Seo,
All I described was the scientific method plus simple probability theory
combined with using intuition to explore unknown unknowns creatively.
For a layman's explanation into this world, see the works by Talib of
"Fooled by Randomness" and "The Black Swan".
Not sure about your analogy either. If their theory is "Extra
Terrestrial Intelligence exists", has their been evidence provided to
invalidate the theory? I had not heard of any. And our existence
certainly supports the speculation within the theory, i.e. We exist.
Therefor it is possible other intelligence exists. And I am suspicious
any evidence "invalidating" the core theory (given it is a simple and
encompassing as I have summarized above) could be found anyway. It
would require searching the entire universe in a very short period of
time as longer periods of time, like millions of years allow for
possible emergence of evolutionary life forms after the area has been
searched.
As to your then applying the analogy to computer chess/go - don't see
the connection.
Jim
Sanghyeon Seo wrote:
2007/11/23, Jim O'Flaherty, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Don,
I think it is tenuous to predict, much less emphatically assert, that
just because the evidence is linear at the lower scale, it remains so at
higher scales. While it is reasonable to assume, it is not certain. I
see your point that at this time, your theory about it applying to
larger scales has yet to be invalidated. However, this does not
preclude your theory being invalidated in the future. Nor does it make
their intuitions about ways others might be able to do so (and keep an
open mind about creating attempts) as superstitious. It just means they
are yet to be convinced of your position just as you are yet to be
convinced of theirs. Remember, the direct evidence used to support a
theory that the world was flat. That theory was later invalidated and
replaced with a new theory incorporating the old evidence as well as the
new evidence.
This starts to sound like a SETI advocate. After forty years of
sustained failures, the burden of proof is on SETI advocates, not
critics. Same goes for computer chess and computer go.
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
