Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 08:02:58 02/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Thostern: Althoug in general I tend to agree with you, in this case I believe ou are somewhat pushing things too far. I believe you have some confusion about determinism, the nature of deterministic events and the degree we can grasp deterministic causal chains. The fact that maybe we cannot know entirely the causation chain does not means there is non. If you studied calclus yu know very well that in its core is grounded in the fiction you can get continuous processes trought a very great number of finites events. You could say that calculus does not get, then what really happnes, but in fact get enought on ot to let us know enough of it. The point is you pout tings in black and white: yu do not need to know absoltely to know. A good approach is enough most of the times. Science of any kind is not more than an approach trought models. Does it means there is not a deterministic area of reality? Or does it means that determinism excludes every degree of freedom? At last it depends of the level of observaton you choose. You does not know how every indivifual particle of as gas behaves in a combustion chamber, but for the sake of phisics you are Ok with being capable of knowing about amacroscopis states like pressure, adiabatic processes, temperaure and so on. Same with chess. Maybe you cannot calculate every move possible to slve the game, but you know is solvable and so there is room to say that a better program is that capable of grasping a bigger amount of the relevants features, or, if you want, to perform the most practically satisfactory calculation.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.