02-12-18 07:31 AM
386 ... 13141516
tools
  1. markmall's Avatar
    I could get hit by a truck when driving and be dead too. What's worse?
    You have persuaded me by this argument.

    Posted via CB10
    02-02-18 01:05 PM
  2. markmall's Avatar
    All human systems have this issue. It's mitigated through good processes and controls. This is why it's possible to drive the frequency of events for known vulnerabilities down to almost zero. The challenge is in environments with unknown vulnerabilities, poor processes and/or poor controls.

    Posted with my trusty Z10
    I am a believer in "chaos theory" to an extent. It is a tendency of people to underestimate the unpredictability of the world. This is especially true in matters involving human fallibility or susceptibility to corruption.

    Posted via CB10
    02-02-18 01:10 PM
  3. bb10adopter111's Avatar
    I am a believer in "chaos theory" to an extent. It is a tendency of people to underestimate the unpredictability of the world. This is especially true in matters involving human fallibility or susceptibility to corruption.

    Posted via CB10
    Uh...that's not the definition of chaos theory.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

    More importantly, chaos theory isn't something one chooses to believe in or not. Belief is for faith-based ideas, not mathematics or science which can and must be demonstrated and tested, respectively.

    Mathematics, like theorems in chaos theory, have been demonstrated unequivocally, but that doesn't mean they apply to all systems, or even the subset of systems that involve human beings. Dynamic systems relevant to chaos theory are deterministic, but have very different outcomes depending on small differences in initial conditions. There are many human systems that don't exhibit that property, either because they are deterministic but stable, or because they are stochastic in nature.

    Beliefs and opinions about science and mathematics are as irrelevant as the number of freckles on the face of God.

    Posted with my trusty Z10
    02-02-18 01:20 PM
  4. conite's Avatar
    I am a believer in "chaos theory" to an extent. It is a tendency of people to underestimate the unpredictability of the world. This is especially true in matters involving human fallibility or susceptibility to corruption.

    Posted via CB10
    Chaos speaks to the potential unpredictability of events, but it is still governed by probability which calculates the likelihood of particular outcomes.

    This is really just an exercise of risk assessment.

    It's just like driving a car. Are the rewards worth the potential risks?
    02-02-18 01:26 PM
  5. markmall's Avatar
    Uh...that's not the definition of chaos theory.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

    More importantly, chaos theory isn't something one chooses to believe in or not. Belief is for faith-based ideas, not mathematics or science which can and must be demonstrated and tested, respectively.

    Mathematics, like theorems in chaos theory, have been demonstrated unequivocally, but that doesn't mean they apply to all systems, or even the subset of systems that involve human beings. Dynamic systems relevant to chaos theory are deterministic, but have very different outcomes depending on small differences in initial conditions. There are many human systems that don't exhibit that property, either because they are deterministic but stable, or because they are stochastic in nature.

    Beliefs and opinions about science and mathematics are as irrelevant as the number of freckles on the face of God.

    Posted with my trusty Z10
    Geez, all I meant was sh-t happens.

    Posted via CB10
    Qorax likes this.
    02-02-18 09:19 PM
  6. JSmith422's Avatar
    Uh...that's not the definition of chaos theory.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

    More importantly, chaos theory isn't something one chooses to believe in or not. Belief is for faith-based ideas, not mathematics or science which can and must be demonstrated and tested, respectively.

    Mathematics, like theorems in chaos theory, have been demonstrated unequivocally, but that doesn't mean they apply to all systems, or even the subset of systems that involve human beings. Dynamic systems relevant to chaos theory are deterministic, but have very different outcomes depending on small differences in initial conditions. There are many human systems that don't exhibit that property, either because they are deterministic but stable, or because they are stochastic in nature.

    Beliefs and opinions about science and mathematics are as irrelevant as the number of freckles on the face of God.

    Posted with my trusty Z10

    I think what markmall meant by his comment about it being "unpredictable" was that a very small unconsidered problem at Google could potentially cause something catastrophic for the world.

