One of my friends had to write an essay on the above topic, come up with anything you like, get creative!
Do You Know the Sun Will Rise Tommorrow?
That depends on how you define "sun", "tomorrow", "rise", "know" and "will".
... and "you".
It's so much fun to be bad. ^_^;
... and "you".
It's so much fun to be bad. ^_^;
Sun - the Star that the planet earth (the planet on which you an i reside) orbits
Tomorrow - The Day after today
Rise - the action of the sun appearing above the horizon
Tomorrow - The Day after today
Rise - the action of the sun appearing above the horizon
Something by loyal
Do i know the sun will shine tomorrow?
Do i know the moon will sigh in sorrow?
Will the Lord still love us on the morrow?
Do i know the sun will shine tomorrow?
Do i know the moon will sigh in sorrow?
Will the Lord still love us on the morrow?
The earth has been spinning for billions of years and I have no reason to think it has stopped.
| mgumn wrote: |
| Sun - the Star that the planet earth (the planet on which you an i reside) orbits
Tomorrow - The Day after today Rise - the action of the sun appearing above the horizon |
Tsk, while I admit I was joking, there was a serious element in my comment that you have missed completely.
For starters, it's trivially easy to render the question meaningless by simply hopping on a plane and staying ahead of the terminator for 24 hours. In such a case, no, the sun will not rise tomorrow. In fact, I could use a very fast plane and have the sun rise twice or more times tomorrow. But that's just poking at the surface failings of the question. The deeper failings still exist.
I notice you very coyly didn't define "know" when you defined the other words. (Or "you", the definition of which opens up a whole other can of worms. But let's not even start down that road.) A trivial definition of "know", such as "to be sure", doesn't work either - then I'd just demand that you define "sure". And I'm not just playing semantic games. Those kinds of words have very different meanings depending on context. When I say I know something professionally (as an engineer), I mean it in an entirely different way than when I say it as a layperson. And it's not necessary "stronger" or "surer" - in fact, sometimes I can be less sure of what I know as an engineer than what I know as a layperson.
So. My objection stands. The answer to your question depends on how you define the terms. In fact... the answer to your question is determined entirely by how you define the terms. How do you define "know"?
While I have no reason to believe that the sun will not rise tomorrow, it is my opinion that it cannot be said with 100% certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow. Facts leave no room for possibilities, and I think that it is very possible (however unlikely) that the sun may not come up tomorrow.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| The earth has been spinning for billions of years and I have no reason to think it has stopped. |
Ahh, I've always known that you aren't poetic at all
I guess this essay wasn't supposed to be a scientifical probability calculation of the possible sunrise the next day 
I would write a few lines about my conception of it, but in my country it's midnight and I've run out of my whole energy and creativity...The question is a very important one.
A fundamental problem in science is this very issue. How many times do you need to observe something before you can say it is true ?
The answer, obviously, is that it is not true. One day it is quite certain that the Sun will NOT rise.
This general problem is called the problem of 'Induction'. It was finally addressed by adopting the suggestions of Karl Popper that the problem be reversed. Whilst no amount of observations can show a thing to be true, a single observation is enough to show it is false. This principle is called the principle of REFUTABILITY and is central to modern science.
Simply put - any statement, theory or concept which cannot be refuted is NOT science.
Regards
Chris
A fundamental problem in science is this very issue. How many times do you need to observe something before you can say it is true ?
The answer, obviously, is that it is not true. One day it is quite certain that the Sun will NOT rise.
This general problem is called the problem of 'Induction'. It was finally addressed by adopting the suggestions of Karl Popper that the problem be reversed. Whilst no amount of observations can show a thing to be true, a single observation is enough to show it is false. This principle is called the principle of REFUTABILITY and is central to modern science.
Simply put - any statement, theory or concept which cannot be refuted is NOT science.
Regards
Chris
Invalid question. The sun does not rise at all, as far as linear movement in respect to our position. It only appears to rise as observed from the planet surface.
Please re-phrase and re-submit before confusing the masses again. Mkthks.
I wonder how many people will actually turn in their paper based on the invalid question. Lots of good topics here to go with.
Please re-phrase and re-submit before confusing the masses again. Mkthks.
| Quote: |
| One of my friends had to write an essay on the above topic |
I wonder how many people will actually turn in their paper based on the invalid question. Lots of good topics here to go with.
