Parable of Alien Chess • Hacker News Board

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#41

Post by lmm » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 9:11 AM UTC

bruce511 wrote: post #10

lmm wrote: post #2

> After extensive experimentation, they realize this: 50% of the time, the white player wins and 50% of the time, the black player wins (we'll ignore draws and any first-move advantage for the example). But this is empirically false. It fails to explain that, for example, some players consistently beat other players, or at least have a much higher than 50% winrate. If chess really did consistently just have a 50% out…

It's not _players_ here that matter, just the color. If I play a grand master (or indeed just any moderately competent player) 10 times, I will lose all 10. But assuming we share who starts, white will win 5 times and black will win 5 times. Further, for some random chess tournament, I'm guessing the win ratio for black/white is close to 50/50 (perhaps white is a bit ahead for having first mover advantage - which is…

> It turns out the result of the game has lots to do with the player, and Little to do with the color, which makes the alien first model simple, accurate, and completely wrong.

And discovering that relationship between players and winning is important and valuable! But trying to understand how the pieces move before you've even understood that this is a game of skill is putting the cart before the horse, and gives you a model that really is less useful than the coin-flip model.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#42

Post by lmm » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 9:13 AM UTC

simonh wrote: post #11

lmm wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But the claim lives or dies by its example. The author's whole point is that he's discovered or imagined a situation in which doing science "badly" would be better than doing it "well". If his imaginary situation doesn't actually hold up then his whole argument is nonsense.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#43

Post by tikej » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 9:14 AM UTC

dj_mc_merlin wrote: post #33

This is one of the main sins of postmodernism: the thought that because all view points are tenable, all are correct. The scientific method is based on accuracy of prediction, otherwise we are not talking about science anymore. That's not bad, and many a researcher could do with the realization that maths and models are not the best way to describe all things. It's a different ballgame though.

What kind of alternative to maths and models, that has predictive (preferably in quantitative way) power, would you propose?

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#44

Post by adlpz » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 9:15 AM UTC

dj_mc_merlin wrote: post #33

This is one of the main sins of postmodernism: the thought that because all view points are tenable, all are correct. The scientific method is based on accuracy of prediction, otherwise we are not talking about science anymore. That's not bad, and many a researcher could do with the realization that maths and models are not the best way to describe all things. It's a different ballgame though.

I believe the point being made here is that, indeed, scientific method is based on accuracy of prediction.

However, in order to reach a good accuracy, a great deal of fine-tuning and tweaking is required. E.g. high energy physics. The standard model has something like 18 free parameters.

A new theory, which could be "more correct" and provide, in the long term, better predictions, might require time and manpower for this fine-tuning and tweaking to occur.

However, as it did not provide better accuracy of prediction in its initial stages, is said to be not worth pursuing or even directly pseudoscience or quackery.

This used to not be the case because, 100 years ago, relatively simple theories workable by 1-3 solo scientists provided a large enough breakthrough in prediction power to be seriously considered.

It may be the case however that nowadays, with the amazing level of precision measurement we are able to achieve, we've optimized ourselves into a corner.

We've fitter our quite-a-lot-of-degrees-of-freedom theories into a local maximum so hard that finding a theory that predicts better is, at least, impractical.

And through this process we've blinded ourselves from any new and disruptive ideas.

Again, look at the standard model. It's got so many damn dials to tweak that no wonder it fits reality so well. And if it ever doesn't, we can just shove supersymmetry in there.

We need to be able to dedicate resources to theories that do not provide better predictions, but that provide new perspectives. A moderate amount of resources. But calling those scientists quacks does no good.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#45

Post by jackhalford » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 9:17 AM UTC

konschubert wrote: post #39

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 still haven't understood why people keep saying that there is randomness in QM. The so-called "wave function collapse" isn't really part of QM, it's duct tape that we have applied to stick together the QM with "Classical Physics" and our pre-existing assumptions about human consciousness. I don't think we should consider it "real" or "true". Without the wave function collapse, there is no randomness in QM.

you have it wrong, QM is the only physical theory that has randomness as an inherent part, as compared to e.g thermodynamics where randomness is due to lack of information. It is proven (see Bell inequalities) that randomness in QM isn't due to lack of information.

You can't just wave away the collapse mechanism, what do you make of the double alit experiment? isn't the target "real" enough?

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#46

Post by scandox » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 9:21 AM UTC

laumars wrote: post #40

vincnetas wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

No, a touch over 100 years ago Einstein came up with a new set of equations that more precisely describes the movement of objects. Newtonian physics is still valid and still taught at schools since it adequately explains the movement of objects at an approximate level that is good enough for most people most of the time. But when dealing with equations at an astronomical scale, Newtonian physics start to break down.…

Complements it

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#47

Post by Lewton » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 9:22 AM UTC

The author unironically uses a parable about aliens predicting chess outcomes with a coin flip and how wrong that is, to promote the idea that random fringe ideas without predictive power have value.

I severely doubt anyone who isn't already primed to agree with the conclusions would read this and find it convincing

(I don't find the idea that science needs ways to escape local maxima particularly controversial, but this article is terrible, and made worse by the unnecessary antagonism)

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#48

Post by goodcanadian » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 9:23 AM UTC

leto_ii wrote: post #19

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 wi…

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.

I have seen notable academics say the same thing. The problem is that the incentives set up in modern academia are strongly against doing anything outside of the mainstream.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#49

Post by konschubert » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 9:27 AM UTC

jackhalford wrote: post #45

konschubert wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still haven't understood why people keep saying that there is randomness in QM. The so-called "wave function collapse" isn't really part of QM, it's duct tape that we have applied to stick together the QM with "Classical Physics" and our pre-existing assumptions about human consciousness. I don't think we should consider it "real" or "true". Without the wave function collapse, there is no randomness in QM.

you have it wrong, QM is the only physical theory that has randomness as an inherent part, as compared to e.g thermodynamics where randomness is due to lack of information. It is proven (see Bell inequalities) that randomness in QM isn't due to lack of information. You can't just wave away the collapse mechanism, what do you make of the double alit experiment? isn't the target "real" enough?

The problem with the double slit experiment is that the target isn't treated as a quantum system.

That's why the wave function "collapses": Because it collides with the non-quantum target.

It's a useful approximation, but of course in reality, there is no such thing as a non-quantum thing.

And if you evolve the target's wave function with the wave function of the particle, then there is no stochastic collapse.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#50

Post by boldslogan » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 9:27 AM UTC

Lewton wrote: post #47

The author unironically uses a parable about aliens predicting chess outcomes with a coin flip and how wrong that is, to promote the idea that random fringe ideas without predictive power have value. I severely doubt anyone who isn't already primed to agree with the conclusions would read this and find it convincing (I don't find the idea that science needs ways to escape local maxima particularly controversial, but…

I think the issue arises, when a player who is not good at chess would lose, literally 100% of the time against anyone even close to a top regional level. In other words, chess is not a 50% chance game, it is a variable chance game depending on who you play, so the analogy is hard to follow because the aliens would not come up with this 50% outcome idea.