    You alluded to this yourself with your reference to the financial crisis. I'm under the impression that fundamentally, the two of you agree.

    I do however, have to respectfully disagree with the steadfast view on science. Science always KNOWS it's unequivocally correct...until...it's wrong. History has proven this over and over again. Something is true until it's not.

    Perhaps too metaphysical for this forum, but science and math are merely human concepts of organization based on fundamental belief systems and are therefore inherently fallible. You and I both KNOW 1+1 =2, but that's based on a social agreement to a "concept" of organization of the KNOWN and TESTED data. Consider this, it only takes one failure out of infinite trials to disprove anything. How many times must a concept be tested in order for it to be accepted as true? A hundred? A thousand? A billion? A trillion? Make up a number, the largest number you can conceive, it doesn't matter. The first trial that encounters a failure, the theorem fails. Data is infinite and one can not test everything. Therefore every axiom and theorem is inherently based only on a sample group, and only "believed" to be true. Nothing can ever be proven to be true, the best one can ever hope for is 'not yet known to be false.'

    Scientists 'knew' Thalidomide was safe.....until it wasn't. Their initial data sets were simply too small to see the problem. It wasn't until the drug was in the marketplace, with a larger sample group that it's problems showed up - and in rather catastrophic fashion I might add.

    This becomes incredibly problematic as you scale. Systems are built on top of systems, which are built on top of systems, which are built on top of systems.....that's a lot of dominoes...and even if they're all generally 'believed' to be stable, each one of those system is rooted in a belief entirely based on SAMPLE data. Is it possible the sample was simply too small and we just haven't seen the problem yet? Perhaps. Is it possible the flap of a butterfly's wings could eventually topple that lead dominoe? Maybe.

    But make no mistake, science and mathematics ARE a belief system, albeit a very well organized belief system, but still inherently a belief system.
    Qorax likes this.
    02-03-18 04:43 AM
  7. JSmith422's Avatar
    Honestly it's not hard if you have a life lol. Social media is a time wasting disease. I downgraded from a keyone to a blackberry classic and Q10 which I am typing on right now. Best decision I ever made. Keep it simple.

    Posted via CB10
    Haha, I don't use social media at all, but in reality, is me engaging in useless philosophical debates on Crackberry any different than what others do on social media?
    Qorax likes this.
    02-03-18 04:49 AM
  8. Chuck Finley69's Avatar
    Haha, I don't use social media at all, but in reality, is me engaging in useless philosophical debates on Crackberry any different than what others do on social media?
    Isn't CrackBerry technically "social media" ? LOL
    kbz1960 likes this.
    02-03-18 05:50 AM
  9. markmall's Avatar
    It's not tracking your references to brand names or saving your photos for sale to black mailers in the year 2030 -- so, no, it's not social media.

    Posted via CB10
    02-03-18 07:06 PM
  10. no_fool's Avatar
    Hello! I use a Q10 daily and love it. It can be difficult to browse the Web or use YouTube, but mainly, it keeps chugging along just fine. I kinda gave up on the BB computer sync software though, as it has trouble. To the pc programs defense though, I might be dealing with a poor USB connection.
    02-03-18 07:23 PM
  11. Chuck Finley69's Avatar
    It's not tracking your references to brand names or saving your photos for sale to black mailers in the year 2030 -- so, no, it's not social media.

    Posted via CB10
    CrackBerry the company and it's fearless Editor-in-chief might disagree with you.
    kbz1960 likes this.
    02-03-18 07:54 PM
  12. JSmith422's Avatar
    CrackBerry the company and it's fearless Editor-in-chief might disagree with you.
    Are you indicating that Crackberry the company is tracking references to brand names and saving its users photos for black mail in 2030?
    02-04-18 03:53 AM
  13. Chuck Finley69's Avatar
    Are you indicating that Crackberry the company is tracking references to brand names and saving its users photos for black mail in 2030?
    Of course not. I have no idea since I've never taken any time reading CB TOS. I'm merely stating four of the Mobile Nations websites; Android Central, CrackBerry, iMore and Windows Central meet the general definition of social media. Perhaps not as intrusive as other social media organizations sites, it doesn't mean they are not social media.
    02-04-18 06:29 AM
  14. bb10adopter111's Avatar
    Geez, all I meant was sh-t happens.

