Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Parable of Alien Chess

lukesmith.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 176 posts

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#11

Post by simonh »

lmm wrote: post #5
raldi wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The aliens can’t see the players, other than that one is playing as “white” and the other “black”. They don’t have access to information about a particular player going from game to game.

That's not how I read the article's introduction. But under that interpretation, it would be meaningless for the aliens to try to understand the game in any more detail until they understood that kind of basic information.

That's the question the article is addressing. I think you're putting too much weight on the rough and sketchily defined example and missing the actual topic.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#12

Post by est31 »

tikej wrote: post #8

This text mainly shows that author either misunderstands chess, probability and science, likely at the same time, or just wants to critique for critique’s sake. Of course while it’s good to search for alternative models/theories/explanations, unless you can provide something with better with more predictive power than the existing/widely accepted ones, it’s a good idea to hold the critique. EDIT: To clarify: by less…

I think the criticism of occam's razor is valid. Occam's razor comes at a cost, and denying it would be wrong. It brings many advantages though, which outweigh the disadvantages.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#13

Post by gandalfgreybeer »

Going through the piece, he builds upon things that make sense but then just completely goes off the rails at the end. I don’t even know what the point of the article is.

It comes across as science/intellectual shaming.

> Possibly illiterate dilettantes on the internet might see and bring to attention legitimate theoretical flaws.

And if the flaws are legitimate, no matter how much work a scientist has done, then he has to take these into account now. Science is incremental and self-correcting. Is it a flaw if someone points out something wrong?

> All the years you spend in graduate school counting angels on pinheads in your respective theoretical framework is mostly a waste of time.

What is the point of saying this? There are dead ends to science and some of these dead ends may seem like wastes of time but it’s all about incremental knowledge and discoveries. If something revolutionary comes along that disproves years of work, then that for science is a success.

> Most of the scientific work is not meaningful outside of the theoretical framework that gave rise to it.

What does this mean? Isn’t this “theoretical framework” based on our observations? Sure there is this chance that it might be wrong but if most of our data and observations show that this is true, then it is until proven otherwise.

If someone tells you that the earth might be flat and what we can see with our eyes and what we currently know might not be true, is that sufficient evidence to make you think, “oh the earth might be flat after all”?

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#14

Post by jackhalford »

> In Against Method, Paul Feyerabend, in what an unreflective mind might misinterpret as a "troll," says that it is important for science that people have biases, financial interests, interfering religious and political doctrines and the like in science.

Also dying, and new generations coming along is in the interest of science. quite ironically the development of eternal life would kill scientific progress, which might be the great filter after all.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#15

Post by malf »

Any examples of what is supposed to work this way? It sounds like a rant against quantum measurement by someone who thinks everyone just forgot to consider hidden variable theories.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#16

Post by tikej »

est31 wrote: post #12
tikej wrote: post #8

This text mainly shows that author either misunderstands chess, probability and science, likely at the same time, or just wants to critique for critique’s sake. Of course while it’s good to search for alternative models/theories/explanations, unless you can provide something with better with more predictive power than the existing/widely accepted ones, it’s a good idea to hold the critique. EDIT: To clarify: by less…

I think the criticism of occam's razor is valid. Occam's razor comes at a cost, and denying it would be wrong. It brings many advantages though, which outweigh the disadvantages.

Sure it is valid, but in reality most scientists don’t religiously stick to Ockham’s razor and oppose alternative theories that give correct predictions.

If hard sticking to Ockham’s razor was true, Quantum loop Gravity, String Theory and many other theories wouldn’t be intensively studied for past 50 years. Or development and studying interpretations of quantum mechanics (which btw yielded results in Quantum Information Theory).

It’s just that constructing something correct and new IS really hard.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#17

Post by vincnetas »

tikej wrote: post #8

This text mainly shows that author either misunderstands chess, probability and science, likely at the same time, or just wants to critique for critique’s sake. Of course while it’s good to search for alternative models/theories/explanations, unless you can provide something with better with more predictive power than the existing/widely accepted ones, it’s a good idea to hold the critique. EDIT: To clarify: by less…

"Physicists are “stuck” with existing theories not because they like them, but because they work so well it’s hard to invent something that even works equally well"

Yes, but hundred years ago we were "stuck" with another worldview that was explaining everything fine, and i assume ther was a big resistance from estabilishment to addopt new ideas. But then old scientist died, and resistance got weaker. So we might look back at today after 100 yaers and see similar situation. No one says that ideas of 100 yaers ago were all wrong, just not so true as current.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#18

Post by vez- »

The author's argues that the 50-50 model of chess is less true and a dead-end.

If this is a matter of which model to use then fair enough, you may wish to use a more exact model than the 50-50 model; but the author is not arguing about which model to use, they are arguing about which model to pursue building upon.

Building upon any model of interest is not a dead end (because it is being built upon!). Even if the underlying principles of the model of interest need to be changed to accomplish something else in the future, it is still useful to develop the model. Approximate truths can also have deep meaning and are sometimes even more generalizable to multiple areas of reality than exact answers. Approximations are no less true than trying to be exact, they are just saying a different thing. Neither is inferior to the other, or at least if exactness really is better than approximation, this is not a good argument for it.

Another commenter pointed out that some models need to be thrown out in order to make room for the new (e.g. the earth-centric view of the solar system had to go at some point), and I think that's valid and hard to argue against; and it seems to align with what the author is saying. But the work done upon the old models was certainly not worth nothing. For one thing, the work done upon the old models is what made the new work possible. I think perhaps the author's issue is that they do not acknowledge that the 50-50 model of chess has value.

p.s. to the author if they read the comments: I actually enjoyed reading your thoughts even if I disagree with them.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#19

Post by leto_ii »

I suspect the metaphor is inspired by Feynman's one about gods playing chess [1]. As it's almost always the case, Feynman manages to immediately inspire and illuminate.

On the other hand, the present article seems to me to get some important things wrong. For one, it's not the case that overall white and black win 50% of the time each. More importantly though, if somebody is interested in investigating chess, they will supposedly understand that it's some activity that other (somewhat) intelligent beings are undertaking.

Even if everything seems like a blur, an alien scientist should not be content with dismissing it as uninteresting randomness. More so, if somebody actually starts investigating seriously, they will immediately obtain useful results about the game, results that should almost certainly provide useful predictions about the game outcome (at least better than "it's all random").

I might find, however, some agreement with the spirit of the article. It seems to me that, even though the author doesn't articulate it properly, the idea is that scientists should pursue more fringe theories even if immediate confirmation is lacking. I think there's quite a bit of value in this, as long as your predictions are always checked against reality.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1dgrvlWML4

Post reply on HN