19022 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
He seems to not be making any specific response, just kind of rehashing, at a certain point, math starts to separate itself from how it represents the physical world. I agree, he's way too unclear on what his problem is. He seems to just randomly talk about physics and philosophy without a lot of organization, haha.
It does kind of suck that you're taking the time to form your arguments so explicitly and he just dismisses them without giving you a clear idea of why.
It's fine. I thought it would be interesting if more people would discuss this way (presenting a string of statements then finding where the disagreement is) so it was fun to give it a try during an actual disagreement.
Haha, I actually did watch that infinity video again.
I would say after watching Carlsen blunder a full piece anything is possible.
I would also reference the Sack of Rome where Szofia Polgar had a tremendous performance at age fourteen if I recall correctly (2900 equivalent or something to that effect) by which I suggest there may be more than meets the eye.
This is the last infinity video I saw:
He goes over it pretty fast, I remember not following it the whole way.
Ah, I saw that one too. A few times actually. I enjoyed it a lot. It seems like you can always ask "why not go even further" no matter what you're talking about. Even with an infinite set, why can't there be something beyond that? And beyond that? You can even describe that phenomenon with some other number/concept, but why can't you even go beyond that? That seemed to be what he was getting at later in the video, but I dunno.
If you don't trust logic though... I mean... not to be rude, but it's not a matter of trust it's a matter of either you understand it or you don't.
This is too the point and defines the difference of our individual positions. I can understand your logic without agreeing it is infallible. We all posses our own logic, but how open are we to accepting alternative explanations are possible? It goes well beyond the simple "it's not a matter of trust".
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
by mdinnerspace 3 minutes ago
8/25/2016 - Around The Way
by xray 3 minutes ago
11/24/2007 - Magnificent Mate in 7
by applemonkey3 6 minutes ago
Tired of sandbagging players
by aln67 7 minutes ago
Question about computer analysis
by baddogno 11 minutes ago
Which opening system to chose?
by SuirenBoid 15 minutes ago
If You Could Go to Dinner with Any Chess Player, Who'd You Pick?
by PlayChessPoorly 16 minutes ago
Jealous of other Success
by BlunderLots 18 minutes ago
All The Reasons We Hate V3!
by Spacebux 42 minutes ago
$200 to spend
by Dizzoballs 54 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!