    Posted via CB10
    Well, I agree with that. :-)

    Posted with my trusty Z10
    02-04-18 06:50 AM
  15. markmall's Avatar
    Well, I agree with that. :-)

    Posted with my trusty Z10
    I probably was understating that a little. I think what I meant was when we use new and powerful technology in arguably reckless ways that bad things can happen way out of scale with what we would believe possible.

    This was the theme of Jurassic Park. I could see something very bad happening with corporations owning our most intimate secrets and storing them in server farms. They already made a Hollywood movie about this even if it was not a good one. The Circle with Tom Hanks I think.

    Posted via CB10
    02-05-18 05:04 PM
  16. bb10adopter111's Avatar
    I probably was understating that a little. I think what I meant was when we use new and powerful technology in arguably reckless ways that bad things can happen way out of scale with what we would believe possible.

    This was the theme of Jurassic Park. I could see something very bad happening with corporations owning our most intimate secrets and storing them in server farms. They already made a Hollywood movie about this even if it was not a good one. The Circle with Tom Hanks I think.

    Posted via CB10
    I agree with that too, whether or not it's properly described by chaos theory. There is no guarantee that the unprecedented speed with which the Internet and mobile phones have developed will be a net positive or negative for human civilization. Most would say it's been a huge positive so far, but the early returns are not always predictive!

    Posted with my trusty Z10
    02-05-18 06:58 PM
  17. markmall's Avatar
    I agree with that too, whether or not it's properly described by chaos theory. There is no guarantee that the unprecedented speed with which the Internet and mobile phones have developed will be a net positive or negative for human civilization. Most would say it's been a huge positive so far, but the early returns are not always predictive!

    Posted with my trusty Z10
    I was not talking about mobile phones and the Internet but rather data collection by Google and others -- but mainly the Google.

    Posted via CB10
    02-05-18 08:40 PM
  18. bb10adopter111's Avatar
    I think what markmall meant by his comment about it being "unpredictable" was that a very small unconsidered problem at Google could potentially cause something catastrophic for the world.

    You alluded to this yourself with your reference to the financial crisis. I'm under the impression that fundamentally, the two of you agree.

    I do however, have to respectfully disagree with the steadfast view on science. Science always KNOWS it's unequivocally correct...until...it's wrong. History has proven this over and over again. Something is true until it's not.

    Perhaps too metaphysical for this forum, but science and math are merely human concepts of organization based on fundamental belief systems and are therefore inherently fallible. You and I both KNOW 1+1 =2, but that's based on a social agreement to a "concept" of organization of the KNOWN and TESTED data. Consider this, it only takes one failure out of infinite trials to disprove anything. How many times must a concept be tested in order for it to be accepted as true? A hundred? A thousand? A billion? A trillion? Make up a number, the largest number you can conceive, it doesn't matter. The first trial that encounters a failure, the theorem fails. Data is infinite and one can not test everything. Therefore every axiom and theorem is inherently based only on a sample group, and only "believed" to be true. Nothing can ever be proven to be true, the best one can ever hope for is 'not yet known to be false.'

    Scientists 'knew' Thalidomide was safe.....until it wasn't. Their initial data sets were simply too small to see the problem. It wasn't until the drug was in the marketplace, with a larger sample group that it's problems showed up - and in rather catastrophic fashion I might add.

    This becomes incredibly problematic as you scale. Systems are built on top of systems, which are built on top of systems, which are built on top of systems.....that's a lot of dominoes...and even if they're all generally 'believed' to be stable, each one of those system is rooted in a belief entirely based on SAMPLE data. Is it possible the sample was simply too small and we just haven't seen the problem yet? Perhaps. Is it possible the flap of a butterfly's wings could eventually topple that lead dominoe? Maybe.

