Scientists find an effective solution for the three-body problem • Hacker News Board

Re: Scientists find an effective solution for the three-body problem

#261

Post by ksec » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 10:04 PM UTC

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #257

nathanvanfleet wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually pretty interesting.

I've never talked about this project online, so this comment really does mean a great deal to me. See my comment to another reply in this thread: but I have a great deal of excitement about this topic. I think a lot of people would have a hard time answering: "why do you play?"

Very late to the reply. I got a little emotional typing out that story so I didn't check the comments section for a few days.

Is it because of deterministic outcome? Would be interested to hear more about the book as well.

Re: Scientists find an effective solution for the three-body problem

#262

Post by elcomet » Thu, Aug 19, 2021, 8:27 AM UTC

mjburgess wrote: post #231

elcomet wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're describing is not randomness, it's independence. It's hard to define randomness. I think non-determinism is better than your definition.

It isn't hard to define randomness. It's an epistemic condition on the knowability of Y given X. Non-determinism is an incoherent definition of randomness; classical physical processes are entirely deterministic. The point of a coinflip being random is that it is random with respect to the information both observers of the coinflip have. It isnt random with respect to /any/ piece of information. There are almost no p…

This does not match the intuitive notion of randomness though.

I would say for a given variable to be random, it must not be predictible, given any other variables that humans can know.

I don't think it makes sense to say that X is random "with respect to Y", that's just the definition of independence.

And a constant variable is independent from all other variables, but it's definitely not random.

Re: Scientists find an effective solution for the three-body problem

#263

Post by mjburgess » Sun, Aug 22, 2021, 6:50 AM UTC

elcomet wrote: post #262

mjburgess wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't hard to define randomness. It's an epistemic condition on the knowability of Y given X. Non-determinism is an incoherent definition of randomness; classical physical processes are entirely deterministic. The point of a coinflip being random is that it is random with respect to the information both observers of the coinflip have. It isnt random with respect to /any/ piece of information. There are almost no p…

This does not match the intuitive notion of randomness though. I would say for a given variable to be random, it must not be predictible, given any other variables that humans can know. I don't think it makes sense to say that X is random "with respect to Y", that's just the definition of independence. And a constant variable is independent from all other variables, but it's definitely not random.

Then only quantum indeterminate phenomenon is random, and nothing else.

I dont think many people have thought enough about the world to appeal to their intuitions.

Randomness isnt quantum indeterminacy.

Re: Scientists find an effective solution for the three-body problem

#264

Post by bigfudge » Thu, Aug 26, 2021, 6:08 PM UTC

robocat wrote: post #199

bigfudge wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly though, when asked Americans rate luck as much less important in financial success than other cultures. Euro countries in particular are more comfortable attributing a higher fraction of their success to luck than those in the US. And by asked I mean a reasonable well designed study… I can’t find the ref just now but will post if I do when home again.

It makes perfect sense to have an irrational belief in hard work. You are likely to have more success if you believe in work. Certainly believing that 100% of outcomes is luck seems like a bad strategy. At the level of a society then average beliefs matter. I find some less successful countries seem to obsess over the role of external influences, fate, god, and chance.

This is wonderfully North American. I would judge countries like France, Germany much more successful than the US because they still have functioning political and cultural life. Those are only things that can survive if individual financial success is not the only metric used.