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| Invalid question. The sun does not rise at all, as far as linear movement in respect to our position. It only appears to rise as observed from the planet surface.
Please re-phrase and re-submit before confusing the masses again. Mkthks. |
Nope...valid question. The Sun rises 'relatively speaking' to an observer on the surface. Insofar as all action and motion is relative, this is therefore a reasonable simplification.
Hmmm. Well, given that I will be standing still on the ground and not traveling at high speed (I like Indi's thought process 
), I KNOW that it will rise tomorrow.
I maybe be wrong. But, with the knowledge I have to work with, every fiber of my being tells me that it will rise tomorrow. I don't think "know" and "absolute truth" are the same thing.
Two of "know"'s definitions:
), I KNOW that it will rise tomorrow.
I maybe be wrong. But, with the knowledge I have to work with, every fiber of my being tells me that it will rise tomorrow. I don't think "know" and "absolute truth" are the same thing.
Two of "know"'s definitions:
| Quote: |
|
1. To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty. 2. To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail. |
| HoboPelican wrote: | ||
| Hmmm. Well, given that I will be standing still on the ground and not traveling at high speed (I like Indi's thought process ), I KNOW that it will rise tomorrow.
I maybe be wrong. But, with the knowledge I have to work with, every fiber of my being tells me that it will rise tomorrow. I don't think "know" and "absolute truth" are the same thing. Two of "know"'s definitions:
|
My own point was more general.
The statement 'The sun will rise tomorrow' cannot be accepted as a general statement of fact or 'true', since it will, one day in the future, be wrong. The same is potentially true of all 'true' statements unless they are based in a closed or rigidly defined system such as Boolean Logic or Math.
You can certainly accept it as a working theory personally since, by definition, you are specifying limits on the statement (ie your own lifetime in this case), but even then it cannot be said to be a 'true' statement in the sense of 'certain' since it could be wrong, however unlikely. It is a real possibility that the Sun could encounter a black hole and be 'eaten' for example (even though the probability is extremely low). The same is true of all statements (apart from the aforementioned exceptions) and the general problem is called the problem of Induction and this is the reason for Refutability as the basis of modern scientific philosophy.
Karl Popper did the pioneering work in this area and is well worth a read if you like the philosophy of science (he is a hero of mine from way back).
http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/
http://www.friesian.com/popper.htm
http://www.univie.ac.at/science-archives/popper/
Regards
Chris
If you have to write an essay on this subject (or your friend has to) I'd suggest taking a look at Hume's view on the subject and respond to that in some way.
| Victoly wrote: |
| If you have to write an essay on this subject (or your friend has to) I'd suggest taking a look at Hume's view on the subject and respond to that in some way. |
Sound advice....Hume is important in defining and clarifying the issues surrounding this whole area and gave birth to the question which Popper later answered.
http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/hume.htm
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/
Cheers
Chris
Strictly speaking no. It's impossible to be sure of anything.
However, I've always been very practical in my personal philosophy. When philosophers start talking about the impossibility of knowing anything for sure, and wondering how to prove their own existance, I either get listless or frustrated.
What does it matter? Ok, in the most literal sense I cannot be 100% sure that the sun will rise tomorrow. But to my knowledge it has risen over my latitude every single day for all of recorded history.
Now, I don't know off the top of my head the exact definition of the end of prehistory and the beginning of history. But for the sake of argument, lets put it at 1000BC.
That's three thousand years. Excuse the very rough arithmatic, more accuracy really isn't needed. Three hundred and sixty-five days in a year, three thousand years. That's over a million days of the sun coming up.
I'd say the odds are pretty good?
In the strictest, most literal sense, no. I cannot be sure the sun will rise.
For all practical purposes, yes, I am sure the sun will rise.
However, I've always been very practical in my personal philosophy. When philosophers start talking about the impossibility of knowing anything for sure, and wondering how to prove their own existance, I either get listless or frustrated.
What does it matter? Ok, in the most literal sense I cannot be 100% sure that the sun will rise tomorrow. But to my knowledge it has risen over my latitude every single day for all of recorded history.
Now, I don't know off the top of my head the exact definition of the end of prehistory and the beginning of history. But for the sake of argument, lets put it at 1000BC.