    But make no mistake, science and mathematics ARE a belief system, albeit a very well organized belief system, but still inherently a belief system.
    That's not accurate at all. Science makes zero assumptions about ultimate "truth." Science simply says that a model that successfully predicts results in the real world is valid. A scientific model or theory can be shown to be valid, but science doesn't care if it's "true."

    This is where people who try to mix faith and science get it wrong. The reason the theory of gravity (Newtonian or relativistic) are considered scientifically valid is because they accurately predict measurable phenomena in the physical world.

    The reason that "intelligent design" is not a valid scientific theory. Is that it doesn't predict anything. It's just an explanation for already observed phenomena. That's not science.

    Mathematics is different. But it's not a belief system. It sets forth a few basic rules (axioms, not "truths") and then develops additional ideas (theorems) that follow logically (can be proven) from those axioms. If you change the axioms (e.g., 1+1=3), then you can prove different things (e.g., 3-1=1). But mathematics also doesn't claim any kind of ultimate "truth."

    Faith, on the other hand, cares about unprovable "truths" that have nothing to do with science or math. For example, most faith-based systems have a creation myth about how the universe began, and specifically what occurred BEFORE the instant of creation.

    Science and mathematics have nothing to say definitively about how the universe began for the simple reason that we can never obtain any data prior to about 380,000 years post "Big Bang." That's the age of the cosmic background radiation, which dates to the emergence of hydrogen atoms. For times before that, physicists can only construct models that are consistent with observed astronomical phenomena or experimental data from particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider.

    From the work of scientists and mathematicians we have a model for the early universe, based on the idea of the Big Bang. This theory explains all observed phenomena in the universe, but that doesn't make it true.

    If someone wants to suggest that a pink elephant the size of a grain of sand sneezed to start the Big Bang in motion, science and mathematics have no way to refute it, because there is no data from that time. That's a battle for people who care about faith to fight. Whether you prefer my tiny pink elephant or someone else's God is a matter of personal faith, not math or science.

    Posted with my trusty Z10
    02-05-18 09:16 PM
  19. brookie229's Avatar
    Large Hard Collider
    Spelling police here: Hadron
    02-05-18 09:19 PM
  20. JSmith422's Avatar
    That's not accurate at all. Science makes zero assumptions about ultimate "truth." Science simply says that a model that successfully predicts results in the real world is valid. A scientific model or theory can be shown to be valid, but science doesn't care if it's "true."

    This is where people who try to mix faith and science get it wrong. The reason the theory of gravity (Newtonian or relativistic) are considered scientifically valid is because they accurately predict measurable phenomena in the physical world.

    The reason that "intelligent design" is not a valid scientific theory. Is that it doesn't predict anything. It's just an explanation for already observed phenomena. That's not science.

    Mathematics is different. But it's not a belief system. It sets forth a few basic rules (axioms, not "truths") and then develops additional ideas (theorems) that follow logically (can be proven) from those axioms. If you change the axioms (e.g., 1+1=3), then you can prove different things (e.g., 3-1=1). But mathematics also doesn't claim any kind of ultimate "truth."

    Faith, on the other hand, cares about unprovable "truths" that have nothing to do with science or math. For example, most faith-based systems have a creation myth about how the universe began, and specifically what occurred BEFORE the instant of creation.

    Science and mathematics have nothing to say definitively about how the universe began for the simple reason that we can never obtain any data prior to about 380,000 years post "Big Bang." That's the age of the cosmic background radiation, which dates to the emergence of hydrogen atoms. For times before that, physicists can only construct models that are consistent with observed astronomical phenomena or experimental data from particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider.

    From the work of scientists and mathematicians we have a model for the early universe, based on the idea of the Big Bang. This theory explains all observed phenomena in the universe, but that doesn't make it true.

    If someone wants to suggest that a pink elephant the size of a grain of sand sneezed to start the Big Bang in motion, science and mathematics have no way to refute it, because there is no data from that time. That's a battle for people who care about faith to fight. Whether you prefer my tiny pink elephant or someone else's God is a matter of personal faith, not math or science.

