|
If there is indeed no way for aliens to "see" the chess playing process (precisely: to make measurements which confirm/reject hypotheses about details of the game), then the best model they can ever come up with is a black box where the outcome has given statistical properties. Where the parable falls short, and a mistake often made, is to confuse one's own inability to come up with discriminating experiments, for an absolute truth about the universe's resistance to observation. What would it mean for aliens to not ever be able to measure chess' inner properties? it would mean that aliens could never read human texts, or talk with humans, as any of those would instantly lead them to the truth. Which in turn means aliens can't see light, or hear sounds, or interact with things which would allow them to do so. Going further, we end up at the conclusion that either these aliens exist in a completely separate universe from chess (and everything around it), or they CAN observe it (they just haven't tried hard enough). This post is confused, in that it first states aliens can't see chess, but later they can. If their sensors ARE able to measure chess, the scientific process will eventually weed out the worse models for the better ones and they will understand it.
If they aren't, then they will be left with the statistical random model, and that is indeed the best explanation, as all guesses toward the complicated intricacies of the game are equally likely and cannot be differentiated. In the end, the post's theory boils down to one idea: "there is sometimes an underlying truth that is not observable", and it is a really weak one. Like the flying tea pot, it can not be disproven or proven. "Underlying Truths" that do not affect the universe in any way and cannot be measured, might as well not exist, and we should not attempt to model them. Everything else can and will be explained, in time. I'm not sure I see a paradox, or lesson here, other than it is important to understand what the scientific process of model, hypothesis and measurement can and can't do. -- the same argument is often made for magic, or spirituality, or any other thing people say is 'unexplainable' (which can often be translated to "something I don't want to think too hard about") We used to think many things were magic (light, magnets, the world), until someone smarter than us came up with a really smart experiment which let us shine light into boxes we thought were black (bell's inequality theorem is a fine example). The lesson from history is, if we look hard enough, we eventually get closer to the truth, every time. |