chessgames.com
 
Chessgames.com User Profile Chessforum
twinlark
Member since Nov-17-05
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My wrap of our Chessgames Challenge: The World vs A Nickel, 2006 against ICCF Grandmaster Arno Nickel is at User: World Team Tribute.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>> Click here to see twinlark's game collections.

Chessgames.com Full Member

   twinlark has kibitzed 16008 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Apr-16-14 Kenneth Rogoff (replies)
 
twinlark: Q: Why will there never be a coup d'état in Washington? A; Because there's no American embassy there.
 
   Apr-12-14 Wesley So (replies)
 
twinlark: <mesa1360>: Corrales - So (St Louis 2014 - Round 3) 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. exd5 exd5 5. Bd3 Nf6 6. Nge2 O-O 7. O-O Bg4 8. f3 Bh5 9. Nf4 Bg6 10. Nxg6 hxg6 11. Ne2 Nbd7 12. g4 Bd6 13. Kg2 Re8 14. h4 c5 15. c3 Qc7 16. Rf2 Nf8 17. Bg5 c4 18. Bc2 Ne6 19. Qd2 Qe7 ...
 
   Apr-12-14 L Dominguez vs D Frolyanov, 2014
 
twinlark: Not one of Dominguez's better wins, but looks great on the scoreboards. Black's <31...Red8??> is a blunder that White should have picked up on: [DIAGRAM] Here White could have played <32. b4!> to smash Black's queen side. The point is that after move 31, Black's rook ...
 
   Apr-12-14 M Kobalia vs L Dominguez, 2014
 
twinlark: This was a more or less blameless game until <54...Qa8>: [DIAGRAM] Problem: White to move and lose in 6 moves. White has 9 moves that don't lose: <55. h4> and <55.Kg2/h2/f1> all maintain equality <55. Qe3>, <55. Nd2> and <55. Kh1> also hold ...
 
   Apr-11-14 E Inarkiev vs L Dominguez, 2014 (replies)
 
twinlark: <mindanalyzer> <He had less than 5 min left (inarkiev had 25 min) on move 23, which means that he used 4+ min and increments for 17 moves (to get to time control).> That explains why he reversed the order of moves 36 and 37. Playing Qf2+ before Rxa5 wins a lot more ...
 
   Apr-10-14 L Dominguez vs Dreev, 2014
 
twinlark: <Jambow> He seems highly amused when someone compares him to Capablanca. But he does have a nice simple aesthetic style.
 
   Apr-08-14 twinlark chessforum (replies)
 
twinlark: <why for example 2 + 2 = 4 all the time?> Only sometimes. 2+2=1 when for instance 2 raindrops combined with another 2 raindrops combine into one big raindrop.
 
   Apr-03-14 chessgames.com chessforum (replies)
 
twinlark: <Wannabe> <You know, that XP will not be supported anymore next week, right?> I know. I'll get a new operating system soon, but until then I need XP operating. Not being able to access chessgames applications was driving me crazy. Thanks.
 
   Mar-30-14 Sergey Karjakin
 
twinlark: Congratulations on 2nd place at the Candidates. Odd that he was never in the running.
 
   Mar-29-14 Topalov vs Svidler, 2014 (replies)
 
twinlark: <GlenOliver> The line I stated followed <35. Kh2 Qd7>. However if you prefer <35. Kh2 Qd2>, then instead <36. Qd5> forces the exchange of queens and creates another passed pawn wins easily, although as you observed <26. Qb6> also wins. For example, ...
 
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

Big Bio

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 223 OF 223 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Apr-10-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tiggler: <visayanbraindoctor>:<As of now, as the discussion above shows, I tend to agree with you. I have always wondered if there is some law/ rule/ or principle of the Universe that allows emergent phenomena to appear. It might not be a quantifiable principle such as the gravitational law.>

The best example I can suggest of an emergent law, that is quantifiable, is the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

To my mind, this is an unnecessary but convenient formulation of a statistical expectation, but not a law of nature. I realize this may be a controversial opinion. The reason for my opinion is that there is nothing in the Second Law (or even the First!) that cannot be predicted, with sufficient effort, from molecular dynamics and statistical physics.

