Humans - the great meaning assigners. A comment to Pierre Hansen's speech "Can the computer make scientific discoveries?" [page XLVII] at Euro 2010 in Portugal. |
Intro
In the abstract to his lecture at Euro 2010 Pierre Hansen wrote:
"Is there a systematic method leading to scientific discovery? To
this question, Francis Bacon answers yes, while both Albert Einstein
and Karl Popper answer no. As in so many cases, enormous
progress in computer power, and in its efficient use, renew the
question. Taking examples from geometry, graph and number
theory, physics and chemistry, we will illustrate some clear successes
(and some failures). This will lead to some speculation on
the balance between automation and inspiration in discovery."
More specifically, a question has been raised, if the computers can make
scientific discoveries.
Not disregarding important issues raised in P.Hansen's speech,
I have one comment:
ONLY HUMANS PERCEIVE DISCOVERIES
Explanation
So far computer generated, or computer supported, proofs mean nothing to the computers.
They just produce some string of symbols that "means" nothing for
them, or means as much as any other string.
Complete gibberish is equal to, e.g., a proof aswering any famous open
mathematical problem.
Thus, the proofs, or discoveries, that they make mean noting to them.
So far only humans are able to interpret computer generated proofs, or discoveries,
and assign meaning or importance to them.
Thus, you need a human to make a discovery.
Now, the important next questions are:
A wild guesses to the second question:
First published by M.Drozdowski on July 19, 2010. If you'd like to comment, please send me a message. |