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).
Dai
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
