therefore you are experiencing logically valid information right now, you are not predicting something in the future
First off, if we cut out the communication middle man I'm not experiencing information, I'm experiencing your experience - you experienced information that led you to believe that Socrates was a man. It's only logical from your experience summation, and not neccesarily from mine. Brain process does not equate to predicting things in the future. Where did that even enter this particular argument?
Secondly you're changing your definition of what constitutes information. In my previous case I was using it to refer to that which we are exposed to and process directly. You are now equating your statment of the understanding of your experience as information that I don't use to predict something? Does not parse.
a coherent summary is:
making future predictions on the basis of past experience is inductive logic, which is fallacious
Please explain your logic. If we take your assumptions as read:
Inductive logic = fallacy
Therefore making a prediction based on experience is unsound reasoning
Since we only have our experiences to go on (seeing as every sense receives information that is processed to form experiences, at least if we assume that a human is a single informational entity), all predictions are fallacious
Seeing as our perceptions of our experiences are themselves based on successive processing of information related to all of our previous experiences as recalled by our brains, literally everything we comprehend is fallacious, making thought an illusionary by-product of itself.
Exactly what is it you're saying, other than "human brains aren't 100% guaranteed to be perfect"?
The whole argument is academic because, if you proved the future wasn't real it would therefore not exist and time would stop, since the concept of time as experienced by humans is dependant on there being a delta between one abstract unit of measurement and the next. If you did prove it existed and didn't want to use inductive reasoning, your conclusion would only have been valid for the probability distribution present in your current perception of the universe, and you would have to repeat your reasoning for every other femtosecond that your universe existed for, otherwise be forced to accept that your arguments were fallacious since the quantum state of matter is in constant flux. Hence it is a question that is literally impossible to answer within the confines of a three-dimensional plane moving through four-dimensional space because we lack a reference frame with which to compare and/or quantify our hypothesis, reasoning or conclusions. Ergo, the future may exist as an observable state, but it can't exist within the confines of our universe or be experienced by us, but since that hinges on the concept of dimensional information which can only be observed through direct information exposure to humans, to posit that the current universe exists would be a false assumption.
Your brain, I presume, must act on inductive reasoning every second, otherwise it would spend all its time processing information from your senses based on first principles and it would be literally impossible to learn since we can only be exposed to and process finite amounts of information within a given reference frame.
this example is not about 'predicting' a horse, but rather randomly selecting one horse
Please quantify the distinction between random singular and predictive singular, and please specify how that makes a difference to kyser's argument. Whilst you're at it, can we GOTO 10 and find out what your definition of "real" is please? Real as in a form of matter, a condensed, unravelling informational string, what? Since we seem to have strayed into the area that nothing the brain is exposed to can be proven to exist (unless you can demonstrate how the human brain doesn't use fallacious assumptions), since such a process would involve apparently fallcious inductive reasoning, is asking the question "is XYZ real?" not an illogical question in the first place?
