Andy wrote:Does that mean that intelligence in general is meaningless? Since that's what intelligence is about. It is about making predictions based on what happened in the past; predictions that are never absolutely certain in the sense that it is never impossible for them to turn out to be wrong.
i'm gonna have to give you a crazy hypothetical situation then, or you're not gonna understand what i'm trying to explain.
so you will agree that the laws of physics are only relatively stable, because you are aware that during the initial moments of the big bang, the laws of physics were quite different. this means at some point, many things didn't behave like they do now... i mean like gravity and particles and shit. okay, so it isn't impossible in a future for something like that to happen again. and don't forget physicists are also saying that shit gets really weird in a black hole.
now that being the case, it is conceivable that something... say, an electron, could significantly change, and change in such a way that it's change would effect the way the atom worked which it orbited, and also the molecule that the atom was a part of.
now we have a hypothetical molecule that isn't like the molecule we used to know, and, neither does it do what it used to do. so if we were to say 'this substance has the potential to do X', and, in fact, it wasn't able to do X, we would be wrong poct-hoc. we would be making a false assertion when we said 'this thing has the potential to do X.'
now as unlikely as this hypothetical is- obviously the laws have been pretty stable and consistent for something like 13 billion years- the fact still remains that to say 'X has a potential to do Y' assumes that the laws will remain as they are.
what if we woke up tommorow and all the batteries in the house stopped working? for whatever reason... say some strange shit went down over in the corner of the galaxy and fucked everything up somehow. if you said 'a battery has the potential to produce power' today, you would be wrong tommorow.
we don't want to be wrong, andy, so we need to rethink this.
as long as it's possible for the laws of nature to change, we might be wrong when we speak of a thing's 'potential' to do something specific.