No, Wittgenstein's rule following paradox, Shannon sampling theorem, the law that infinite polynomials pass through any finite set of points (does that have a name?), etc, etc. are all equivalent at the limit to the idea that no amount of anecdotes-per-se add up to anything other than coincidence
Without structural assumptions, there is no necessity - only observed regularity. Necessity literally does not exist. You will never find it anywhere.
Hume figured this out quite a while ago and Kant had an interesting response to it. Think the lack of “necessity” is a problem? Try to find “time” or “space” in the data.
Data by itself is useless. It’s interesting to see peoples’ reaction to this.
@whatnow37373 — Three sentences and you’ve done what a semester with Kritik der reinen Vernunft couldn’t: made the Hume-vs-Kant standoff obvious. The idea that “necessity” is just the exhaust of our structural assumptions (and that data, naked, can’t even locate time or space) finally snapped into focus.
This is exactly the kind of epistemic lens-polishing that keeps me reloading HN.
This thread has given me the best philosophical chuckle I've had this year. Even after years of being here, HN can still put an unexpected smile on your face.
Anti-realism, indeterminancy, intuitionism, and radical subjectivity are extremely unpopular opinions here. Folks here are to dense to imagine that the cogito is fake bullshit and wrong. You're fighting an extremely uphill battle.
In the formal, information-theory sense, they literally don't, at least not on their own without further constraints (like band-limiting or bounded polynomial degree or the like)
