Friday, December 30, 2011

Supercomputers & Surreal Chess Game Programming

Supercomputers & Surreal Chess Game Programming L. Edgar Otto December 30, 2011

It seems possible now to me to treat a chess game in any dimensions between two players by the rules of surreal operations and quasic tables in binary. This raises a lot of philosophic questions especially when it comes to foundations of physics or the nature of what we imagine as consciousness.

We lose a game, as if we traveled briefly to another universe where we are not a chess master but a chess amateur- this is not to prove we do this in our minds or in some real place- the point is we make blunders or do not pay attention to some move of decision. Nor does it seem in the multiplicity of things we apply many of our moods or personalities to one game. It is natural to make human blunders as we are at least a supercomputer of computation which is to say our number space of a more finite operational variety has all the ambiguity of powers of the ordinal nimber space variety. Or we can think in vague concepts as we concentrate upon the powers as concrete finite values making the clear and intelligible logical algebraic steps to find what we have designed what we were looking for. Chess defined then (at least for now where one can at least keep the game going by choosing the structural coordinate surreal zeros) as the winner is he who did not make the last blunder. Can I say then that a system, in this case a human mind, who imagines such ways to program or perceive a theoretical basis for the universe will as an analog digital surreal quantum quasic supercomputer at least find the answer in those terms just as would raw disembodied analog conscious or cold mechanical computation.

So I post mistakes in the matching of primes- I vaguely thought I should have checked the list but it was just the first few primes so I left out 43 thinking of yes, 51 is divisible by 3. But is was informal work anyway. Yet I decided this error was part of the human organization of mind- I mean at years end we see the old gods of our youth dying before us (and an exception to the rule someone like Steve Jobs ten years younger I bracket by my years.) But in what sense can we say that God as a mathematician is a Master chess player anyway, or as I wrote above can some level of the game play itself and can we prove it. So I worked out the pattern with the error and found two concepts, the half quasic mirror and the varying in more formal series choices of what a unified atom of a prime can be when there so chosen beyond ideas of some permutation in shifting sequence.

Imagine we are in a room and there is a little night light and you awaken a little confused as to what you are seeing having never seen the room (Plato's cave?) in the light of day before. The room is full of various hats, baseball hats of many colors in particular. At first we are frightened because we think these are alive and not necessarily friendly surrounding us. These are in fact the "Cheshire grins" of evidence of a ghost world. But after awhile you realize that even if the ghosts where there they cannot hurt you and that all you see is the colorful and artful collection of the hats. We need a more full picture of real and dream spaces.

For example, Lubos tries again to defend the quantum theory against the mere "pilot waves":

"People, those bigots who are still denying that the insights of quantum mechanics inevitably force one to be careful about the positivist, instrumentalist principles and that forces us to understand science as a gadget to organize our observations rather than to promote the idea about an "independent real world": give up, apologize, shut up, and calculate!" But I would think it a lot deeper question to comment on than the issues, instructive ones, of the early part of the last century. What does this surreal view say for the idea of pure string theory or what is or not some ghostly field or particle or something left out of the concepts that we can move on in an imperfect model that clarifies eventually some better one or method as our goal? Again we find the acid test of philosophy the issues of free will and determinism- freedom of degrees as in the vaguely sensed and outlined matrix method done by the Japanese in the news in terms of course of modeling the results with a supercomputer simulation. At least we know now in some proofs and cases and implications to any higher end where an error can be known before hand to show up that we can rely on such simulations after all. But applying this to particle physics, the purpose of our national security development, was to simulate nuclear explosions and understand particle physics. Yet we must know how such physics works to program the computers in the first place.

The idea of a time independent self evolving chip, a little redundant and with isolated transistors of which if we remove one the circuit fails, at least can be explained by the surreal zeros in the design as filled or not, uniquely or not. But as to playing the game in the actuality of the existential moment of this universe even if something like total randomness is the foundation just this side of nothingness- what is the point of a chess master with the help of a supercomputer playing a supercomputer with the help of several chess masters?

* * * * *


No problem, If I had a lot of hair I am sure when I touched the coils with such high voltage theories it would make it stand on end, Einstein like.

Your deeper ideas are hard to get a clear picture of in new terms- but I do see the classical level as a sort of prime or given- but consciousness as such is not any more mysterious and miraculous as the fact of matter as given, to me anyway. If we cannot (philosophically) show God exists or not, how can we say consciousness itself is beyond any mathematical formula? Not to say there may not be some such unique reality to be so described. But I did offer lately other or alternative consciousness definitions in terms of the empty distances between generalizations like p-adic (adele) and quasic and Conway's surreal space- I mean I read your concepts on a much higher level than say the quantum terminology- for is quantum mechanics not the heart of chemistry anyway and we cannot reduce neuroscience to that?

The PeSla (but I am not coiled even to Lubos, see my post today abusing your name perhaps- the Pikanadic Continuum or the Pikanomnium.)

* * * * *

No comments:

Post a Comment