Woodshover, old chum, you may have to accept that although you gave birth to this thread, it has grown up and been led astray by some very naughty boys. Maybe in some other universe (or indeed, in another part of this universe) you could exert some control over your progeny but not in this particular place. The forces of nature (forum crew) will not allow it.
Am I a chess master?!
Sort:
PrawnEatsPrawn wrote:
Woodshover, old chum, you may have to accept that although you gave birth to this thread, it has grown up and been led astray by some very naughty boys. Maybe in some other universe (or indeed, in another part of this universe) you could exert some control over your progeny but not in this particular place. The forces of nature (forum crew) will not allow it.
Unfortunitly, probably true. I also wonder if there's anywhere where I'm able to do five tactics trainer puzzles in a row without screwing one up.
Five? I aim for three in a row!
woodshover wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
woodshover wrote:
It's just stating that with an infinite number of particles, anything that can happen will, as long as it's physically possible.
It's just stating that with an infinite number of particles, anything that can happen will, as long as it's physically possible.
Not all infinities are equivalent. It is possible to have an infinite number of realities that doesn't include all possible realities.
The set of integers is infinite, but just because it is infinite doesn't mean it's the set of all numbers.
I guess you're going to have to explain that to the scientists, and mathematicians who made that statement about the inflationary universe theory.
I'm sure they understand it -- I'm pretty sure I'm explaining it to the right party.
woodshover wrote:
I'm watching a documentary on the tube right now called "The Universe" and they're saying that there might be an infinite number of parallel universes where our physical laws don't apply. However that's just one theory. Another theory, called the inflationary universe theory, states that the universe is infinite. Thus an infinite number of copies of everyone on earth, (and everthing else, of course) must exist. If it could have happened on earth, it HAS happened somewhere in another part of the universe. So I guess we can all start calling ourseves chess masters. LOL.
Well you do mention infinite parallel universes so that's probably what got people going on it -- although I admit I for one didn't differentiate it with the very next thing you said, which was about the inflationary universe theory -- which I'd never heard of before.
So to the OP, that is interesting, that in this universe there may be a GM woodshover, I finally get it now...
orangehonda wrote:
woodshover wrote:
I'm watching a documentary on the tube right now called "The Universe" and they're saying that there might be an infinite number of parallel universes where our physical laws don't apply. However that's just one theory. Another theory, called the inflationary universe theory, states that the universe is infinite. Thus an infinite number of copies of everyone on earth, (and everthing else, of course) must exist. If it could have happened on earth, it HAS happened somewhere in another part of the universe. So I guess we can all start calling ourseves chess masters. LOL.
Well you do mention infinite parallel universes so that's probably what got people going on it -- although I admit I for one didn't differentiate it with the very next thing you said, which was about the inflationary universe theory -- which I'd never heard of before.
So to the OP, that is interesting, that in this universe there may be a GM woodshover, I finally get it now...
Boltzman Brains are an interesting thought exercise along the lines of the latter.
BLAH BLAH BLAH
We obviously all know that There are infinite universes and I rule the world. Since I rule the world the world sport is chess. I also happen to be the World Champion, and that is awesome because there are 9 trillion other World Champions that are faux in the other worlds so yeah.
HAHAHA
The other day Hawkings released an essay arguing on behalf of time travel. You would need either a "worm hole, a black hole, or a really really fast space ship". So if any of you guys have one of those, invite me over so we can go time traveling and prevent this topic from ever getting off track 
thesexyknight wrote:
The other day Hawkings released an essay arguing on behalf of time travel. You would need either a "worm hole, a black hole, or a really really fast space ship". So if any of you guys have one of those, invite me over so we can go time traveling and prevent this topic from ever getting off track
Hawking said that only time travel forward through time would be possible, not backwards.
My first reaction was, well of course captain obvious -- we're all doing it right now.
fgm351 wrote:
BLAH BLAH BLAH
We obviously all know that There are infinite universes and I rule the world. Since I rule the world the world sport is chess. I also happen to be the World Champion, and that is awesome because there are 9 trillion other World Champions that are faux in the other worlds so yeah.
HAHAHA
Ooh, I see you're from the universe where chess is a sport. Sorry, that's not this one.
TheGrobe wrote:
thesexyknight wrote:
The other day Hawkings released an essay arguing on behalf of time travel. You would need either a "worm hole, a black hole, or a really really fast space ship". So if any of you guys have one of those, invite me over so we can go time traveling and prevent this topic from ever getting off track
Hawking said that only time travel forward through time would be possible, not backwards.
My first reaction was, well of course captain obvious -- we're all doing it right now.
Well, by going in a really really fast rocket you slow down time. And of course their's einstein's theory that you can see through time (I"m pretty sure that was forwards and backwards). I was under the impression that wormholes/blackholes could essentially end up anywhere because of how they ripple space. But it doesn't really matter now does it 
TheGrobe wrote:
orangehonda wrote:
woodshover wrote:
I'm watching a documentary on the tube right now called "The Universe" and they're saying that there might be an infinite number of parallel universes where our physical laws don't apply. However that's just one theory. Another theory, called the inflationary universe theory, states that the universe is infinite. Thus an infinite number of copies of everyone on earth, (and everthing else, of course) must exist. If it could have happened on earth, it HAS happened somewhere in another part of the universe. So I guess we can all start calling ourseves chess masters. LOL.
Well you do mention infinite parallel universes so that's probably what got people going on it -- although I admit I for one didn't differentiate it with the very next thing you said, which was about the inflationary universe theory -- which I'd never heard of before.
So to the OP, that is interesting, that in this universe there may be a GM woodshover, I finally get it now...