Heat and temperature are not fundamental properties of matter. They are convenient descriptions of aggregate and average properties of particulate matter in random motion.

Apr-10-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tiggler: < I know of no Neurologist or Neurosurgeon that ever talks about the nature of consciousness itself>

I do, more than you can shake a stick at, and even more anesthesiologists (eg Stuart Hameroff)!

http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/

In less than two weeks, conference participants will be levitating and teleporting into Tucson from all corners of the unknown universe to discuss consciousness.

Don't miss it.

Apr-10-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Boomie: <VBD, Tiggler>

<VBD> may feel at home with Hameroff's take on consciousness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpUV.... He worked with Roger Penrose to develop a theory. <Tiggler> would probably feel more at home with Penrose's explanation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofds.... Since I don't understand either brain anatomy or QM, I am totally at sea with this. But maybe you guys can benefit from it.

Apr-10-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <Tiggler> I have heard of conferences on consciousness, but in my locality doctors do not talk about it. And even in the US, AFAIK most of those in the Neurosciences do not delve on the nature of consciousness itself. There are exceptions as these conferences demonstrate, but they are far from the rule. The main reason IMO is that doctors do not need to comprehend the fundamental nature of consciousness in order to use it in their profession.

<The best example I can suggest of an emergent law, that is quantifiable, is the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

To my mind, this is an unnecessary but convenient formulation of a statistical expectation, but not a law of nature. I realize this may be a controversial opinion. The reason for my opinion is that there is nothing in the Second Law (or even the First!) that cannot be predicted, with sufficient effort, from molecular dynamics and statistical physics.

Heat and temperature are not fundamental properties of matter. They are convenient descriptions of aggregate and average properties of particulate matter in random motion.>

That's fascinating.

Questions for you. In your opinion:

1. Why does the scientific method work?

2. Why does math work?

3. What is consciousnesses/ what is it's basis?

<Boomie> I agree with Hameroff that neurons are not the fundamental basis for consciousness. I do not think it's solely micro-tubules either, although without neurons and micro-tubules, we would not exist. Penrose and Hameroff both imply that quantum mechanical effects may be the basis for consciousness, and to this I tend to agree.

However, both Penrose and Hameroff don't really know either. Neither do the 'AI people', or the philosophers, or myself. Basically, all of them are speculating, just as what we are doing now. Which is better than not talking about consciousness at all IMO.

Do they have planned experiments to test their theories?

If you are going to ask me my opinion, if consciousness is reducible and not a fundamental property of the Universe, it would have its basis in synaptic activity, in the interaction between neurons and not in the neurons themselves. Neurons either fire or do not fire (a digital characteristic I believe) and arranged in an interactive web (an analog characteristic). A neuron (two actually are involved) fires when enough neurotransmitters from the pre-synaptic vesicles are released, cross the synaptic cleft, and attach to the post-synaptic receptors. Now neurotransmitters are molecules. They could be small enough for their production, behavior, and destruction to be affected by quantum mechanical effects.

I am merely speculating. Just like everyone else.

Apr-10-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Boomie: <VBD: neurotransmitters are molecules. They could be small enough for their production, behavior, and destruction to be affected by quantum mechanical effects>

I don't know how small they have to be. Is there a threshold? Some of the molecules are smallish but others are huge. Finding a size limit would narrow down the suspects assuming that transmitters have anything to do with consciousness.

One nice thing about consciousness as a topic is anyone can say just about anything without fear of being refuted...heh.

<achieve> and I butted our heads against that wall last year without accomplishing anything beyond headaches. We looked into the philosophies from the Greeks and Indians to moderns like Russell and Krishnamurti. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/a... is a good reference for philosophy. Alas, we didn't make much headway. Maybe this more scientific approach by Penrose and Hameroff has some promise.

Apr-10-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tiggler: <visayanbraindoctor>:<Questions for you. In your opinion:

1. Why does the scientific method work?

2. Why does math work?

3. What is consciousnesses/ what is it's basis?>

I'll only attempt the easy one for now.

