Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
'..sweat and save, building for a shallow grave!' (in the immortal words of Mr. Morrison) ..if you catch my meaning.
I find it amusing that determinism is currently the minority, eccentric opinion.
Whose 'slightest uncertainty' is this? I'm sure you're not suggesting that the universe itself is uncertain what to do, as that would be an absurd personification.
The fact that we are unable to predict what a modeling computer will generate is not proof that this end result is non-determined. Once, we could not predict when the full moon comes out; was it not determined then? If by 'random' or 'chaotic,' you mean only 'unpredictable' then you are quite correct in saying that the result of a modeling computer is random. In that case, it is still determined. If, on the other hand, you mean by 'chaotic' or 'random' that the result is not determined (i.e. that the scenario generated is not the result of a certain set of factors, however absurdly complex and inscrutable those factors may be) then you must believe that events can occur without causes: i.e. magic.
The distinction is that the brain does not necessarily map to a Turing machine. Gretel does not have to follow the instructions given to her and any input data is only tangentially related to her actions.
Besides, following a logical path to a goal is not necessarily equivalent to making a decision.
Question: Are those chess programs based on probabilistic algorithms?
Besides, isn't chess decidable?
but I do know that every computer maps to a Turing machine.
The point is that (unless we are talking about quantum computing) your computer is very much deterministic.
Actually, Chaos theory was a child of astronomy. Henri Poincare discovered the basic irregularities while trying to solve the three body problem.
Exactly.
Following a logical path is only one possible way for the human brain to make a decision.
Actually in these days the number of people decreases who claim that the logical path is the common human way of making a decision.
Humans have a lot of evaluation criteria which are partially contradictive.
That's why many decisions are made more by your stomach (as we say in german) than by your brain.
Still i don't see why making a decision based on logic should not be a decision.
I'm not sure about the word decidable.
The way you use it you make it sound absolute like one can use the word 'determined' in an absolute sense.
I don't know if chess is decidable. However you seem to see implications that i don't see..
Even if chess was decidable in an absolute way, like for every move there's a perfect answer, this wouldn't mean that a computer or a person would have acces to this answer.
Can a Turing machine calculate non linear processes?
If so i would say the calculation is not determined. However i doubt that it can. From what i know about the Turing machine i don't see how it could manage parallel processing.
I remember having heard that a Turing machine could deal with any computer based calculation however i would have to do some research if i can trust this assumption.
The statement that every computer maps to a Turing machine could also be just not up to date.
I never heard of it, but it sounds interesting.
Who deserves the Oscar is not of too much relevance though.
If you look at the internet: There are so many different opinions about who created the internet...
However if you have a link that explains further what you mean i would read it with interest.
My point was that the logical path proceeds from a decision, and each step requires a decision to continue following it. The logical path itself has nothing to do with the decision to follow it. I am curious about what mechanism decision making follows, as it does not appear to be logical, but rather as you say, 'aus dem bauch' (I only know a little German).