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

91–100 of 176 posts

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#91

Post by KineticLensman »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #72
dusted wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's entirely right to discard comparatively less developed theories based on their relatively weaker predictive power. That does sound like how one reaches a local maximum, to use the term from the article. 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…

> 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 away that the actual movements of the planets could be more accurately predicted. Until this time, the older earth-centric models with all of the epicycles were 'better', even though totally unrelated to reality.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#92

Post by tpoacher »

vez- wrote: post #18

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 und…

Tbh, I didn't think he gave that message. If anything, he even identifies the 50-50 model as a local "maximum" (i.e. it has value). To me the main point was to have a mindset that is willing to challenge the possibility of whether such an optimum could actually simply be a local one.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#93

Post by tpoacher »

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…

Effectively what you're saying is that you cannot possibly entertain the larger point of the article, because you find faults with the specific analogy he chose to illustrate it. Right?

Fair enough. His fault for trying to argue using an analogy I guess. It never works.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#94

Post by yegortimoshenko »

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.

It gets much worse than that on this blog: https://archive.is/RtoKS#selection-397.1-397.222

> Nitpicking is more excusable for women to do. That's ultimately because men talk to others

> exchange important information, while women only talk to others for social negotiation and

> to test the social standing of others.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#95

Post by chronolitus »

If there is indeed no way for aliens to "see" the chess playing process (precisely: to make measurements which confirm/reject hypotheses about details of the game), then the best model they can ever come up with is a black box where the outcome has given statistical properties.

Where the parable falls short, and a mistake often made, is to confuse one's own inability to come up with discriminating experiments, for an absolute truth about the universe's resistance to observation.

What would it mean for aliens to not ever be able to measure chess' inner properties? it would mean that aliens could never read human texts, or talk with humans, as any of those would instantly lead them to the truth. Which in turn means aliens can't see light, or hear sounds, or interact with things which would allow them to do so. Going further, we end up at the conclusion that either these aliens exist in a completely separate universe from chess (and everything around it), or they CAN observe it (they just haven't tried hard enough).

This post is confused, in that it first states aliens can't see chess, but later they can. If their sensors ARE able to measure chess, the scientific process will eventually weed out the worse models for the better ones and they will understand it. If they aren't, then they will be left with the statistical random model, and that is indeed the best explanation, as all guesses toward the complicated intricacies of the game are equally likely and cannot be differentiated.

In the end, the post's theory boils down to one idea: "there is sometimes an underlying truth that is not observable", and it is a really weak one. Like the flying tea pot, it can not be disproven or proven. "Underlying Truths" that do not affect the universe in any way and cannot be measured, might as well not exist, and we should not attempt to model them. Everything else can and will be explained, in time.

I'm not sure I see a paradox, or lesson here, other than it is important to understand what the scientific process of model, hypothesis and measurement can and can't do.

--

the same argument is often made for magic, or spirituality, or any other thing people say is 'unexplainable' (which can often be translated to "something I don't want to think too hard about")

We used to think many things were magic (light, magnets, the world), until someone smarter than us came up with a really smart experiment which let us shine light into boxes we thought were black (bell's inequality theorem is a fine example).

The lesson from history is, if we look hard enough, we eventually get closer to the truth, every time.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#96

Post by xscott »

TameAntelope wrote: post #36
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…

The author did himself a disservice by attracting chess players to criticize his example that clearly could have been about literally any game more complex than coin flipping that has roughly 50/50 parity. He could have referred to the NFL or something, maybe that would have helped. The point was to set up the aliens to have a gross approximation of outcome determination that is both accurate and wrong. The aliens co…

>The author did himself a disservice by attracting chess players to criticize his example

Heh, I think the author's example is fine if the reader gives it a charitable interpretation. The disservice is from all the overly pedantic people who want to argue about chess instead of the philosophy of science.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#97

Post by eigenket »

Jweb_Guru wrote: post #63
ibab wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am not aware of any interpretation that has the Born rule without assuming something equivalent to it. For example de Broglie–Bohm theory requires you to assume the original distribution of the particles follows the Born rule. QBists just postulate it, consistent histories just postulates it etc.

I am not particularly a many-world proponent, but I do not think it is fair to level this accusation as an issue for many worlds without bringing up that every other interpretation has the same "flaw".

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#98

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

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 something new onto the Standard Model without fundamentally changing its assumptions were much higher.

There's also been the - likely incorrect - belief that different models are too hard to distinguish experimentally.

So there's been a process of continuous refinement of existing theories which are known to be incomplete, and no concerted and sustained attempt to solve foundational philosophical problems - which is the level that Einstein, Newton, and other pioneers operated at.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#99

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

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.

This is all hand-waving. The reality is no one knows how any of this works, and there are more than twenty different interpretations.

If you can prove conclusively there's no randomness and no collapse and no need for either, a Nobel Prize awaits. If you can't - most likely - one opinion is as (in)valid as any other for now.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#100

Post by TeMPOraL »

gxnxcxcx wrote: post #86
FeepingCreature wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, we may develop a society where advancement does not depend on death.

That could prove really difficult without the death of those not in need of any advancement. Power and privilege by their very nature tend to find ways of avoiding being watered down.

As one still in need of advancement, I'd happily take that challenge (and that of continuing scientific progress).

Eternal life can always be abandoned if we find out it doesn't work.

Post reply on HN