Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Advances in computer chess/science (OT)

Author: Sune Fischer

Date: 06:19:52 01/05/03

Go up one level in this thread


On January 05, 2003 at 09:10:01, Alessandro Damiani wrote:

>On January 05, 2003 at 08:51:59, Sune Fischer wrote:
>
>>On January 05, 2003 at 08:34:21, Alessandro Damiani wrote:
>>
>>>>If a field is very advanced it becomes harder and harder to make contributions.
>>>>Why do you think people go to school for 9 years, then another 7 years to get an
>>>>education? And inspite of all your knowledge, how much did you contribute to
>>>>math or chemistry sciences?
>>>>
>>>>Getting new and good ideas is not easy when they have all been "taken".
>>>>
>>>
>>>This is wrong. History proved that: in the past classical physicians thought
>>>they knew almost everything of physics.
>>
>>They were not physicians. They were not even scients, they didn't know the basic
>>principles for good science, so obviously they came to a lot of wrong
>>conclusions.
>>
>
>Wrong conclusions?? Classical physics does still apply! But there is more than
>classical physics out there. That is my point.

Actually classical physics doesn't apply, only as an approximation, I thought
that was your point.

>As I said, the horizon of knowledge is artificial. You are saying that nowadays
>it is harder to make progress.

Natually as you get closer to the optimal program, it will become harder to
improve.

>The horizon is not related to time, but to
>knowledge. Knowledge is timeless.

You think the horizon can be pushed forever outwards, that is not so.
Eg. quantum mechanics is pretty much a done deal now.
You need to branch off somewhere and start on something new.

-S.
>Alessandro



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.