moment would be possible to have.
As for the dice thing, I'd like to come back on the gambler's fallacy: even though you have 1/3 chance of rolling a 6 once when you roll a dice twice, you have 1/6 chance once the dice has been rolled once. Repeat that infinitely, and it's totally possible that you will never get that 6.
If you're right and that math, the most logical and "non-biased" way to approach the world, doesn't work, then it implies humans will never ever access the "actual reality", the objective truth, and that there's nothing to do. Experimentation itself is biased because we are humans and see the world with our eyes, not the eyes of an almighty being that knows everything exactly.
That being said, I think we should trust math. We've been trusting them, and hey, it's working! If maths were that bad, I don't think the technology humanity has at the moment would be possible to have.
As for the dice thing, I'd like to come back on the gambler's fallacy: even though you have 1/3 chance of rolling a 6 once when you roll a dice twice, you have 1/6 chance once the dice has been rolled once. Repeat that infinitely, and it's totally possible that you will never get that 6.
Reply With Quote