O.M.G. Yet another natural scientist trying to coerce philosophy to his 'way of thinking'.
O.M.G. Yet another natural scientist trying to coerce philosophy to his 'way of thinking'.
> To forestall misunderstandings, let me add a note of humility before going further. This essay will touch on many problems that philosophers have debated for generations, such as strong AI, the problem of induction, the relation between syntax and semantics, and the interpretation of quantum mechanics. In none of these cases will I claim that computational complexity theory “dissolves” the philosophical problem—only that it contributes useful perspectives and insights. I’ll often explicitly mention philosophical puzzles that I think a complexity analysis either leaves untouched or else introduces itself. But even where I don’t do so, one shouldn’t presume that I think there are no such puzzles! Indeed, one of my hopes for this essay is that computer scientists, mathematicians, and other technical people who read it will come away with a better appreciation for the subtlety of some of the problems considered in modern analytic philosophy.
(From some (very) cursory reading, this does seem to hold true.)
In all seriousness, I think philosophy has problem, it's disconnect with reality is widening.