Lord Antares

Yes, I know. I was considering a hypothetical machine which would know the full and correct laws of physics and mathematics. I don't even know if there is such a thing as knowing something 100%, but for example, it would have the solution to the n-body problem. So it wouldn't be programmed in accordance with human knowledge of physics, but it would rather have an absolute knowledge of physics, if such a thing is possible. Thus, approximation error would hopefully be eliminated. OK, but only until there is a 1 in 1 chance we are understanding each other Here is the distinction between technical and practical odds: Practical odds are the ones given due to inability to calculate. So, coin is a 1 in 2 odds and dice are a 1 in 6 odds simply due to our inability to calculate how they will land with a 100% accuracy. Technical odds are the ones where the result is always calculated to a 100% certainty. Maybe odds is not the appropriate term here because the solution is known, hence no odds are neccessary. Just to clarify a bit further, consider the following hypothetical scenario: There is a goblin sitting in a wooden box. This box has a square hole in one of the sides. The goblin has 10 pieces of paper, each containing a number from 1-10. He picks these on random and displays them through the square hole to me. Now, I have practical 1 in 10 (10%) odds of guessing which number he will display. However, let's say his box has another hole on the side. If I take a peek through this hole, I can see which number he picks before he displays it through the hole. So, I have a 1 in 1 chance of guessing the number right. This is what I consider the technical odds; the ones I have enough information about to know the solution. This is what I mean by reducing the odds to 1 in 1. These may be confusing terms, but, again, although I would like to be educated in mathematics, I am not, so I have to make up my own terminology. I hope you understand what I mean by them. Yes, but my hypothetical prediction machine would know these. It would always adjust its calculation by the shift in the gravitational constant. The machine doesn't have the lack of knowledge and misunderstandings that the humans do. But more on that later, since we are trying to simplify here. No, I am not claiming that in any way. I am simply noting that the laws of the universe are absolute and unchangeable, while human thought isn't. For example, a slightly abstract analogy: If a human is regularly presented with a choice of 3 different ice-creams, he may alter his choices every time in a seemingly unpredictable pattern, while a machine might choose different ones, but in a predictable and mathematically presentable algorithm. Although the machine is way more advanced than a human in some regards, its choices are of the same predictability as the universe's choices regarding odds. Feel free to substitute ice cream with whatever is more apt. To reiterate, if you give the machine the ability to flip coins, it would do so in an eventually predictable manner, and so the odds of its flips would be reucable to techical (1 in 1 odds), provided we have the ability to calculate the angle, speed, force etc. of its coin flips. If you give a human a coin to flip, he wouldn't neccessarily do this in a predictable pattern. This is the closest you've come to understanding me. I suppose, in core, the first question could be used as synonimous to some questions I am asking here. Yes, it's not mathematics per se, nor is it strictly philosophy of the mind. That's why I said I don't know where I would place the thread. It does concern probability theory in the way that it asks the question IF human thought is based on probability. I re-wrote the post hastily before I leave for work, so I'm sure something got left out. Luckily, this is a forum and we can always get back to other questions. I will re-phrase my questions in a way that they are more mathematical and practical, instead of abstract and possibly philosophical. But first, I need to be sure we're understanding each other. It's strange. When I write posts, they are logical and concise in my mind. They seem really simple. But a lot of the time, members say they do not understand what I'm talking about and it always results in back-and-forth complications like these. Maybe my thoughts are erratic, who knows. I can't tell from my perspective. EDIT: I only call them technical ODDS because the whole term of ''odds'' is relative. In reality, there is nothing probable or improbable about a coin toss. It is always going to land the way it is supposed to land. Our ignorance and incapability to calculate is what makes the coin toss odds-based. I am aware of this. In the same way, the term random is relative. Nothing is random when you possess enough data.

Oh god. I wrote an elaborate and lenghty post addressing all your points which would, I think, make you understand all I'm saying. I guess I erased it. This is crushing to me. I don't know when I'll muster the will to write it again EDIT: I guess this is my cue not to use the quick reply for long posts. Yes, strange, I know this. I will re-write my full explanation later, I guess

Lol, no need to feel bad. I play in tournaments sometimes so it's quite alright. Chess is just a game of practice (and repetition, and workout etc.), so don't think that me beating you means anything other than me being more experienced in chess. I am sure I've spent a lot more time studying and practising chess than you

