Re: Another Pizza Question

In message <BbDfc.1$pr1.0_at_newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>, Eric Kaun <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> writes
>> No need to give up -- just study semiotics and/or linguistics. Logic is
>not
>> the only process our brains use for acquiring information.
>smiles. --dawn
>
>However, I'd wager it's the only one suitable for automation. Anything not
>logical has to be reduced to some system of logic before a computer can
>answer questions about it. Unless, of course, you're doing nothing with it
>but showing it to a human being...

To paraphrase an old joke - what's the quickest way to turn a little mess into a big mess? Computerise it!

Or, just as relevant - "Garbage In, Garbage Out".

Logic is great. But if your initial understanding of the system is wrong, then all logic is meaningless. All this argument, to me, seems to be relying on the initial analysis/analysts being omniscient. The law of entropy says "transformation destroys". The current state of knowledge in Physics says that reductionism doesn't work because at the micro level cause and effect doesn't exist. Yes, people desperately want it to exist, but you can want all you like. If Nature says "no you can't have it", then that's tough.

In a mathematical model I don't see this as a problem, but as soon as you apply your model to the real world (like modelling Pizzas, or the Beatles), then real world constraints will bite you. And entropy, chaos, and random are real world constraints.

Cheers,
Wol

-- 
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
HEX wondered how much he should tell the Wizards. He felt it would not be a
good idea to burden them with too much input. Hex always thought of his reports
as Lies-to-People.
The Science of Discworld : (c) Terry Pratchett 1999