Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 16:33:03 07/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2000 at 17:22:15, Ralf Elvsén wrote: >On July 15, 2000 at 16:31:43, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>At this stage, the hypothesis has not yet gained theorem status. That does not >>mean the hypothesis is incorrect. Only that it has not been adequately >>demonstrated. >> > >Why use words like "hypothesis" and "theorem" ? This is not a scientific >issue like e.g. "Can Einstein's theory of relativity explain all >gravitational phenomena?" or "Can mutations and natural selection >explain the occurence of new species?" . It's just an imprecise >question which should be handled in a more relaxed way. There will >never be a theorem, just a more or less common and wellfounded opinion. > >CCC is not a scientific forum and we should be careful to >demand scientific rigor here. Relax :) Well, several things are in your favor. According to Heisenberg, we can never be truly sure of our measurements. Further Godel's incompleteness theorem states that "All consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions", and his second states that "If number theory is consistent, then a proof of this fact does not exist using the methods of first-order predicate calculus." Stated more colloquially, "Any formal system that is interesting enough to formulate its own consistency can prove its own consistency if and only if it is inconsistent." In other words, we can't really prove anything without first agreeing on something without proof. And any system that can prove itself is provably flawed! And the act of measuring changes the thing measured. All that having been said... I don't object to the statement, "It sure looks to me like computers are GM's" I don't object to the statement, "We have evidence that supports computers playing at GM level." I do object to the statement that we now have proof computers are GM's. That's because we don't have proof yet. I feel free to voice my objections. I also realize that most people will simply think I am a nut case for it. That's OK with me, because I always do what I think I ought to, and don't care much if people like it. I could just resign and decide that people don't want to understand what truth is and it is a waste of time to try. But that is just another surrender to me.
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.