2. Almost* in its entirety, pure math is an expression of dyadic (or boolian) logic. It requires axioms, and then proves the consequences, which are tautologies given the axioms. The subject matter is entirely abstract, and has no connection to the natural world, though there can be applications to the extent that nature appears to conform to parts of it.

*"Almost" is necessary because of Godel's Theorem, which proves that there are true propositions that cannot be proved within a given set of axioms.

Apr-10-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  hms123: <Tiggler> I will take a shot at the first one.

The <scientific method> is simply the set of methods within a discipline that have so far mostly given results that have <bumped up> against reality and survived. In other word, it is not so much that the methods give us any sort of <truth>, but that past uses of the methods have tended to give us results that have proven useful. If a method stopped giving us useful results, it would no longer be a scientific method.

I would argue that in their times, both alchemy and astrology were seen as useful scientific methods until they were replaced by better methods; i.e., methods that gave better and more useful results.

Apr-10-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tiggler: <hms123>

I think you left out something important in your statement, concerning what <bumped up> against reality means. A valid scientific theory (or method, if you like) has to make testable, and therefore falsifiable, predictions about events that were not known before, or used in the formulation of the theory. Until at least some of those predictions are proved true, none being proved false, all you have is a hypothesis.

<Creation science>, for example, is not science because it cannot be falsified.

Apr-10-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  hms123: <Tiggler>

As a Popperian myself, I can only agree with you. I hoped that <bumped up against> would be seen to include the notion of falsifiability.

Thanks for making it explicit.

Apr-10-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <Boomie: I don't know how small they have to be. Is there a threshold? Some of the molecules are smallish but others are huge. Finding a size limit would narrow down the suspects assuming that transmitters have anything to do with consciousness.>

Double-Slit Experiment Carried Out with 114-Atom Molecules

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Doub...

If this is true, then neurotransmitters would also exhibit a dual particle-wave character, a quantum mechanical effect. Most of them are molecules composed of less than 30 atoms of CHON atoms. (Acetylcholine, norepinephrine, dopamine, serotonin gamma-aminobutyric acid, glutamate, and so on.)

Young's double-slit experiment is a classic. It can demonstrate that light can act both as a wave, and we usually treat it as so, or a particle. Imagine the consternation of scientists raised up in the paradigm of the classical Newtonian clockwork Universe when it was realized that Young's experiment could also be used to demonstrate that electrons, which are usually treated as a discrete particle, can behave as waves as well. Weird because if an entity behaves exactly as a wave, then it is a wave, even if it is something we normally think of as a discrete particle.

Apparently scientists have already done the experiment for atoms and molecules. As predicted by quantum theory, if the experiment is set up to observe wave characteristics, atoms and molecules will behave as waves.

<Is there a threshold?>

You could peruse through the Wikipedia article on Quantum Decoherence- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoh.... Hope it helps.

Excerpts:

'In quantum mechanics, quantum decoherence is the loss of coherence or ordering of the phase angles between the components of a system in a quantum superposition. One consequence of this dephasing is classical or probabilistically additive behavior. Quantum decoherence gives the appearance of wave function collapse (the reduction of the physical possibilities into a single possibility as seen by an observer) and justifies the framework and intuition of classical physics as an acceptable approximation: decoherence is the mechanism by which the classical limit emerges from a quantum starting point and it determines the location of the quantum-classical boundary. Decoherence occurs when a system interacts with its environment in a thermodynamically irreversible way. This prevents different elements in the quantum superposition of the total scene's wavefunction from interfering with each other.'

'Before an understanding of decoherence was developed the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics treated wavefunction collapse as a fundamental, a priori process. Decoherence provides an explanatory mechanism for the appearance of wavefunction collapse and was first developed by David Bohm in 1952 who applied it to Louis DeBroglie's pilot wave theory, producing Bohmian mechanics, the first successful hidden variables interpretation of quantum mechanics. Decoherence was then used by Hugh Everett in 1957 to form the core of his many-worlds interpretation.'

