On 15/03/18 10:11, Karl Javorszky wrote:

>To me, it does not appear necessary to make a distinction between “reality” and “data”

That's a defensible position, but it does constrain 'reality' to 'that which we can perceive'. Which would rule out the reality of things that we cannot perceive, e.g. explanatory mechanisms, or the insides of black holes.

> just like there is no necessity for musicians to distinguish between the note printed on the partiture, > and the acoustic sound, or for Chess champions to distinguish between the description of the position > in the protocol of the game and the actual pieces one can hold in his hands.

I do not think that these are the same case.

The description of the configuration of a chess game is lossless. I could note down the distribution of the pieces, take them off the board, mix them up and put them back again, and the game would not be changed for the players. The physical chess set and the physical context are also largely irrelevant. Players could leave one room, have a relaxed coffee or aquavit, go back into another room with a duplicate of the game with different pieces on another board, and continue with little disturbance.

But sheet music is not a lossless representation of a performance. From the starting point of the sheet music, the performer has to decide on volumes, intonation and timing, and in some cases also ornament and variations. These issues arouse deep passions and ferocious debate! Nor would we be happy to buy a recording of a symphony in which different orchestras played different movements in different concert halls (although it might be interesting to hear).

Fis mailing list

Reply via email to