高校问答915快车路线查询:翻译连载2，强人帮忙啊！！（别拿快译糊弄人啊）
来源：百度文库 编辑：高校问答 时间：2024/05/05 17:05:50
Imperfect surrogates mean incorrect inferences are inevitable
Two important consequences follow from the inevitability of imperfect surrogates. One consequence is that in describing the natural world, we must inevitably lie, by omission at least. At a minimum we must omit some of the effectively limitless complexity of the natural world; our descriptions may in addition introduce artifacts not present in the world.
The second and more important consequence is that all sufficiently broad-based reasoning about the natural world must eventually reach conclusions that are incorrect, independent of the reasoning process used and independent of the representation employed. Sound reasoning cannot save us: If the world model is somehow wrong (and it must be) some conclusions will be incorrect, no matter how carefully drawn. A better representation cannot save us: all representations are imperfect and any imperfection can be a source of error.
The significance of the error may of course vary; indeed much of the art of selecting a good representation is in finding one that minimizes (or perhaps even eliminates) error for the specific task at hand. But the unavoidable imperfection of surrogates means we can supply at least one guarantee for any entity reasoning in any fashion about the natural world: if it reasons long enough and broadly enough, it is guaranteed to err.
Drawing only sound inferences thus does not free reasoning from error; it can only ensure that inference is not the source of that error. Given that broad based reasoning will inevitably be wrong, the step from sound inference to other models of inference is thus not a move from total accuracy to error, but is instead a question of balancing off the possibility of one more source of error against the gains (e.g., efficiency) it may offer.
We do not suggest that unsound reasoning ought to be embraced casually, but do claim that, given the inevitability of error even with sound reasoning, it makes sense to evaluate pragmatically the relative costs and benefits that come from using both sound and unsound reasoning methods.
原来要成正比啊，我又另发了一个贴，悬赏100分的，敬请关注啊！
Two important consequences follow from the inevitability of imperfect surrogates. One consequence is that in describing the natural world, we must inevitably lie, by omission at least. At a minimum we must omit some of the effectively limitless complexity of the natural world; our descriptions may in addition introduce artifacts not present in the world.
The second and more important consequence is that all sufficiently broad-based reasoning about the natural world must eventually reach conclusions that are incorrect, independent of the reasoning process used and independent of the representation employed. Sound reasoning cannot save us: If the world model is somehow wrong (and it must be) some conclusions will be incorrect, no matter how carefully drawn. A better representation cannot save us: all representations are imperfect and any imperfection can be a source of error.
The significance of the error may of course vary; indeed much of the art of selecting a good representation is in finding one that minimizes (or perhaps even eliminates) error for the specific task at hand. But the unavoidable imperfection of surrogates means we can supply at least one guarantee for any entity reasoning in any fashion about the natural world: if it reasons long enough and broadly enough, it is guaranteed to err.
Drawing only sound inferences thus does not free reasoning from error; it can only ensure that inference is not the source of that error. Given that broad based reasoning will inevitably be wrong, the step from sound inference to other models of inference is thus not a move from total accuracy to error, but is instead a question of balancing off the possibility of one more source of error against the gains (e.g., efficiency) it may offer.
We do not suggest that unsound reasoning ought to be embraced casually, but do claim that, given the inevitability of error even with sound reasoning, it makes sense to evaluate pragmatically the relative costs and benefits that come from using both sound and unsound reasoning methods.
原来要成正比啊，我又另发了一个贴，悬赏100分的，敬请关注啊！
这么多还是你自己慢慢啃吧.