No, your post sums my thoughts up well. I know the unpredictability is due to our ignorance. The only reason why we say coins have a 50/50 chance for landing on either side is because we do not posses the information to calculate how they will land with 100% accuracy. That's why I made the distinction between practical odds and technical odds in the first post. I consider practical odds to be the ones usually used by humans to decide the chance of something happening (1 in 2 for a coin toss, 1 in 6 for a die roll etc.). I consider technical odds to always be 1 in 1. I don't know if this is something that is taught in mathematics, but surely it must be correct and it is very simple to grasp. So this is not what I am asking. Maybe it's just a case of me asking an overcomplicated question to which no one knows the answer. Alright, really the simplest way I can re-phrase the question is: All natural and physical processes have technical odds. That is, they can be reduced to a 1 in 1 chance because they are ever-repeating and absolute. Gravity will always act the way it ever did. So gravity is predictable and reducable to a 1 in 1 chance. Is the same true for humans? Can human behaviour and choices be reduced to technical odds? Is it even technically possible to find an algorithm or pattern in their behaviour so you can predict their choices? Humans do not always act the same way as opposed to gravity, which does. Thinking about it, it really may be a case of asking a question no one has the answer to.

Is that you in-game? My computer froze and I had to restart. You (or whoever) seem to be idle now.

https://lichess.org/gIgJUiTo Here's a link to whoever then. State your time preferences in the future. I haven't had 2 beer today, so I'm at a psychological disadvantage

Not quite. I myself stated that this is the case in the first post. I don't know why they had to do experiments on that. It's simply inherently true; it must be. I said this applies to both dice and coins. Well, first of all, thank you for the links, that is some good info +1 Yes, I was thinking of a hypotethical prediction machine but I don't know where I would draw the line of its abilities. Because, it this machine were an omniscient ''god'' machine as you put it, then it would be able to predict human thought pattern, reducing all odds to 1 in 1. Thus, the argument would become moot. I guess to elaborate a bit further, I shall rephrase the argument: All physical and natural processes happen logically and invariably. There is a law of action to each and every action of inanimate objects. Thus, a powerful enough machine (my hypothetical machine) would be able to solve and explain all of these due to the fact that they are mathematical, logical and unchanged. Human thought is supposedly a lot different. My question is if it is solvable (if there is a certain algorithm or thought pattern) humans use so that it would be solvable. Because if there isn't, it would not be completely stupid to postulate that this hypothetical machine would be able to reduce the odds of the earth being made the way it is from the big bang to 1 in 1, while it might not even be able to predict how a human would throw dice. Another way to ask a similar question would be: Imagine I have an ubelievably strong machine which can calculate where, when and how the earth will be formed with a 100% accuracy. Would this machine be able to predict the more complex of human choices related to odds? I ask this because humans presumably don't base their decisions on a law or a recurring theme, so it might be less predictable by a machine than any natural occuring process. I realize this is not a strictly mathematical question. It could have been posted in one of the medical science forums as well, but I chose this one. P.S: I realize the N-body is a problem to consider in this scenario, but I hope you see I'm taking a more hypothetical approach. You could even say it's a bit philosophical, although I hate to use that word. All in all, I do think you were partially right when you said I was asking about philosophy of probability. Just partially, though.

Thanks for the info. I'm not sure how there can be a rounding error possible if you assume the machine posseses the exact values of every variable involved. Ah, maybe I understand. Judging solely by the name of the ''n-body'' problem, you might be referring to the fact that some of these numbers will be infinite in nature (after the decimal point) and therefore, unusable in any kind of precise calculation. But I will make the effort of reading and trying to understand the links before I proceed with the discussion.

Well, no. I was considering a hypothetical machine which woul be able to calculate beyond this. A machine which would have every bit of information (about the physics, chemistry, biology, cosmology etc.) which it would use to calculate the exact position, age and composition of the earth. Excuse me if I'm missing something. I've seen some of your posts and you seem to be really knowledgeable about mathematics, but I cannot take the time now to read all of these before replying to you. I've skimmed through them and there is a lot to take in. If there's something I'm missing, let me know. Basically, to rephrase the question: there are certain algorithms and laws which govern how the universe works. These are objective and ALWAYS true. That's why they are laws. Humans don't work that way. They aren't neccessarily predictable. So I'm asking if you think there ARE algorithms and patterns on human decision regarding odds and if they can be acted upon. Would a sufficiently advanced machine be able to decode them?

