Xref: utzoo talk.philosophy.misc:1852 comp.ai:3120 sci.psychology:1366
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!haven!purdue!bu-cs!mirror!rayssd!raybed2!linus!mbunix!bwk
From: bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,comp.ai,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence and Intelligence
Summary: Rules: Discovery versus Derivation
Keywords: Law and Chaos, Entropy and Life
Message-ID: <43641@linus.UUCP>
Date: 16 Jan 89 23:23:02 GMT
References: <564@soleil.UUCP> <3498@uoregon.uoregon.edu>
Sender: news@linus.UUCP
Reply-To: bwk@mbunix (Barry Kort)
Organization: IdeaSync, Inc., Chronos, VT
Lines: 29

In article <3498@uoregon.uoregon.edu> stevev@drizzle.UUCP
(Steve VanDevender) writes:

 > I think the reductionism/holism argument boils down to what I think is
 > a pair of clearer questions:  Is the universe explainable by rules?
 > Can those rules be derived by observing the universe?  Science assumes that
 > the answer to both of those questions is "yes."  My understanding of
 > holism leads me to think that it would answer "no" to one or both of those
 > questions.

Steve, did you really mean "derive" rather than "discover"?

Einstein supposed that the universe would appear the same to all
observers.  From this supposition, he derived the Theory of Relativity.
His starting point was neither a discovery nor a derivation.  But he
discovered that his derivation led to predictions which were borne out
by experimental observation.

But Einstein's nemesis was the Quantum Theory with it's dice-playing
lack of rhyme or reason.  So one of the "rules" appears to be lawless
and chaotic behavior.  Whether Stephen Hawking and others will
ultimately imagine/discover/derive rules underlying quantom randomness
remains to be seen.

Personally, I believe that quantum indeterminacy will survive the razor
of Occam, and that we will end up thanking our "lucky stars" for the
gift of life, including intelligent life.

--Barry Kort