That's three thousand years. Excuse the very rough arithmatic, more accuracy really isn't needed. Three hundred and sixty-five days in a year, three thousand years. That's over a million days of the sun coming up.
I'd say the odds are pretty good?
In the strictest, most literal sense, no. I cannot be sure the sun will rise.
For all practical purposes, yes, I am sure the sun will rise.
| Bikerman wrote: |
|
My own point was more general. The statement 'The sun will rise tomorrow' cannot be accepted as a general statement of fact or 'true', since it will, one day in the future, be wrong. The same is potentially true of all 'true' statements unless they are based in a closed or rigidly defined system such as Boolean Logic or Math. ... |
I don't disagree with you, except that the topic didn't mention "truth" or absolute fact. My understading was that the functional word is "know". By the definitions I found, I think you are over thinking the question. We may require a different level of proof for us to "know" something, but if you are arguing that we can't "know" the sun will rise, you might as well argue that you can't know your nephew is really your nephew. He could a cleverly made up actor. It makes the word competely worthless.
As I said, I may be wrong about something, but that that has no bearing on my "knowing" it was true.
| Subsonic Sound wrote: |
|
That's three thousand years. Excuse the very rough arithmatic, more accuracy really isn't needed. Three hundred and sixty-five days in a year, three thousand years. That's over a million days of the sun coming up. I'd say the odds are pretty good? In the strictest, most literal sense, no. I cannot be sure the sun will rise. For all practical purposes, yes, I am sure the sun will rise. |
Yes, it's a common mistake. Let me point out one reason why that is not a sound chain of reasoning.
An elephant lives for (say) 100 years. Every day you see the elephant..after 10 years it becomes 3650 days on the run. In 50 years it is, of course, over 18 thousand days. Is the larger number an indicator that the chance of seeing the elephant tomorrow is greater than it was when the number was lower ?
No, of course the chance is actually less because the elephant is much older and nearer death. As the number of confirming observations rises, the chances that the same will happen next time actually falls. By the time you have seen the elephant 364,000 times there is a fairly small chance that it will be there tomorrow.
On the elephant scale our sun is probably around 40 yrs old. But the problem is now slightly different. We know with a fair degree of confidence that it will, all things being equal, last as long again as it already has. That assumes, though, that it doesn't encounter something catastrophic. It is perfectly reasonable to suppose that the sun's passage around the spiral arm of the Milky Way might periodically intersect closely with another large body (a comet, a sun, a black hole...it matters not what it is, let's just say it's going to be serious if they hit).
In this case, knowing the number of previous sunrises tells us precisely nothing about the chances of it rising tomorrow. To make that determination we need data that we don't have. The data we do have is useless.
This is where the problem starts and why it is an important issue and not a trivial game for philosophers after a nice lunch.
Regards
Chris
Of course, the possibility that some great cosmic event will destroy the sun before tomorrow morning is the one reason I can't claim to be literally sure.
Nonetheless, if you'd like to bet it won't come up, I'll happily take your money from you.
Nonetheless, if you'd like to bet it won't come up, I'll happily take your money from you.
| Subsonic Sound wrote: |
| Of course, the possibility that some great cosmic event will destroy the sun before tomorrow morning is the one reason I can't claim to be literally sure.
Nonetheless, if you'd like to bet it won't come up, I'll happily take your money from you. |
I think you may be missing the point I was trying to make. The point is that the number of previous sunrises does not necessarily tell you anything at all about the probability of a sunrise tomorrow. Of course it is very likely that it WILL rise tomorrow but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the number of previous sunrises.
This example is used to illustrate the general problem of induction and it is very important in science. It changed the whole way that science is done. Once it was realised that it is useless trying to find more and more examples to confirm a theory then the whole thing flipped over and now scientists do not try to prove their theories are right...they try to prove they are wrong.
It may seem a trivial difference but it is a huge and really important one.
Regards
Chris
I'll freely admit by day-count method was hardly hard science. But in this case the theory (that the sun will come up) can neither be proved correct nor disproved. Precedence, however, says it is far more likely that it will.
| Subsonic Sound wrote: |
| I'll freely admit by day-count method was hardly hard science. But in this case the theory (that the sun will come up) can neither be proved correct nor disproved. Precedence, however, says it is far more likely that it will. |
Sure, it is likely, but not MORE likely. If you know how old the sun is and what age it is likely to 'die' then the number of previous sunrises is useful, otherwise all you know is it is likely, but is it more or less likely tomorrow ?
