Author: Ralf Elvsén
Date: 16:51:10 07/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2000 at 19:33:03, Dann Corbit wrote: >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! Hmm, wouldn't it just be not powerful enough? Well, that's not my field :) >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. Ok then, you are right that people have no proof. But I think those people mean something like "evidence no reasonable person can reject" rather than proof in a scientific meaning. And the former is in my opinion what one should look for in a case like this. As in too many discussions the combatants are using words in different ways. I think you should interpret "proof" as "evidence" and let the matter rest, or point out their sloopy use of the words. Ah, sorry for telling you what to do... :) Regards, Ralf
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.