< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 183 OF 183 ·
|Apr-01-14|| ||DcGentle: <achieve>: Just see it as a "thought experiment" ;-)
Of course it won't happen.
Did you have a look at the links I gave?
|Apr-02-14|| ||Boomie: <DcGentle>
Thanks for all the links. I just finished limping through the article on entropy and structures in the universe. The results indicate that black holes dominate the entropic landscape. Since the entropy of objects is lost when they plunge into a black hole, the assumption is that the increase in entropy of the black hole is somehow larger. Like so much of modern physics, this makes little common sense but the math seems persuasive.
|Apr-03-14|| ||DcGentle: Sean Carrol's book on time is a good read, he gives an insight into the context of entropy and the arrow of time.|
The above transscript has it all, I read it and formatted it, in order to make it more readable, and you can quote ;-)
Get it from here:
(Click on "Download this file")
|Apr-03-14|| ||Boomie: <DcGentle: Sean Carrol's book on time>|
Carrol supports the multiverse to explain why our universe started with low entropy. Seems like an awfully radical explanation but I can't think of another reason.
|Apr-04-14|| ||DcGentle: <Boomie>: Well, yes, looks like it.
The prerequisite may be, that the multiverse was always around and will always be around. Well, could be, what do we know?|
BTW, some time ago I wrote an article about <Time, Space, and Matter in Chess>
Since then, I have gained some more insight, for example the initiative in chess is an <advantage in time>.
But now I am wondering whether there is something like "entropy" in chess.
Looking at the initial position, I would agree that there is, if you define this as the condition before the start of the game, the "Big Bang" in chess. ;-)
And watching how GM's are often "blitzing" the first moves of the opening, maybe there is even an "inflation" in chess as well. Ok, this is a bit too far fetched, I guess. ;-)
But then there have to be microstates and macrostates in chess as well. A microstate would be each chess position, but what are the macrostates?
Hard to say.
Chess has several abstraction levels, starting from the lowest level of the simple control influence of pieces on squares to the highest level, that is game progress. Maybe macrostates can be found on some of these abstraction levels.
Anyways, I find these parallels of the chess universe to the real one astonishing, and this is an understatement.
|Apr-04-14|| ||Boomie: <DcGentle>
We all tend to go a little overboard with analogies. We could say, for example, that a chess position with 30 legal moves has more entropy than one with 20. However chess games tend to progress from a few possible moves to some maximum and then to few moves again. This is very unlike entropy. The concept of disorder may have relevance to my games but has no place in master games.
A macro state might indicate a sequence of moves to achieve some idea. For example, a line leading to a good outpost for a knight could be considered a macro state. However I wonder how useful such knowledge could be to the player. Could there be some kind of math to express it? I dunno.
|Apr-04-14|| ||DcGentle: Well, anyways I was not the first to connect entropy and chess:|
But the article is not very eloquent on the details.
Here there is another contribution from the view of a chess composer:
|Apr-04-14|| ||DcGentle: I like this notion, that living things are fighting the increase of disorder, that is, they are fighting against the increase of entropy.|
But in the end the single organism has to lose, the comfort is, that the species might live longer. But even this can become extinct, as we know.
|Apr-04-14|| ||DcGentle: From http://books.google.de/books/about/...
(Click on the first link)
<Chaos and Life: Complexity and Order in Evolution and Thought>
by Richard J. Bird
<Entropy and Time
Entropy in a sense defines time, because entropy always increases with time, because what is measured by entropy is the result of iterative moves, as in a chess game. But the orderliness can be regarded the same, with the moves absorbing the orderliness lost by the board. In the case of the chess board we are apparently adding information with each new move. This makes the board position look more complicated as time goes on. However, if all the moves are written down at the start of the game, for instance, if we are re-playing a game from the newspaper, there is no information added; it is simply interchanged between one form of representation (the written moves) and another (the board position). Thus the moves plus the board position contain constant orderliness at each moment. This could be expressed in terms of information by saying that the information was constant, with the information added by the moves being gained by the board positions. Now these iterative moves do not actually add information to the situation - they simply redistribute it. But if the game is actually played, is the situation any different? For here the representation is in terms of brain states and their precursors, which are to be found in other events.