'Decoherence does not claim to provide a mechanism for the actual wave function collapse; rather it puts forth a reasonable mechanism for the appearance of wavefunction collapse. The quantum nature of the system is simply "leaked" into the environment so that a total superposition of the wavefunction still exists, but exists— at least for all practical purposes— beyond the realm of measurement. Of course by definition the claim that a merged but unmeasurable wavefunction still exists cannot be proven experimentally.'

Apr-10-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <Tiggler: I'll only attempt the easy one for now.

2. Almost* in its entirety, pure math is an expression of dyadic (or boolian) logic. It requires axioms, and then proves the consequences, which are tautologies given the axioms. The subject matter is entirely abstract, and has no connection to the natural world, though there can be applications to the extent that nature appears to conform to parts of it.

*"Almost" is necessary because of Godel's Theorem, which proves that there are true propositions that cannot be proved within a given set of axioms.>

By <boolian logic>, you mean what a layman like me would see as the true-false and-or way of doing math and algebra?

If Math can be reduced almost entirely into the terms of Boolian logic (with the caveat of Godel's theorem in mind), perhaps I should have rephrased my question into:

2. Why does Boolian logic/ Boolian math work true in the Universe?

Apr-11-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <hms123: The <scientific method> is simply the set of methods within a discipline that have so far mostly given results that have <bumped up> against reality and survived. In other word, it is not so much that the methods give us any sort of <truth>, but that past uses of the methods have tended to give us results that have proven useful. If a method stopped giving us useful results, it would no longer be a scientific method.>

Are you implying that the scientific method possibly may not work in explaining some phenomena in the Universe? To put it in another way, that the scientific method may not hold true all the time?

Apr-11-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <Boomie> Going back to the Penrose and Hameroff theory of micro-tubules being the basis for consciousness due to quantum mechanical effects, are they not simply too big? In addition, AFAIK they function mainly as a kind of cytoskeleton or internal structural support for cells. They are found in all cells and not peculiarly in neurons alone.

Anyways if an experiment could be done supporting the role of microtubules as a basis for consciousness, I would not mind it as so.

On the other hand, synaptic 'firing' is unique in nervous system cells. The basis for electrochemical signals in the NS are synapses and neurotransmitters, not cytoskeleton. Neurotransmitters, being composed of less than 30 atoms, should also exhibit quantum mechanical effects. This is why <If you are going to ask me my opinion, if consciousness is reducible and not a fundamental property of the Universe, it would have its basis in synaptic activity, in the interaction between neurons and not in the neurons themselves.>

Apr-11-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Boomie: <VBD: 114-Atom Molecules>

More than big enough to cover just about all of them. Some of the peptide ones are enormous but they are rare.

I wonder how QM manifests at the synapse. Transmitters are released on one side and some of them hit receptors on the other side. Not exactly a double slit experiment there. Maybe QM helps describe how they dock at the receptors.

Anyway how does any of that shed light on self awareness? Most of the transmitters go way back in evolution. If we are to assume that only humans are self aware, which is a stretch, then if a transmitter is involved, it would have to be one not used by other life forms.

One of the spookier double slit discoveries happens when you observe after the slits. The result is the same as when you observe before the slits. The particles are clustered around two spots on the screen. So how does the waveform produced by the slits revert to particles? Do they go back in time or what? No wonder Einstein couldn't believe in QM.

Apr-11-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Boomie: Here is a very well referenced article on the Orch-OR theory of Penrose and Hameroff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR
Apr-11-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tiggler: <Why does Boolian logic/ Boolian math work true in the Universe?>

How would you know if it didn't? Does French work on the Moon? Does one have to go there to find out? Would it take two French people to test it, or only one?

Apr-11-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tiggler: <visayanbraindoctor>:<Are you implying that the scientific method possibly may not work in explaining some phenomena in the Universe?>

The central assumption is that the laws of nature are the same everywhere and at all times. If that's not true then there is no cosmology, and all the rest of science is local and provisional. Your stethoscope might explode at any moment.

