On 10 Jul 2012, at 21:35, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.07.2012 18:03 John Clark said the following:
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi<use...@rudnyi.ru>
wrote:
I do not not understand in this respect your analogy with chess.
You may know all the rules of chess but that does not mean you know
what all the complex interactions those rules could lead to, and that
is why you are not a chess grandmaster despite knowing the rules of
the game. And even if a Theory of Everything existed and even if
every high school student understood it that would still not be the
end of science because all the initial conditions would still need to
be found, and even more important all the astronomically, possibly
infinitely, large number complex interactions would also be unknown.
I don't see how a Theory of Everything would help you much in
meteorology or biology or poetry, those things are too complex for
that approach.
I understand but the question in principle still remains. Who play
the chess, I or the M-theory?
I. To say it is M-theory would be a level error, à-la Searle. I am not
M-theory, not arithmetical truth.
Evgenii
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
