20683 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".
Elubas quite well described some of my points, pointed out my perspective where my thoughts were not well organized. I need to formulate my "theory" of probabilities using clearer terms and presentation.
In response to the "infinite or infinity" question, in my view it is a "concept". Does it exist? Only in mathamatics.
The mind thinks "what is beyond the horizon, there must be something smaller/bigger, time can not end and so invents the concept of the infinite. This too can not be compreheded, but works well in the realm of numbers.
I just read the points on the previous page made by Elubas and 011 regarding my statements, their interpretations and objections. Many of the issues brought to light are spot on, I have no major disagreements, accept the criticism of my views.
Maybe I can present my view somewhat in a clearer light regarding probabilities. I agree with the math. The chanches of a 50/50 event occurring is one in two. The odds of the same event occurring (coin flips) keeps doubling. This is logical.
But do numbers actually tell us the "reality" of such events occurring? So yes, it becomes a philosophical debate for me. A single event in time, where coins are flipped simultaneously, the chanches of a HTHT pattern emerging are dependant on the # of coins, then applying a mathamatical formula. I propose the odds are not necessarily the same (although the same formula must be applied) when a single coin is flipped over a period of time landing in the same pattern. Can it be proved? No. My reasoning is philosophical for lack of a better term. In the later case, other factors come into play, time being one of them (do we fully understand the forces of time?) Circumstances have changed, the universe has moved forward, the reality of an event recurring is different.
The 2nd question I have is also a philosophical one. Do numbers (especially large ones) really describe the true nature of probability? Do the chanches really double when we're speaking of by example 10 vs 11?
Yes, I understand the practical use of statistics and probabilities and how they are applied. It represents a powerful tool of our understanding. That being said, I reserve my thoughts that numbers may not represent the true nature of a given event occurring in the future. To think in absolute terms is a mistake imo.
HAVANA 1966 CHESS OLYMPIAD VIDEOS
by MACRINUS a few minutes ago
Possible to Become FM, IM, or GM without Coaching or Reading Books?
by ChessOfPlayer a few minutes ago
8/25/2016 - Around The Way
by ismasmanas 3 minutes ago
Cloud Analysis Chessbase 13
by MMFloors 11 minutes ago
What if you saw more than the board?
by Rob3rtJamesFischer 11 minutes ago
Jealous of other Success
by uttanka 13 minutes ago
Which opening system to chose?
by alex-rodriguez 15 minutes ago
Chess legends. Where would be Carlson's position in a list?
by IMpatzer 22 minutes ago
Endgame FEN list and Computer Player
by n9531l 24 minutes ago
what do you mean by chess? how people create it?
by oshmusic 24 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!