Liedzeit’s review of Philosophical Writings > Likes and Comments
9 likes · Like
Chess is really a bad example, as it is really only possible to win, if the opponent makes a mistake. Perfect games will always result in remis. With the game of Go (I am a player) it is a bit different. With AI we really are approaching the perfect game. (For a player it is very easy to spot the difference between patzer- and expert games.)
Like l said, a single-person game like Solitaire (or a puzzle like Rubik’s cube) is a better example. You can define the best solution as the one with fewest moves.
Well, the question is what would you consider evidence for the existence of an all-knowing being?
The beauty of Leibniz's argument to me is that it is easy to make sense of it by analogy.
You said, you can’t argue something into existence. But we do it all the time.
Say you want to write a novel. You have a dozen plots in your mind. Maybe also the characters of the novel, dialogs... In fact, you might have the entire novel in your mind. The only thing missing, you have not written it down. You have not "realized" it, in Leibniz’s sense of the word. You have not made it real. Which of the dozen novels you are actually going to write? Why, the one that seems "best" to you, of course. What is best? The one that gets you the Nobel prize, the one that makes you the most money? (Simplicity of the plot might be a virtue, but hardly the only one.) But that is a detail. The thing is, you must have a "sufficient reason" to pick one on the possible novels. And once you have written it, it is sort of by definition the best of all possible novels (that you were capable of).
And with God it is just the same. Only he does not have a dozen plots in his mind, but all possible plots (i.e. worlds).
The only open question for me is, why is it "better" to just create the best world instead of them all?
It is a pity that the guy who asked the questions left without a trace.
Yes, it looks like you talk to yourself:-). But very politely and informatively:-). I’ve never read Leibniz himself, though I’ve read about his philosophy. So interesting you value him so highly with hindsight of Kant, Hegel etc.
The concept of friendship here on GR is a bit strange, of course. But in the case of Xander it was close to some real friendship. He wrote some excellent reviews. The one about the Tractatus was amazing. And they are all gone. I miss him.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
Chess is really a bad example, as it is really only possible to win, if the opponent makes a mistake. Perfect games will always result in remis. With the game of Go (I am a player) it is a bit different. With AI we really are approaching the perfect game. (For a player it is very easy to spot the difference between patzer- and expert games.)Like l said, a single-person game like Solitaire (or a puzzle like Rubik’s cube) is a better example. You can define the best solution as the one with fewest moves.
Well, the question is what would you consider evidence for the existence of an all-knowing being?The beauty of Leibniz's argument to me is that it is easy to make sense of it by analogy.
You said, you can’t argue something into existence. But we do it all the time.
Say you want to write a novel. You have a dozen plots in your mind. Maybe also the characters of the novel, dialogs... In fact, you might have the entire novel in your mind. The only thing missing, you have not written it down. You have not "realized" it, in Leibniz’s sense of the word. You have not made it real. Which of the dozen novels you are actually going to write? Why, the one that seems "best" to you, of course. What is best? The one that gets you the Nobel prize, the one that makes you the most money? (Simplicity of the plot might be a virtue, but hardly the only one.) But that is a detail. The thing is, you must have a "sufficient reason" to pick one on the possible novels. And once you have written it, it is sort of by definition the best of all possible novels (that you were capable of).
And with God it is just the same. Only he does not have a dozen plots in his mind, but all possible plots (i.e. worlds).
The only open question for me is, why is it "better" to just create the best world instead of them all?
It is a pity that the guy who asked the questions left without a trace.
Yes, it looks like you talk to yourself:-). But very politely and informatively:-). I’ve never read Leibniz himself, though I’ve read about his philosophy. So interesting you value him so highly with hindsight of Kant, Hegel etc.
The concept of friendship here on GR is a bit strange, of course. But in the case of Xander it was close to some real friendship. He wrote some excellent reviews. The one about the Tractatus was amazing. And they are all gone. I miss him.
If you have a set of rules, like the rules of chess, then by these rules all possible games of chess are given. And God would (have to) pick the best of those to make it real. Actually, Leibniz gives the example of the game of Solitaire to make exactly this point.