In the evolution of the world we have a different situation. Here the moves are not written down or in the brain of a player; they are the outcome of the laws governing particle moves. Since these laws are invariant(if we have found the right laws), how can they add information to the world? It seems to be the process of iteration that adds the information: that is, it is time that adds the information. Information <must> be added, for it is not, very odd things will happen: chaos theory predicts that, if no new information is added, the <<<<world will very rapidly grind to a halt>>>>.>
My two cents:
Some authors have no idea what it means to play a chess game. The moves are <not> just "in the brain of the players". It's a painful process to find a decent move in a chess game, once the opening is over.
I am just quoting this paragraph because of the last sentence, <if no new information is added, the world will very rapidly grind to a halt.> This is new to me, but may be conceivable.
|Apr-04-14|| ||DcGentle: Interesting site explaining chaos theory:
|Apr-04-14|| ||DcGentle: Fractal cosmology (well, appears to be a fringe area)|
|Apr-04-14|| ||DcGentle: Of course Carrol is not the only one to write about new insights in cosmology:|
<Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe>
By Professor Penrose, release 2011
gets a review here:
The name "Penrose" should not be unknown to readers of Carrol's book, and from the review it's clear that both authors may only differ in the way they explain the next cycle of the universe. Interesting, nevertheless.
|Apr-05-14|| ||Boomie: <DcGentle>
A rather bewildering array of links.
We seem to have lost <achieve> who initiated the discussion about time. I don't know why. He should let me know what his intentions are. Or at least that's what I would do for a friend.
Anyway, we haven't made much headway on the time subject and without graduate level work in math and cosmology, we probably won't. It's fun to read about even if I don't understand more than 10% of it.
|Apr-05-14|| ||DcGentle: <Boomie>: Yes, the matter is complicated for sure, in every regard. If physicists deem space and time one thing, with their models having access to all points in spacetime, we ordinatry people feel like prisoners of time, because we cannot just go back for a day and repeat it in one way or the other.|
For our minds only the present may be real, but what is "real" in this context?
Carrol says in his book, we cannot remember the future due to the arrow of time. Does this implicate that all events are determined already? I doubt this very much, to be honest.
Chaos theory says something different, by the way, and I didn't know that our solar system is not stable. But we have to wait for more than 100 million years to notice the impact.
|Apr-05-14|| ||achieve: Well, I haven't gone missing in the traditional sense, but I do take resp for conking out after I left a post that I thought got deleted, after which I decided to take a break; that's about the story.|
Other than that I have not much to add, but indeed so many questions remain.
|Apr-05-14|| ||Boomie: <achieve: I left a post that I thought got deleted>|
I don't delete posts unless asked to by the poster.
After wandering aimlessly through some of the links on time, I have no hope of understanding much of it.
One of the biggest questions is "How did the early universe get to a low entropy state?" The answers put forward are right out of sci-fi books. Without an answer to that, we'll never really understand time.
|Apr-05-14|| ||achieve: <Boomie> I know you don't suddenly delete, so there must have been a wire failure on my part - dark energy may be involved - and considering this to be days after the fact, the question begging to be answered is one of chronology and synchronicity.|
Lest not forget consciousness. Oddly similar.
|Apr-05-14|| ||Boomie: <achieve> Not to mention aliens and sasquatch.|
|Apr-05-14|| ||DcGentle: <Boomie>: When I was much younger, I was much into Sci-Fi-Books. Not so much nowadays. ;-)|
But it can be fun to google around for issues connected to cosmology.
I cannot claim that I understand everything there, although I have an advantage, I studied physics as second subject for some time on university. But this was many years ago, nevertheless the topic stays interesting for me.
Currently I found a short review about
<Quantum cosmology and the hard problem of the Conscious Brain>
There was a reference to quantum entanglement:
<In the transactional interpretation of non-local events, when a measurement is made on an entangled particle, it sends a photon back in time to when it and the other entangled particle were emitted, and then forward in time to the second entangled particle. Thus the net time taken to send the quantum information about the measurement of the first particle is zero, and the effect of measurement on the second particle appears to be instantaneous, despite the spatial gap between them. The backward travel in time, which looks like an exotic feature is allowed by the laws of physics as embodied in both the Maxwell and Schrödinger equations.>
This phenomenon stays a mystery somehow. But here we apparently see a backward travel in time, and some physicists believe that time travel might be possible even on a macroscopic level, if the civilization had the means to manipulate worm holes.
