Quote:
Originally Posted by yusufcam
my feeling is that these things are unpredictable only because of the paradigms being used (or more precicisely the assumptions upon which those paradigms are based).
Not that they are unfathomable, beyond comprehension, or in the final analysis, inherently (in a sense) unpredictable.
|
Hi Colin;
Nature does its own thing. The models we create, are our feeble way of trying to convince ourselves that we can master (via predictions), phenomena which may ultimately, be
not predictable, by their very nature.
The unpredictability of earthquakes is demonstrable. Our predictions fail all tests, so far applied.
This gives absolute weight to the assertion that they are unpredictable, and thus also goes a long way towards helping us to subdue our intuitive reliance on feelings and opinions, when it comes to physical phenomena.
Sounds like these Japanese scientists mentioned in this article, may not have yet tweaked to the unpredictability of it all, (as is supported by empirical, observational evidence).
We can act on the acceptance of the unpredictability. In this case, assuming that earthquakes/tsunamis are 'more likely' to strike along the south coast of Japan, demonstrates a reliance on a (flawed) prediction. And yet, the evidence demonstrates that the phenomenon is
not predictable.
If it was me, I would've acted assuming that we have no idea as to where and when, the next earthquake would strike. This would then seemingly lead to a program of building reactors inland, instead of just in the northern part of the country and on the coast ! (For example).
We can make sound, very practical decisions based upon the assurance of unpredictability.
Cheers