That's 5D-educational chess.
That's 5D-educational chess.
@Eatsbluecrayon Another demonstration would be to bring a chessboard to class, along with extra pieces, and have the class play chess with an AI of their choosing. They’ll get to watch with their own eyes as the AI fabricates positions and pieces.
This is especially useful because computers have been beating human opponents at chess for a long time now, so people know that chess is something computers can do. That an AI can’t indicates it is worse than its predecessors.
@jadedtwin @WhiteCatTamer @Eatsbluecrayon
If you don’t believe everything can be expressed in numbers then consequently you must believe there is some “magic” in which numbers are meaningless.
That simply isn’t the case. From the count of neurons firing, to their relations and positions: every “emotion” can be described with numbers.
Magic or numbers. That’s the choice.
Thus: language is math (numbers encoded).
@holdenweb
representation is doing lifting there…
I agree we cannot represent all the math correctly. Normal numbers are the bulk of numbers and they can’t be represented on the computer… Doesn’t mean normal numbers don’t exist.
Analog systems are still describable by numbers. Digitization is a different issue.
Our limits of representation are not the limits of numbers in the abstract.
You bring up good points, though. Quantization is an issue with representing numbers.
@holdenweb you assert that it can’t be done.
Okay: asserted noted. Any actual argument or reason? (Other than it “feels/seems” like to can’t be done).
@holdenweb
The reasoning is: there is no magic. Magic being a thing which has no attribute which can be measured: yet still has a measurable effect… a contradiction in principle. Therefore everything that exists can be measured… including processes we don’t yet understand (consciousness is a process that happens, not something that just is).
We may not be able to measure everything accurately… but that’s a limit in human’s abilities.
@holdenweb prove? Not quite. Humans will (probably) never make a machine that can represent normal numbers - but we may yet invent something awesome beyond our current comprehension that can.
I don’t think that’s likely… but the probability of that happening is only approximately zero.
All knowledge is an approximation of reality, our experience is subjective through that approximation (like how is color is a representation of wavelength and only in your brain).
@holdenweb infinity when represented physically: is a process that never ends. Defining a measuring function to run forever and increase accuracy overtime converges to the described infinity.
Close to zero: practically zero… not zero! we don’t know what we don’t know yet.
Besides that: there is the concept of useful accuracy - Where further precision offers no more predictive power…
@altruios Practically zero? There is only zero and non-zero!
And yes, of course good enough is good enough for practical purposes … but then that’s no longer theoretical is it?
@holdenweb practically zero is non-zero…? Did that really need to be specified?
Practical experiments test/verify/refine theory…