This also sounds like science fiction, but renowned experts of relativity did research of the issue and even published results saying that's possible in theory.
|Apr-06-14|| ||DcGentle: Not only we are asking ourselves what time really is:|
(Decent collection of articles)
And I had to scribble down something too:
|Apr-06-14|| ||Boomie: <DcGentle> Perhaps one analogy that might help your chess engine is degrees of freedom. As we saw in our game against Akobian, the side with more possible moves has an advantage. The engines routinely calculate the number of possible moves. Usually the side with more possibilities is better. This could maybe be extended to the value of each piece, excluding pawns.|
|Apr-07-14|| ||DcGentle: <Boomie>: Yes, thanks, I will take into account these degrees of freedom for sure. In a certain way this is already done in current engines via the value of piece mobility. This mobility is a purely positional measure and in current engines it has to be integrated into the eval. But if you do this as a programmer, you have to ask yourself how important piece mobility is in comparison to winning a piece, for example, and this can be only considered on a general level, because the eval has to be calculated without any influence of similar positions in the current situation.|
So there is a dilemma, because the programmer can't know how important piece mobility is at the very moment, and generally seen it ranks way beyond winning a piece, for example. In practice it happens often enough that a piece is only cramped for a certain while, so generally this assessment is right. But there are cases as we know, where this is not true and pieces are helpless until the end of the game.
This is a fundamental problem of current algorithms and contributes to the fact that the positional assessment of current engines is weak.
My engine can estimate the importance of piece mobility much better. But this is not the only factor needed for good positional play.
Bringing up and configuring reinforcements is a more serious problem.
But I hope I can solve this too.
|Apr-17-14|| ||DcGentle: By the way, our discussion about time lead me to chaos theory and fractal pictures, and I decided to download a fractal generator, and then some more of them, because these programs are free and small. And they are fun to work with.|
Why is this? Especially if you download a 3D fractal generator like "Mandelbulb 3D" (highly recommended), you can detect creatures in the produced pictures really often, it's amazing.
Here there is but one example:
Of course I needed some time to get accustomed to this program in order to produce the above picture, but if you think about it, the first fractal picture I ever produced was about one week ago. And you don't need to know anything about the mathematical background really. The art is to surf through the spaces generated by the functions which only need to be selected and which can be combined for better results. There are examples, so this is quite straight forward.
If you want to watch some more pictures, just click here:
It's fun. :-)
(By the way, a more serious question is:
Why do we detect these creatures in purely abstract pictures generated by purely mathematical functions? I didn't edit the above picture on onedrive to put these creatures in there, no, as you can see from the Google images, others have detected these things before. Is it the way our brain works, just an optical illusion? Or is there more behind this problem? Mathematics can describe physics rather well, you know. Amazingly well, and others have pondered this question before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Un...)
|Apr-17-14|| ||DcGentle: Here there is a beginner's tutorial for Mandelbulb 3D:|
You can download the program from here:
Click on the zip-file.
|Apr-17-14|| ||Boomie: <DcGentle>
Scientific American had an article on "Wallpaper for the Mind" many years ago. These are created by using a recursive function and painting dots on the screen. Many processes in nature are recursive and the patterns created by these functions imitate life forms.
The idea is to create a simple math function, start with any number, and then use the result as the seed for the next cycle. Each result is mapped to a pixel on the screen.
The function calls itself with its own result. This is known as a recursive function. This is analogous to plant growth which builds on what came before. You can play with colors, say all results divisible by 3 are red or something. Eventually a pattern appears on the screen. This is a fun and instructive exercise for any programmer.
Fractals refer to fractional exponents and are a different class of functions. However recursiveness is a part of the process. The Mandelbrot set is created by testing values in the loop to see if they increase to infinity or not.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 183 OF 183 ·
100% Cotton Chess Puzzle Shirt