    Posted with my trusty Z10
    Semantics. Logic dictates that one makes a choice to 'believe' a model and method based on an assumption of what is 'accurate' or 'valid' or 'reproducible' simply by employing the use of a model. The moment you model something or conduct a calculation you are using a belief system. The model IS (in part) the belief. Everything else is immaterial. We aren't debating religion or the big bang or anything of the sort. Only that the employment of science and mathematics necessitates a belief in their use and validity (either for or against). They cannot exist without a belief. We can debate quantum mechanics next if you want, but that too requires a fundamental belief in a system. I'm sure you have an intriguing perspective on the probabilities and models at the quantum level. Got your dice ready?
    02-07-18 03:42 AM
  21. Emaderton3's Avatar
    Usually need to discuss the scientific method and hypothesis testing if you want to talk science in the first place. . .
    02-07-18 06:39 AM
  22. bb10adopter111's Avatar
    Semantics. Logic dictates that one makes a choice to 'believe' a model and method based on an assumption of what is 'accurate' or 'valid' or 'reproducible' simply by employing the use of a model. The moment you model something or conduct a calculation you are using a belief system. The model IS (in part) the belief. Everything else is immaterial. We aren't debating religion or the big bang or anything of the sort. Only that the employment of science and mathematics necessitates a belief in their use and validity (either for or against). They cannot exist without a belief. We can debate quantum mechanics next if you want, but that too requires a fundamental belief in a system. I'm sure you have an intriguing perspective on the probabilities and models at the quantum level. Got your dice ready?
    Using the words "belief system" to describe mathematical and scientific models is just odd. One doesn't have to "believe" that 1+1=2 to prove or disprove it according to a given set of axioms. The same is true of evaluating a hypothesis based in experimental results. If you want to call that a "belief systen" then what words will you use for actual faith-based models?

    If you can't tell the difference between the two, then I give up.

    Posted with my trusty Z10
    02-08-18 09:13 AM
  23. BESSI SHALA's Avatar
    I have passport is running as i bought new thats why i like the os
    no low performance as ios or android
    anyway we mostly all have second phone android or ios for day to day needs
    but the os 10 (no reason) (love)
    02-08-18 09:18 AM
  24. teknofish's Avatar
    Easy, my Z30 is not slow and does voice, email and Telegram brilliantly. I do however not play Minecraft et all.
    02-08-18 11:54 AM
  25. JSmith422's Avatar
    Using the words "belief system" to describe mathematical and scientific models is just odd. One doesn't have to "believe" that 1+1=2 to prove or disprove it according to a given set of axioms. The same is true of evaluating a hypothesis based in experimental results. If you want to call that a "belief systen" then what words will you use for actual faith-based models?

    If you can't tell the difference between the two, then I give up.

    Posted with my trusty Z10
    There's undoubtedly a difference in structure, logic, and belief in all of the things you mention. I'm merely pointing out that despite what you may think, you've made certain assumptions in your use of these models that require you to hold an underlying 'belief' in their validity. Whether or not that validity actually exists is immaterial for the purposes of this discussion.

    Let me try putting this another way, do you believe your mathematics and scientific models to be false, incorrect or invalid?

    Of course you don't.

    You believe them to be true, correct, and valid. If you believed them to be false, you wouldn't employ their use.

    You employ their use in an attempt to gain knowledge.

    belief + justification = knowledge

    Therefore, anything derived from the use of the model is based on the aforementioned 'belief' that the model must be valid.

    You seem to be confusing belief with rationality which is something different entirely.
    02-08-18 01:57 PM
386 ... 13141516

Similar Threads

  1. A good Android Backup solution for my K1? Does one exist?
    By Roveer in forum BlackBerry KEYone
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-09-17, 07:03 PM
  2. anyone else think the render device looks like of ugly?
    By lui22 in forum BlackBerry Motion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-07-17, 11:20 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-06-17, 12:18 PM
  4. How to update Apps maually?
    By hack3rcon in forum BlackBerry Z10
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-06-17, 11:57 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD