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

61–70 of 176 posts

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#61

Post by qsort »

adlpz wrote: post #44
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…

> We need to be able to dedicate resources to theories that do not provide better predictions, but that provide new perspectives.

You are talking as if this isn't the case already, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Mo...

I don't think that the usefulness of alternative viewpoints is contested by anyone, the problematic part of the article is the vague, ill-informed critique of 'scientific rigor'.

What other way is there to judge models than to compare them with experimental results? Grounding theories to experiments is literally the only thing that separates science from crackpottery.

It's also pretty weird for the article to criticize "logical positivism", when the most common contemporary views on the topic of philosophy of science (e.g. Popper, Kuhn, Putnam) don't actually agree with logical positivism.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#62

Post by mlang23 »

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.

Another fresh take on the issue I recently stumbled across by accident.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#63

Post by Jweb_Guru »

ibab wrote: post #59
jackhalford wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In the Everett/Many Worlds interpretation the appearance of randomness can be explained as an emergent phenomenon resulting from not being able to predict which part of the wave function we will end up in before running an experiment.

The Everett/Many Worlds interpretation cannot reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics without extra assumptions (e.g. the Born rule) that don't have any physical basis within the context of MWI.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#65

Post by bmn__ »

germanjoey wrote: post #20

And here I thought the article was going to be like this parody manga about Alien Mahjong...... https://mangadex.org/chapter/56995/1

I am genuinely impressed. The author captures Fukumoto's style and tropes perfectly.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#66

Post by jgilias »

Regarding the main point of the article. I do agree that it's very important to not get stuck in local maxima. However, I think the author heavily underestimates/overestimates the chances of the following:

1. The author underestimates the rate of competing ideas coming out of 'learned' scientists.

2. The author overestimates the possibility of an 'internet dilettante' without good knowledge of prior art coming up with something useful.

To me it's a bit like me playing chess with a Grandmaster. Sure, I know how the chess pieces move, I know basic tactics and strategy. But I have never studied a chess theory book, never learned any openings. What's the chance of me coming up with a chess theory novelty that provides a better model of the game and lets me win the Grandmaster? It's not none. But due to my lack of knowledge of prior art the chance is pretty thin.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#67

Post by quietbritishjim »

I was disappointed to search through the comments and not find the phrase "two slit experiment". [1]

The first half of the article is clealy about quantum mechanics, although it doesn't name it explicitly. The author seems to be arguing that there is something specific really going on below the quantum level, regardless of whether we can measure it, and scientists refuse to acknowledge that only because of philosphical dogma (logical positivism). They seemed to think we only use probabilities to reflect our uncertainty, and ought to come up with a more fundamental theory that avoids that uncertainty.

But the two slit experiment shows that there is no more fundamental theory (at least not in that sense). If two paths have probability of 0.5, then it's not the case that only one or the other took place, we just don't know which is which. Instead, they both took place in some sense, to the extent that they interact with each other; that's not possible if there was one true path that we just couldn't deduce. It's maybe better to think of 0.5 as a weighting rather than a probability.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#68

Post by the8472 »

H8crilA wrote: post #51
jackhalford wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> QM is the only physical theory that has randomness as an inherent part It's either inherent randomness or just a deep hole in the whole thing (similar to the alien chess thought experiment problem). Personally I choose to believe that the theory is just incomplete because nobody can even define what a "measurement" really is, meaning in which cases what we do is a "measurement" and in which cases it is not a "measu…

> nobody can even define what a "measurement" really is

Isn't that the observer becoming entangled with the measured system?

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#70

Post by 8note »

adlpz wrote: post #44
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…

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 = np by finding just the right np problem and exploring that on its own.

In the theory department, we're fine with what we've got. What we're missing is new experiements that can actually challenge our models. We've got a couple things to push on, sure { black hole singularities, dark matter, dark energy, wave function collapse, quantum gravity } but we don't have the tools to manipulate and observe them like we do for electromagnetism or chromodynamics

Post reply on HN