Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 10:28:26 05/22/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 22, 2001 at 03:58:16, Ratko V Tomic wrote:
>> 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.
True. And if a program or person is dominantly superior (e.g. 1000 ELO) to the
other, observing a few games will probably give the same determination as just
counting up the scores. But consider the recent match between Junior and Fritz
to determine the Kraminik opponent. If you saw the first 5 games, you would say
that Junior was (without question) the better, because Fritz was simply
outplayed. If you observed the last five games, you would reach the opposite
conclusion. Therefore, if the programs are close, there is little or nothing to
be gained by examination of the individual moves of a game. And if there is a
wild difference between the ratings, it will show up quickly as a lopsided
result set. Therefore, where is the value in observing the moves to decide who
is stronger?
>>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
All very good points. However, I think it all boils down to measurement and a
heuristic theory. For instance, we know the cat can't really be alive and dead
at the same time. And our observing the cat did not kill it or bring it to
life. However, using a model like that, the equations all work out right.
Similarly for Einstein's observations. Does the length of an object moving
perpendicular to us really approach zero as the velocity approaches C? From a
measurement standpoint it does, and so that is good enough to explain things.
I think sometimes people go a bit nutty on connection of reality to measurement
of it (as you have correctly observed). I saw a scientist who thought we alter
the PAST by what we think about now and by what we observe (let's call it
Schrodinger's cat gone wild). A bit silly if you ask me.
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.