Before you roll a die, you could say there is a 1 in 6 chance that it lands on any of the numbered sides. After you roll a die, you could make the point that there is a 1 in 1 chance that it lands on a certain side. I know this is practically irrelevant and too complex for humans to calculate, but it is technically correct. If you were to assign a super-advanced machine to calculate odds, it would always give 1 in 1 odds for it landing on a certain side. It would be able to calculate this from the angle, force, direction etc. of the die throw. If you were to throw the die under the same conditions an infinite numbers of times, the same result would always come up. The same is true for coins or any kind of probability-based game. Now, what got me thinking about this is a post from a member who gave the odds of the earth being made exactly the way it is. The practical odds he gave were very small (he had no evidence for these values but that's besides the point). Now, if you were to task said-super advanced machine to calculate these odds after the big bang, it would give 1 in 1 odds, because it already possesses sufficient information to calculate this (it would be able to infer this from the physics and chemistry of the big bang etc.). Of course, such a feat would require a retardedly strong machine, but the point still stands. Now, my question is, would this machine be able to do the same for a human throwing dice? Do you think there is an algorithm, however complex, for human decision-making in these cases? For example, you make a 3D program in which the computer simulations dice throwing. The throws are seemingly random but obviously affected by its algorithmic limitations. Now our super machine would always be able to give 1 in 1 odds for each of its throws because it would detect its algorithms. Would it do the same to humans? Are humans completely unpredictable in odds-based situations or are they not? What do you think? I was not sure where to post this thread. It could be in the computer science forum as well, but I want to emphasize the mathematical nature of the question as well.

I don't think that analogy is correct because you traverse the outer edge of the earth, whereas you are traversing the inside volume of the universe. It would be more like if we all inhabited the inside of the earth beneath the crust. Then the earth would clearly have an edge.

I thought of these but everyone seems to say what uncool is saying. I don't get what people mean when they say that there is no edge on the surface of a sphere. I guess the only thing they could mean is that if you were to attempt to go to the edge, you would be diverted along the edge, so you could juist ''cruise'' along the edge and never reach it. It still doesn't make sense to me that you would say that there is no distance to the edge.

This is actually not unique to you. Grandnasters can regularly play well and beat you even if they are very drunk. It's because they are at the stage of knowing the game so well that they don't even think about the moves.They have a natural feel for the position and they are familiar with a lot of the tactics so not much calculation is required. That's why they can play blindfolded as well. Alekhine was a drunk and he was a world champion up until he died, so it clearly can't be that bad in any case. There is an IM who plays at llocal tournamets. He's known to come and play moderately drunk but it doesn't seem to affect his play. And do you really think programming computers is useless?

By the way guys, my friend and I were discussing beer and chess. We both noticed that we play better when we have some beer. We agreed the magic number to be exactly 2 beers (so 1 l, not 0.66 l). I would consistently get better results when playing online. My thoughts would be clearer and more straighforward. I wouldn't have as many doubts nor would I hesitate as much when choosing a move. My thoughts seem to flow more clearly. He has some evidence as well. He beat a GM twice in a row online after having two beers. He had never beaten a GM before that. Alexander Alekhine seemed to agree with us as he reportedly always drank a shot of whiskey before each game. He was also allegedly drunk throughout the 1935 Alekhine-Euwe WC match. We intend to test that hypothesis in an upcoming tournament in March. I posted this on Reddit chess some time ago and 2 people linked a research that says that programmers in general work best after having drunk some beer (depends on body weight, but 2 beers is a good estimate). Can anyone verify that?

Ha. You are the last person I would expect to take drugs. I didn't have access to sleeping pills because I had eaten them all previously so I would have to go through psychosis every single time. By the way, do you find "speed sleep" interesting? I find it very, very weird and interesting. OP might want to research that because that's another difference between just not sleeping for a long time and not sleeping for a long time while on a comedown. It's a very unique feeling.

Yes, being awake for too long is a large factor (the main one, as far as I'm concerned), but trust me, it's a lot different than just being awake for too long. Apart from the effects, one other big difference is that you would be dead-tired after not having slept for 2-3 days while sober, while you might not be sleepy at all during speed comedown. I agree with you that the key is being a dopamine agonist PLUS staying awake for too long, but I do think there is more to it and that there are other differences.

