Why Grue "cant touch this" in under 200 words.

If in object is green, then it could be grue. Is this a problem for a theory which predicts the continuation of patterns?..  

If,

grue is the property of changing in some way at some future time

Then,

we cannot reasonably conclude that any object is grue from some observation of the present

             If,

             we cannot reasonably conclude that any object is grue

             Then,

             we cannot reasonably believe that there is a pattern of some object being grue.

             If,

             we cannot reasonably believe that there is a pattern some object being grue

             Then,

 a theory which predicts the continuation of patterns would not predict the continuation of some      object’s grueness .

However this line of reasoning does not apply to “green” because we can reasonable conclude that an object is green. Therefore we can reasonably believe that there is a pattern of some object being green. Therefore a theory which predicts the continuation of patterns would predict the continuation of some objects greenness.

It seems that if one wants to disagree they either have to hold that we can reasonably believe that some object is grue or hold that we cannot reasonable believe that certain objects are green. 

 S.

               

1.
Within my consciousness there is the image of a rose
Within my physical brain there is no image of a rose
Therefore my consciousness and my brain are distinct

2.All physical things are objectively observable
My consciousness is not objectively observable
Therefore my consciousness is not a physical thing

3.
All physical things have causal powers
My consciousness, distinct from my brain, does not have causal powers
Therefore my consciousness is not a physical thing

an argument..

If

X, Y and Z are possible future occurrences that                   contradict each other. (future swans are white(X), future swans are green(Y), future swans are yellow(Z))

and

one of them logically must occur (There is no way that future swans could be any other colour)

and

X, Y and Z all have an equal chance of occurring 

then

it is reasonable to believe that it is likely that X or Y will occur. 

Because X Y and Z all have equal probability of occurring it is reasonable to expect that one of any two of the possibilities will occur. (one of two has a 66% chance of occurring)

 Me and J were looking at this the other night and we thought there was a problem with it somewhere but now i dont see it so point it out if its still there.
Moving on to J's objection, I think it was something along the lines of "although this argument is sound.." or "even if this argument is sound... it would justify thinking that the swans will be grue". This is true! by the reasoning above it is reasonable to believe that at least the next one swan you see will be grue.
 
 the objection can work for all kinds of things. any question phrased in the following way will lead to similar bizarre conclusions..

"on how many future occasions, in a row, starting with the next one i see, will...swans be grue? swans have big teeth? swans have two heads?
in all these scenarios the reasonable answer is "at least once" (by reasoning similar to the argument above)

 A response to this objection is that it would be silly to expect anything but a contradiction when asking such questions.
for example there is no point in asking "on how many future occasions, in a row, starting with the next one i see, will...future swans be grue?" because you know you can ask the opposite question "...future swans be a colour other than grue?" and you will get contradicting answers.
However not all questions suffer this fate. take the question "on how many future occasions, in a row, will past pattern X continue?" This question is immune to the criticisms of the previous question because its opposite question doesn't lead to contradicting answers; "on how many future occasions, in a row, will past pattern X cease?" This question only has 2 possible answers: either "Once" or "Never". 
The other questions we have looked at had an infinite amont of answers. this question however only has two so the reasoning we were using before doesn't work.
 The reasoning relies on three (X,Y and Z)or more possible answers  (X, Y, Z and so on for infinity ).
The criticism works against almost any question accept the "past pattern" question. that is why we can only use the kind of reasoning at the top of the page on the the "past pattern" question.