Author: Ratko V Tomic
Date: 00:58:16 05/22/01
Go up one level in this thread
> Actually, everything is a coin toss {probability function},
> including such mudane things as:
> "Will I hit the 'post' button?"
While it is true that there is some non-zero uncertainty in
most things (but not all, e.g. what is 2+2), the information
you gain about the coin or dice bias from the outcome of single
toss is much smaller than what you gain from a single game.
That is, even if one accepts that there is uncertianty in the
chess move selection, one can extract great number of tosses
out of a single game, not just a single toss (as when
picking the final result, and ignoring everything else).
As Uri mentioned, by looking the program's analysis during the
game, you can find out and often eliminate superficial effects
on the outcome of a single/few games an opening trap/bad opening,
you can see how far they look ahead etc.
>In fact, we often have an interesting mix of outcomes:
>http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/ardlouis/dissipative/Schrcat.html
>until the measurement occurs.
>
>Albert Einstein was almost always right. But he was wrong about this:
>"God does not throw dice."
>
Einstein was right here, too, at least as far as noticing the
absurdity of the Orthodox QM Measurement Theory. The QM MT
in the form taught nowdays started as a strange marriage between
the absurd and the incoherent, i.e. the von Neumann's theory
(who was a good mathematician, but not much of a physicist)
that mind collapses wave function with Boh'r pre-quantum
theory pseudo-philosophy.
At present that whole field (QM Measurement Theory) is at its
core a fraud. The great _actual_ successes of quantum theory
(QED especially) have nothing to do with the gratuitous add-ons,
such as collapse postulate (on which QM MT is based on).
I have spent copuple years as a physics graduate student studying
the field, and have read just about everything written in
physics journals and textbooks on the theme. I had advisor who was
a believer in the QM MT (he was mostly a mathematician), Bell's
non-locality,... etc, and still I came out with much worse opinion
on the legitimacy of the subject than what I came in with.
There is no any empirical evidence or empirical consequences
of the von Nemann's style non-local collapse/projection postulate,
(especially in the form used in Bell's inequalities, despite
various claims by experimenters of confirming it). The QM
"measurement theory" and Bell inequalities "theory" has evolved
to the point of being deified as unfalsifiable religious dogma, i.e.
when critics point out that a particular experiment didn't
actually confirm it (i.e. eliminate local hiden variables), the
priesthood of this dogma wave their hands and claim that it was
actually confirmed, except for some "unimportant" (in their
judgment) loopholes. The whole game in this racket has become a
competition who will come up with most derrogatory euphemisms
for these "loopholes" (a term derrogatory by itself), so they
can better dismiss the critics and cut them out from publishing
the opposing arguments. Some day this whole unfortunate dead end
(a parasitic offshoot of quantum theory) will be seen the way we
look today at dark ages. For some intro into the professional and
perfectly competent dissident argument check the Trevor Marshall's
site (he was a university professor, but had to retire early,
once he published several papers pointing out the problems with
the claims around the Apsect's Bell inequality tests):
http://www.keyinnov.demon.co.uk/antiqm.htm
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.