Apr-11-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Boomie: <visayanbraindoctor: Going back to the Penrose and Hameroff theory of micro-tubules being the basis for consciousness due to quantum mechanical effects, are they not simply too big?>

There are electrons on the tubules that may be available for quantum effects. From the link I just posted:

"Microtubules are made up of tubulin protein subunits. The tubulin protein dimers of the microtubules have hydrophobic pockets which might contain delocalized pi electrons. Tubulin has other smaller non-polar regions, for example 8 tryptophans per tubulin, which contain pi electron-rich indole rings distributed throughout tubulin with separations of roughly 2 nm. Hameroff claims that this is close enough for the tubulin pi electrons to become quantum entangled. During entanglement, particles' states become inseparably correlated."

Apr-11-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  hms123: <VBD>

I am implying that methods are <theory-laden> and thus old methods that worked in the context of old theories may or may not work in the context of new theories.

Your electron microscope assumes all sorts of things about the nature of the world. It couldn't exist without a lot of theory behind it.

Apr-11-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <Tiggler: How would you know if it didn't?

The central assumption is that the laws of nature are the same everywhere and at all times. If that's not true then there is no cosmology, and all the rest of science is local and provisional. Your stethoscope might explode at any moment.>

Yes all scientists assume <that the laws of nature are the same everywhere and at all times.> But like all assumptions, it could be false. Is there not a possibility that the laws of nature are different in let's say the edge of the Universe? Or some when near the beginning of everything (if there is such an epoch)? That there, stethoscopes might just explode because the laws of nature, for instance, dictate that atoms are unstable. That there, math as we know it might not work.

The above are pure speculations that I did not intend to bring up. What I am curious about now is the possibility of laws of nature that exist but are not quantifiable. Why does math (or Boolian logic if reducible to it) work? It seems to be ingrained in the 'fabric of the Universe' to use a colorful term. The same question can be asked of the scientific method.

You point out laws of nature work <at all times>. IMO that implies replicability. Is there a 'replicability' law of the universe? I bring this up because whatever is making math and the scientific method work must follow or perhaps is reducible to a 'universal replicability law'. By assuming that the laws nature <are the same everywhere and at all times> we are already assuming the existence of such a law, rule, or principle.

Hope the above helps clarify what I am trying to talk about.

Apr-11-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <hms123: I am implying that methods are <theory-laden> and thus old methods that worked in the context of old theories may or may not work in the context of new theories.>

That sounds to me as implying that other methods superior to the scientific method may exist, just as the scientific method is superior to alchemy and astrology.

In any case I am curious if you think that the scientific method may not work as well as in physics for some phenomena. (Eg, in the 'soft' sciences such as anthropology and sociology.)

The above may sound vague. So I will give some examples.

The scientific method produces theories that can predict things, sometimes with astounding accuracy. I have read that quantum theory for example predicts with great accuracy the electron dipole moment (although I am unfamiliar with the above physics language). Are there theories that can predict with very high accuracy actions due to subjective thoughts of individual minds?

Does the scientific method and the theories it produces work well with some human and sociological behavior and phenomena, often influenced by subjective individual thoughts, as well as predicting with great accuracy physical phenomena? Are there 'better' methods around the corner that can be used to predict human and sociological behavior and phenomena?

The scientific method only works for replicable phenomena. Most scientists usually assume all of 'reality' is replicable. I am not so sure. A burst of individual creativity that can produce say the 'The Three Musketeers' novel may not be replicable. If there was no Dumas, and no inspiration that occurred to him, there would never have been a Three Musketeers novel in our Universe. Yet the novel clearly exists; we can buy it at a bookstore and be amazed at how good it is. Since the scientific method cannot predict the existence of such things as accurately as the electron dipole moment, would this not indicate a degree of incompleteness for this method?

On a related topic, I was thinking, is it possible that many of the founders of quantum theory were so disturbed because they saw their theory as a threat to scientific prediction? Many of them seemed to have been brought up in the idea of a purely clockwork Newtonian universe, in which everything is predictable given infinite accuracy of initial measurements, and nothing is truly random. QM may have nuked this belief in one fell swoop in their minds. How else to explain their strange thoughts and behavior after 1927?