C.
| Quote: |
| Sure, it is likely, but not MORE likely. If you know how old the sun is and what age it is likely to 'die' then the number of previous sunrises is useful, otherwise all you know is it is likely, but is it more or less likely tomorrow ? |
It is our knowledge which is updating, not anything physical. We can make predictions of how likely something is to happen, even if we cannot prove if it will or will not happen. As we gather evidence (and make better estimates) we can make better predictions about it.
We can do this by updating our knowledge using Bayes' rule:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem
And so I would say that seeing the sun coming up every day of my life, gives me excellent reason to believe that it will come up again tomorrow, even though I know there is a possibility that it won't.
Here is an explanation from the economist (sorry to Indi who has seen this before):
| Quote: |
| The canonical example is to imagine that a precocious newborn observes his first sunset, and wonders whether the sun will rise again or not. He assigns equal prior probabilities to both possible outcomes, and represents this by placing one white and one black marble into a bag. The following day, when the sun rises, the child places another white marble in the bag. The probability that a marble plucked randomly from the bag will be white (ie, the child's degree of belief in future sunrises) has thus gone from a half to two-thirds. After sunrise the next day, the child adds another white marble, and the probability (and thus the degree of belief) goes from two-thirds to three-quarters. And so on. Gradually, the initial belief that the sun is just as likely as not to rise each morning is modified to become a near-certainty that the sun will always rise. |
http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~murphyk/Bayes/economist.html
Looking at the evidence of what has happened in the last few years, in my lifetime for example the sun has been pretty consistent in coming up every morning. In my opinion, if nothing cosmically catastrophic happens to the planet or the sun, chances are very favorable. Something on a smaller scale, say a motorcar accident could prevent the sun for coming up for an individual. The sun will almost certainly come up but that person will not witness it.
If I have to put my money on a bet of whether the sun rises tomorrow or not I think it would be wiser to bet on ot rising.
If the sun doesn't rise, a definite catastrophe is happening that could mark the end of the world. Then my money won't be worth anything anyway.
Anyway whether the sun rises or not is not so important as to what we did with the daylight the sun gives us. For evil or for good.
But then again evil & good is also subjective and open for arguments
If the sun doesn't rise, a definite catastrophe is happening that could mark the end of the world. Then my money won't be worth anything anyway.
Anyway whether the sun rises or not is not so important as to what we did with the daylight the sun gives us. For evil or for good.
But then again evil & good is also subjective and open for arguments
I believe the sun will rise only if my creator lets it, but that's just me.
For someone sun may not rise tomorrow, that's why I try (or want to) live every day like it's my last, if you think about it really carefully there is a chance that it will not rise tomorrow.
I don't care.. I wear my sunglasses at night...
| nopaniers wrote: |
|
The canonical example is to imagine that a precocious newborn observes his first sunset, and wonders whether the sun will rise again or not. He assigns equal prior probabilities to both possible outcomes, and represents this by placing one white and one black marble into a bag. The following day, when the sun rises, the child places another white marble in the bag. The probability that a marble plucked randomly from the bag will be white (ie, the child's degree of belief in future sunrises) has thus gone from a half to two-thirds. After sunrise the next day, the child adds another white marble, and the probability (and thus the degree of belief) goes from two-thirds to three-quarters. And so on. Gradually, the initial belief that the sun is just as likely as not to rise each morning is modified to become a near-certainty that the sun will always rise. |
Hmm..the point remains though...it is perception that is being changed, not probability. The probability is, of course, high to start with. The point is, though, that repeated observations lead to increasing certainty which is NOT supported by the probabilities since the actual probability remains unaltered.
In real terms (to answer the questions directly) one can never say any event will happen based on previous observation and one should be careful about associating number of observations with probability.
Regards
Chris
Regards
Chris
The sun won't come up tommorow!
It is like asking if I throw a rock from a building will it fall down? It happened for thousands of years now why shouldn’t continue to do so. Well this is the thing. We assume it will do so after a number of repetitions.
