3 ms·
> that we cannot use empiricism to determine universal rules, we indeed cannot do this and Feynman illustrated this frequently using the analogy of chess (http
by Barrin92 3y ago
> that we cannot use empiricism to determine universal rules,
we indeed cannot do this and Feynman illustrated this frequently using the analogy of chess (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1dgrvlWML4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1dgrvlWML4).
As Kant argues we can never observe the rules of the physical world as things in themselves, just as we can't directly look at the rules of chess by observing games. We can only get individual hints that we piece together into models of the world in ways we can understand.
- aidenn0 3y agoIt still seems like we can figure out the rules of chess better by observing many games than by sitting down and reasoning about what the rules of a tactics game played on an 8x8 grid would be; sure we'd miss uncommon moves like under-promotion and en passant until we had a very large sample, but to me the chess analogy is an argument for empiricism, not against it.