Every stimulant drug does that so it's not the explanation. Search for information about meth or speed (European). Cocaine induces a degree of psychosis, but not to the extent that amphetamine base and methamphetamine do. They have the most prominent effects, including paranoia, hallucinations, delusions (about somewhone following them, police chasing them, conspiracy theories etc.), thought disorder, and especially eerie, ''meth mites''. I did a quick search on google, and not one single link explains how this happens. They all explain diagnoses, effects, statistics etc. but you could conclude that it's unknown as to how exactly do these drugs trigger psychosis. Here's an article on experiments and statistics you might find of use: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3280383/

A knife as a hand is much less useful than an ass. We are no longer primarily survivors in the environment. We have evolved out of that. That's not a completely stupid question, so I don't think it should be discredited. Alright, first of all, there is no objective and quantifiable way to tell what exactly makes a person ugly. If they have one ugly feature (for example, a crooked nose), that doesn't neccessarily mean they won't get to reproduce if they have other pretty features. Let's say, hypotethetically, that there were people who had a large lump covering their faces. These people were in a minority and we found them really ugly. We wouldn't reproduce with them and after some time, they would be extinct and thus, removed from further evolution of humans. So they WOULD get extinct for being ugly. In the future, you wouldn't even know that these people existed. Uglier people already to get to procreate less than attractive people, so there is no contradiction here. If your question was why they were born ugly in the first place, it's because nature had no way of knowing they were ugly beforehand. The only way to know is if they get weeded out over a large period of time.

Sorry Phi, but why is that relevant? I'm not bashing your device, but it seems to have nothing to do with the thread. Maybe you wanted to offer that concept to him, but he said that he already has one and is looking for advice on how to get the resources to be able to test it and build it. So it certainly seems off-topic to me. Anyways, do you know approximately how much money would it take to build that? Is it a smaller amount or is it a lot? if it's only money you require, then the usual route of doings side jobs, something related to electricity and favors might work. Again, it depends on how much money exactly you will need. You also mentioned that you don't know how to start the research. Does that just mean that you don't know how to procure the money to start the research, or that you don't know how to go about testing and building this device? Because if it's the latter, we cannot really tell you anything useful as we don't know what it is.

I don't think that's how it works. Yes, it works both ways, but humans only ''spend too much time comfortably sitting on our asses'' because it's neccessary. The human body isn't build to stand upright all the time, as Function said, and we do not have nearly enough energy to be moving around and running all the time. Sitting down is completely neccessary and the fact that it's comfortable and easy makes us do many, many tasks better while sitting down. I mean A LOT of them. You seem to be implying that we're too lazy and that's why we sit down a lot, which is why we were evolved to have asses. Yes, technically, we wouldn't have an ass if the human race didn't have the need to sit down, but we do it only because it is neccessary. It does make our lives a lot easier, but is that a bad thing? If we had only one leg in the centre, our lives would be much harder. Is it a bad thing that we have 2 and so our lives are easier?

I'm not saying that pain or anything like that is connected to sleep paralysis, I just think a hallucination just as you were falling asleep matches the description of sleep paralysis. Were you able to move while you were seeing the man?

I just asked you why you resigned in game 2 and you know, gg and see ya. The chat resets every game so that's why it was empty after game 2. Anyway, the only advice I can give you is not to resign until it's really bad. Game 3 wasn't resignable either. Sure, I stood somewhat better at the point of resignation but there was still much to fight for.

There is a big chatbox on the left side. You must have seen it, because the ''good game'' button is IN the chat area. If not, then chat might be disabled for you or something, but it should be on by default. The position I was referring to is this: (this is where you resigned) I deliberately didn't crop the sides of the image so you can see the chat. Did you not see this on the left side? The last question (''why?'') was in response to you resigning. Anyways, I don't think you're worse at all here. In fact, I believe I am worse! It was your move, and after you take my pawn on a7, the material is equal but you have a dangerous passed a-pawn, which, I believe, gives you better prospects in this endgame. I also probably need to spend a move on h6 or g6 not to have back-rank issues. Time is another thing sure, but this was definitely not resignable.

Good games, whoever it was. I assume it was MacSwell but you didn't answer any of my dozen messages in the chat. And why did you resign the first game? That wasn't resignable. EDIT: So it was you. Might have been polite to say hi

Don't know what to reply to that, other than it's pretty much how any game works. You gain experience and you are faster at everything you do. There is also muscle memory involved in moving the pieces, although Magnus Carlsen might not have much of that memory By the way, here's a fun thing we can do on this thread. I leave this link here: https://lichess.org/TkIM0Hwb This is an invitation to a game of chess. I chose 10+0 minutes as I don't know everyone's preferred time control. It guess it's in the middle of pandering to people who like longer time controls and people who like blitz. Anyway, this invitation stands while I have the tab open. If I close my browser, it goes down. Anyone can join the game by clicking on the link. If you click on the link after someone else has accepted the challenge, you either get to spectate or you get an error message. GL everyone.