But we don't really know if the sun will rise tomorrow due to the fact that we as humans don’t really see the powers and laws of nature that surround us. Who knows maybe there is some matter or mass that we cannot see or cannot understand and tomorrow all of the universe will change!! We as humans come to conclusions after observation and repetition and we should do so because these are the only stuff we can really do and through these we try to understand more and more about everything. But, as we can’t see the powers and know the powers but only assume the powers and make theories which we like to prove with the ancient Greek method. www.scientificmethod.co.uk/
But we don't really know if the sun will rise tomorrow due to the fact that we as humans don’t really see the powers and laws of nature that surround us. Who knows maybe there is some matter or mass that we cannot see or cannot understand and tomorrow all of the universe will change!! We as humans come to conclusions after observation and repetition and we should do so because these are the only stuff we can really do and through these we try to understand more and more about everything. But, as we can’t see the powers and know the powers but only assume the powers and make theories which we like to prove with the ancient Greek method. www.scientificmethod.co.uk/
| luciddream wrote: |
| The sun won't come up tommorow! |
Hah! You were in error my dear sir/madam the sun did in fact come up tomorrow. How do I know this? Look at the date. As for tomorrow tomorrow, only time will tell.
| nopaniers wrote: | ||
|
It is our knowledge which is updating, not anything physical. We can make predictions of how likely something is to happen, even if we cannot prove if it will or will not happen. As we gather evidence (and make better estimates) we can make better predictions about it. ...snip... Here is an explanation from the economist (sorry to Indi who has seen this before):
|
This is a nice example of how we need to understand the difference between the physical world and our knowlege or beliefs about that world. It is quite possible that our confidence in something happening is increasing while at the same time its probability is actually decreasing. As we gain experience, we become more confident that the sun will rise tomorrow, but in reality we may also "know" that the sun will eventually die one way or another.
Part of the wonder for me is that our brains are able to quite happily hold such aparently contradictory concepts without going into meltdown...
The sun will come up tommorow unless its cloudy. and it will stop coming up in 5million years when it supanovers
| nathanuk wrote: |
| The sun will come up tommorow unless its cloudy. and it will stop coming up in 5million years when it supanovers |
More like 5 billion I think...
Chris
"Do You Know the Sun Will Rise Tommorrow?"
No i dont. But Im willing to bet all my frihost$ it will.... any takers?
No i dont. But Im willing to bet all my frihost$ it will.... any takers?
The simple answer is you don't know and can never truly know, there is no proof that anyone can come up with to say, The Sun WILL rise tomorrow. You can never know what will happen tomorrow, and what could happen, Like an asteroid destroying the Earth, and then hey, the SUn will not rise.
Actually, isn't the theoretical probability of the sun rising or non rising 1/2?
| saratdear wrote: |
| Actually, isn't the theoretical probability of the sun rising or non rising 1/2? |
p=0.5 (50/50) is an even probability distribution. Why would there be such an equal distribution?
The probability is a function of time (at least) so as t>present then the probability of not rising will increase slightly (just as the probability of dying goes up, as a first approximation*, with age). I wouldn't like to put a figure on it, but it would be remote, certainly nowhere near .5
* The analogy is not exact because obviously there are 'spikes' of risk as humans age. Risk increases (for males) in the teenage years, for example.
I doubt that the percentage is about .5
The age of the arth is: about 4.54 billion years every year has 365 days;
That means the sun has risen about 1.6571*10^12 times, so at best the chance of some meteorite (that destroys the earth and thus prevents a sunrise, since the earth isn't there anymore to block the sun) hitting us is 1/1.66*10^12.
(btw you should stand in the right place for a sunrise, even if it's on an airship above (dust)clouds).
O noes!! There is a 1/1.66*10^12 chance of some meteorite hitting us and killing all of us, fortunatly we got some people looking into the sky with telescopes, so we'll get a warning.
The age of the arth is: about 4.54 billion years every year has 365 days;
That means the sun has risen about 1.6571*10^12 times, so at best the chance of some meteorite (that destroys the earth and thus prevents a sunrise, since the earth isn't there anymore to block the sun) hitting us is 1/1.66*10^12.
(btw you should stand in the right place for a sunrise, even if it's on an airship above (dust)clouds).
O noes!! There is a 1/1.66*10^12 chance of some meteorite hitting us and killing all of us, fortunatly we got some people looking into the sky with telescopes, so we'll get a warning.
Related topics
 |