Log in
HomeClass Notes1,200,000CA670,000

Philosophy 1020 Lecture Notes - Jansenism

43 views3 pages
School
Western University
Department
Philosophy
Course
Philosophy 1020
Professor
John Thorp

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

An argument for the rationality of religious belief. Pascal thought the arguments for the existence of god were not compelling, and also that the arguments against the existence of god were not compelling. He thought we were caught in inescapable ignorance about whether god exists or not. Pascal"s fundamental vision: in a situation of insurmountable uncertainty the best we can do is think about probabilities and make a rational best guess. He proposed that if can t settle the truth of the matter about the existence of god, we should ask a different question: Where g stands for the proposition that god exists, along with the traditional (christian) eschatological story. Believing in god is a game of chance, we make a good bet with the information we have. The only way to be sure of avoiding the big loss, and to have a chance at the big.

Get access

Grade+
$40 USD/m
Billed monthly
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
10 Verified Answers
Class+
$30 USD/m
Billed monthly
Class+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
7 Verified Answers

Related Documents

Philosophy 1020 Lecture Notes - Lecture 8: Blaise Pascal, Christian Eschatology, Jansenism
ultramarineeagle694
Philosophy 1020 Lecture : L8 Pascal's Wager.docx
peachalpaca993
Philosophy 1020 Lecture : Pascal's Wager
peachalpaca993

Related Questions

A Particle in a box
In order to answer the following questions you will need toconsideran infinite potential
well of length L, in which a particle has been confined.



1. For principal quantum number n=7, write code to calculatethenormalization constant.
Then, plot the probability density function for this state (usingL= 10).
2. Using the properly normalized wave equation from Question1,write code to determine
the expectation values <x> and <x2> . Is <x>oneof the most probable positions? Explain
why.
3. Using the properly normalized wave equation from Question1,write code to determine
the expectation values <p> and <p2> . Show the valueyouobtain for <p2> is equal to
2mE7 (where E7 is the energy of the n = 7 level). Remember that pisa differential
operator so you will have to use the diff command.
4. The uncertainty of a quantum measurement is defined on page222,Equation 6.41 (3rd
edition SMM). Using this equation calculate the uncertainties oftheposition and
momentum of a particle in the n = 5 state. Compute the productofthese uncertainties and
compare this with the prediction of the Heisenberguncertaintyprinciple.
Quantum oscillator
5. Repeat calculations in the previous question for the groundstatewave function of the
quantum oscillator. Comment on the obtained result.

Could you please proofread and correct scientifically andgrammatically my work, thanks ^_^

Here itis:
The percentage error was found to be 0.186% and 6.66%respectively.

This implies that the predicted value of the freefall accelerationis fairly accurate while the predicated value of deceleration isnot as much. The encountered errors were due to severalexperimental and human limitation was that the experiment involved.The experimental limitation was due to the uncertainty of theclinometer which was ± 0.5o.

I.e. In our calculation, a difference of 0.5o can lead to adifference of 40 - 80 cm in height as shown below:

The human limitations was due to the human eye being unable todetect the exact point on the track at which the gondoladecelerates. This is because the braking happened very quickly.This adds an uncertainty to the location of deceleration when theangels are being measured.

In addition, the human ability cannot decide on the exact period oftime at which the gondola freefalls or decelerates. This is due tothe human reaction speed being unable to exactly determine thestart time of the momentary freefall and deceleration. The timetaken for humans to react cannot be measured thus it cannot besubtracted from the findings to get an accurate timing.

All of these limitations that have affected the accuracy of theresults could be avoided to some extent by marking the exact zonesrequired on the track of the giant drop as well as using anelectronic angle measurer to measure the angles . Additionally, theusage of an electronic timer to measure periods of the freefall anddeceleration is also suggested.

During the analysis, finding an average to the deceleration in theaccelerometer reading (using Logger Pro) was only estimated usingthe human naked eye. This is because an average could not be takenelectronically. Thus, there is also some uncertainty involved inthe theoretical value.

NOTE:

The value for freefall acceleration obtained from thevideo-analysis technique was 9.754 ± 0.3237 m/s2. 9.754 m/s2 has apercentage error of :
0.469%

This value indicates it is fairly accurate and can be used as aconforming result to the theoretical value. The error involved isdue to the fact that the video was shaking, thus plotting thevelocity/ time graph of the gondola at different times wasnegatively affected; although the axes was roughly re-set at everyframe.