Farther off in theology and mysticism, such things as a mystical experience, if it exists, are simply not replicable and therefore not subject to the scientific method.

Apr-12-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  hms123: <VBD>

1. That sounds to me as implying that other methods superior to the scientific method may exist,

There is no "scientific method". There is a collection of methods that exist within theories and that work well for now. Other methods will be added to our current collection. Some methods will be dropped. Consider medicine. Germ theory made a big difference in our methods (treatments).

2. just as the scientific method is superior to alchemy and astrology.

Again, the problem here is that alchemy and astrology had theories that were replaced. The Babylonians made excellent, precise, and careful observations that proved useful to astronomers, but although the Babylonians used scientific methods they were no longer doing science. This is the problem with all pseudosciences: they use the trappings of method to hide the lack of any semblance of scientific theory.

Apr-12-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  hms123: <VBD>

Feyerabend had some interesting and provocative things to say on this topic.

<Nature of scientific method

In his books Against Method and Science in a Free Society Feyerabend defended the idea that there are no methodological rules which are always used by scientists. He objected to any single prescriptive scientific method on the grounds that any such method would limit the activities of scientists, and hence restrict scientific progress. In his view, science would benefit most from a "dose" of theoretical anarchism. He also thought that theoretical anarchism was desirable because it was more humanitarian than other systems of organization, by not imposing rigid rules on scientists.

For is it not possible that science as we know it today, or a "search for the truth" in the style of traditional philosophy, will create a monster? Is it not possible that an objective approach that frowns upon personal connections between the entities examined will harm people, turn them into miserable, unfriendly, self-righteous mechanisms without charm or humour? "Is it not possible," asks Kierkegaard, "that my activity as an objective [or critico-rational] observer of nature will weaken my strength as a human being?" I suspect the answer to many of these questions is affirmative and I believe that a reform of the sciences that makes them more anarchic and more subjective (in Kierkegaard's sense) is urgently needed.Against Method. p. 154.

Feyerabend's position was originally seen as radical in the philosophy of science, because it implies that philosophy can neither succeed in providing a general description of science, nor in devising a method for differentiating products of science from non-scientific entities like myths. (Feyerabend's position also implies that philosophical guidelines should be ignored by scientists, if they are to aim for progress.)

To support his position that methodological rules generally do not contribute to scientific success, Feyerabend provides counterexamples to the claim that (good) science operates according to a certain fixed method. He took some examples of episodes in science that are generally regarded as indisputable instances of progress (e.g. the Copernican revolution), and showed that all common prescriptive rules of science are violated in such circumstances. Moreover, he claimed that applying such rules in these historical situations would actually have prevented scientific revolution.>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_F...

Apr-12-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  hms123: <VBD>

One more point: physics experiments tend to be <demonstrations> rather than the randomized trials that are more common in other areas, like medicine. Why? Because medicine, for example, includes the notion of individual differences in responses to treatments, where physics assumes that it doesn't matter which cannonball gets dropped from the top of a tower.

There is certainly nothing wrong with randomization. It is just not a part of most physics experiments. (n.b., I do realize that probability plays a big role in quantum theory.)

Apr-16-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tiggler: <visayanbraindoctor>:<Why does math (or Boolian logic if reducible to it) work? It seems to be ingrained in the 'fabric of the Universe' to use a colorful term.>

The idea that math owes its existence to the natural universe died, according to the histories of math that I have read at least, in about the middle of the 19th century. This was presaged however by the ideas of Plato, whose ideal entities were not present in the natural universe, as he stated.

So math exists independently of the Universe. Whether the Universe can exist without math may be an open question, but I assume it can. Most bears I've met don't know any math, but they get along OK.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 223)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 223 OF 223 ·  Later Kibitzing>

100% Cotton Chess Puzzle Shirt
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other users.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific user and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.

You are not logged in to chessgames.com.
If you need an account, register now;
it's quick, anonymous, and free!
If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.

View another user profile:
  


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Little ChessPartner | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2014, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies