Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations (Philosophical Investigations §201) suggest that the determinacy of a computational rule's outcome cannot be read off the rule itself without presupposing a practice of application.
?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.
Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.
Read off (from)(in describing whether meaning can be extracted directly from written rules)
To extract or discover something by simply looking at it directly—the assumption that you can get information just by examining something on its surface.
Wittgenstein
Ludwig Wittgenstein was an Austrian-British philosopher who fundamentally changed how people think about language and meaning in the 20th century. He argued that many philosophical problems arise from misunderstanding how words actually work in everyday life, rather than from deep metaphysical mysteries. His ideas influenced not just philosophy but also mathematics, logic, and even how people approach psychology and artificial intelligence today.
determinacy(Game theory, infinite games)
The property that for any game property φ, either player i has a strategy to force a set of histories satisfying φ, or player j has a strategy to force ¬φ; formally: {i}φ ∨ {j}¬φ
rule-following considerations(in philosophy of language)
Wittgenstein's famous puzzle about how we know what rule to follow next: if you learn a rule by seeing examples, how do you know you're applying it correctly to new cases you've never seen before?
§201 (section notation)(as a reference marker in the text)
The § symbol means 'section,' so §201 means 'section 201.' It's just a way to point to a specific part of a book.