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

121–130 of 176 posts

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#121

Post by Diggsey »

choeger wrote: post #89
konschubert wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What you are saying is that whenever we, the observer, leave the QM model we use the collapse as a computational trapdoor function? Sounds like an interesting point of view. But would that not also imply that we should be able to measure the quantum world with quantum devices? Say we have a quantum property that is extremely close to p=0.5. If we could invent a device to replicate that property perfectly and measure…

You can't "copy" data in QM: operations can neither destroy nor create information.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#122

Post by dj_mc_merlin »

tikej wrote: post #43
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?

I can't propose one, I think whoever could would have some sort of Renaissance discovery in their head. I say this because I feel the way we approach certain disciplines like psychology (in an increasingly scientific and statistical way) is the wrong take, although it has worked well for most things in the past. Although we can make good experiments, we are missing the intuitive part of it. There are some truths about the way minds work that you can understand, but you can't really write down or quantify, and science can do no help there.

For physics though, we have it down right. Do the experiment, did it work?.. it's already the correct method. No need to improve there.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#123

Post by avereveard »

KineticLensman wrote: post #91
TeMPOraL wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Think on it in a different way, most of the very revolutionary theories, those that changed how we see the world, were relatively more simple, they were generally simple enough that one fringe could develop them to a point where they shined so brightly as to be next to irrefutable. Things like how the earth might be round, and circle the sun. Intresting trivia: heliocentrism didn't show "shining brightly as to be n…

> Also, IIRC, the predictions made by heliocentric model were less accurate than geocentric ones > work of Kepler Yes. One problem of the early Copernican heliocentric model was that it stated that the orbits of planets around the sun were perfect circles. It wasn't until Kepler showed that a) the orbits were actually elliptical and b) the planets speeded up when they approached the sun and slowed down as they moved…

one important point is that ground observations include mars moving backward fairly often. it took a while to formulate a movement form that satisfied that constraint better than epicycles

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#124

Post by mannykannot »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #98
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…

No, this is historically incorrect. Quantum Foundations was strongly disfavoured as a research pastime for decades - not because Shut Up and Calculate gets the right answer (it doesn't for many problems, including those that involve gravity) but because the risks of failure and obscurity were too high, there were few academic champions, it was seen as academically fringe, and the potential rewards for bolting somethi…

I am wondering why you think the belief, that different models are too hard to distinguish experimentally, is incorrect - after all, the achievment of such a distinction would seem to be highly motivating. To take a historical example, The publication of Bell's inequality motivated a successful program leading to its experimental verification; do you have in mind some potential experiment to distinguish between models that is being wrongly ignored on the grounds that it is too hard to persue?

An alternative explanation for quantum foundations being in limbo is that it is extremely difficult to come up with alternatives that offer a possibility of verification.

Update: writing this reminded me of [1], in which a simple experiment by Shahriar Afshar, that arguably challenged one tenet of the Copenhagen interpretation, provoked a disturbingly over-the-top response, which supports your position on how work on quantum fundamentals is opposed (though, personally, I doubt it succeeds in challenging the Copenhagen interpretation. Interestingly, the opponents of Afshar's interpretation do not all agree on why they think it is wrong.)

[1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325915-400-quantum-...

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#125

Post by joppy »

8note wrote: post #70
adlpz wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We already have the best disruptive model that doesn't make good predictions: string theory. There's not really a need to come up with these alternatives when we know string theory is powerful enough to do it, and only has one free parameter. That is, unless you can come up with a theory that had no free parameters. These theories are fundamentally math models, and I don't find it likely that we'll determine that p =…

Does string theory only have one parameter? I was under the impression that you also had to insert some very complicated underlying geometry into spacetime (the extra dimensions), which I would count as more parameters.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#126

Post by dj_mc_merlin »

joppy wrote: post #125
8note wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have the best disruptive model that doesn't make good predictions: string theory. There's not really a need to come up with these alternatives when we know string theory is powerful enough to do it, and only has one free parameter. That is, unless you can come up with a theory that had no free parameters. These theories are fundamentally math models, and I don't find it likely that we'll determine that p =…

Does string theory only have one parameter? I was under the impression that you also had to insert some very complicated underlying geometry into spacetime (the extra dimensions), which I would count as more parameters.

You would be somewhat right, this is known as the landscape problem. Technically string theory has no free dimensionless parameters (by the formal definition, values which need to be determined experimentally).

edit: to expand, the landscape problem is more about finding the right parameters for compactification (folding up the geometry) that produce the universe we all know and love, or at least a realistic one. This makes them similar to free parameters.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#127

Post by KineticLensman »

avereveard wrote: post #123
KineticLensman wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, IIRC, the predictions made by heliocentric model were less accurate than geocentric ones > work of Kepler Yes. One problem of the early Copernican heliocentric model was that it stated that the orbits of planets around the sun were perfect circles. It wasn't until Kepler showed that a) the orbits were actually elliptical and b) the planets speeded up when they approached the sun and slowed down as they moved…

one important point is that ground observations include mars moving backward fairly often. it took a while to formulate a movement form that satisfied that constraint better than epicycles

Yes. This is one example of the fact that the Earth 'laps' the outer planets because it has a faster orbit. So the outer planets sometimes appear to go backward with respect to a fixed point such as a star as the Earth undertakes them. They also can move up and down with respect to that fixed point because their orbits are tilted somewhat compared with the Earth's orbital plane around the sun. The overall effect is that the outer planets sometimes trace out a little spiral, and the further they are from the sun, the more these spirals dominate their overall motion (because we are lapping them more often).

Obviously it's different for Mercury and Venus, whose orbits are inside ours. They instead switch between being visible in the morning or the evening.

All very complicated for those ancient astronomers!

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#128

Post by approxim8ion »

gavanwilhite wrote: post #64

I’m a bit surprised that nobody has called attention to the Pepe the Frog meme. Given its association with the alt-right at worst, and trolling at best, this seems out of character for hacker news.

Use of Pepe and other alt-right tropes and 4chan lingo is consistent with who Luke Smith is and the image he wishes to cultivate for himself to attract a similar crowd.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#129

Post by marcosdumay »

vincnetas wrote: post #17
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…

> But then old scientist died, and resistance got weaker.

Hum... The old scientists that (very vocally on that case) resisted change were the same that uncovered the problems with the old models and laid out the first theories on how to fix those problems. Those things are way more complex than simple quotes and labels can communicate.

New models got adopted when after a lot of work people created some that worked better. Not a moment before. Those better models didn't get resistance from the established physicists.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#130

Post by mannykannot »

seisvelas wrote: post #34
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…

>For one, it's not the case that overall white and black win 50% of the time each. He addresses that (first-move advantage from white moving first) in the parenthesis after that same sentence: "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). "

It is also the case that if you take into account which pair of players are competing, the random hypothesis is not even close.

The author cannot have it both ways: either the aliens cannot distinguish the game from an equal-odds random process, or they can.

Post reply on HN