Boltzman Brains are an interesting thought exercise along the lines of the latter.
Neat link, thanks.
thesexyknight wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
thesexyknight wrote:
The other day Hawkings released an essay arguing on behalf of time travel. You would need either a "worm hole, a black hole, or a really really fast space ship". So if any of you guys have one of those, invite me over so we can go time traveling and prevent this topic from ever getting off track
Hawking said that only time travel forward through time would be possible, not backwards.
My first reaction was, well of course captain obvious -- we're all doing it right now.
Well, by going in a really really fast rocket you slow down time. And of course their's einstein's theory that you can see through time (I"m pretty sure that was forwards and backwards). I was under the impression that wormholes/blackholes could essentially end up anywhere because of how they ripple space. But it doesn't really matter now does it
Yeah but slowing down time is how you relatively move forward through it.
Seeing the past is funny because we do that all the time -- I forgot how the seeing ahead thing worked though?
Fiveofswords wrote:
The fact that he is trying it in an infinite number of universes makes it statistically improbable, not statistically impossible to lose every game. It is possible to have a completely random irrational number that does not contain the number 2. It isn't impossible, but it is improbable.
But this is a false analogy. We are speaking of a well-defined finite chance that he draws in one game. Then we are letting him try an infinite number of times. This is known as the law of large numbers in statistics. if you flip a coin x number of times, there is a chance that there was no tails in any of the x. If we take the limit of that chance as the number of flips approaches infinity, then the chance will shrink to zero. This may be confusing to you, but the fact that the coin turning up heads every time being possible, does not effect the zero chance of it happening. Think if it as one chance out of infinity is zero chance.
I understand that, What you are saying is lim x->inf of 1/x = 0. However If you look at covers of a set. the union of the infinite family of open sets (1/n, 2) covers (0,1) however it never actually covers [0, 1].
no matter what number you choose in (0,inf) you can never choose a number where 1/n = 0 such that n is in (0,inf). It can not happen. So while the limit is zero as n -> inf, zero is never in that sequence. So the probability is still above zero.
orangehonda wrote:
thesexyknight wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
thesexyknight wrote:
The other day Hawkings released an essay arguing on behalf of time travel. You would need either a "worm hole, a black hole, or a really really fast space ship". So if any of you guys have one of those, invite me over so we can go time traveling and prevent this topic from ever getting off track
Hawking said that only time travel forward through time would be possible, not backwards.
My first reaction was, well of course captain obvious -- we're all doing it right now.
Well, by going in a really really fast rocket you slow down time. And of course their's einstein's theory that you can see through time (I"m pretty sure that was forwards and backwards). I was under the impression that wormholes/blackholes could essentially end up anywhere because of how they ripple space. But it doesn't really matter now does it
Yeah but slowing down time is how you relatively move forward through it.
Seeing the past is funny because we do that all the time -- I forgot how the seeing ahead thing worked though?
It usually involves a crystal ball, tarot cards or sometimes tea leaves or sticks and bones.
no, you're not a chess master in another universe. that is my opinion anyways.
for one the universe is expanding, and despite the physics calculations and observations that anti-matter exists, and our lack of understanding of anti-matter/energy, this means that the universe dies. with wonderful conditions and excellent 3/4 (you can have your digital, special, watch show a different time flying east-west vs west-east) physical dimensions observed by life, this is to much of an accident, so if hawkings theories of imaginary time are correct, the universe always exists, and does not die of heat death. moral of the story, science doesn't have all the answers and you are not a chess master in another universe.
Fiveofswords, I know the law of large numbers, I also know that convergence doesn't mean equal. So I still know the probability isn't zero.
Fiveofswords wrote:
lol jahgro i was a math major in school so your jargon did not confuse me...and I know you still arent addressing the relevant point. just go look up a math concept called the 'law of large numbers'
Ok, ok, here it is. The law of large numbers isn't a good proof, since it is filled with too many should be's nad maybe's. However here is a proof for your statement.
For flipping a coin, the probability that you get no heads in the first n flips is 2^-n. So the probability that you get no heads at all is bounded above by 2^-n, for any n. So it's 0.
ok, so there it is. I needed to be proven wrong.
Fiveofswords wrote:
ok then what it is lol. Lets say his chance of winnign in one fo the universes is 1:1000000 . What is the chance of winnign in at least one of 2 universes, when that is the chance of winning at least one in infinite number of universe. If its a finite number then what is it lol
convergence still doesn't mean equal, however you are correct that the probability is zero.
It's just stating that with an infinite number of particles, anything that can happen will, as long as it's physically possible.
Not all infinities are equivalent. It is possible to have an infinite number of realities that doesn't include all possible realities.
The set of integers is infinite, but just because it is infinite doesn't mean it's the set of all numbers.
I think he is approaching this from the point of view of statistics rather than total domination of infinity. If we assume that woodshover starts out playing a game in an infinite number of universe, and there does exist some very, very tiny but finite chance that he manages to draw the game, then the fact that he is trying an infinite number of times makes it statistically impossible that he loses in every universe.
of course a flaw in this argument which you could easily point out is that this could easily be the only universe where woodshover actually exists. You cant speak meaningfully of the 'chance' that woodshover exists.
Also maybe you dont believe in objective chance, but that gets into some very messy philosophical stuff.
For the love of Zeus, I'm not talking about other universes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! READ the post again.
The fact that he is trying it in an infinite number of universes makes it statistically improbable, not statistically impossible to lose every game. It is possible to have a completely random irrational number that does not contain the number 2. It isn't impossible, but it is improbable.