6 ms·

Reality is not a chess board. Thing is, we don’t know what we don’t know and we can't put a probability on that. We don't even know how much we don't know, but

Reality is not a chess board. Thing is, we don’t know what we don’t know and we can't put a probability on that. We don't even know how much we don't know, but I would intuitively say very much.

andsoitis 2y ago
> We don't even know how much we don't know, but I would intuitively say very much. I choose to believe that there is, and always will be, much more that we do not know than what we know. That is truly exciting because it means our curiosity can never be satiated.
stareatgoats 2y ago
> I would intuitively say very much Potential knowledge is probably infinite. How much is a finite fraction of infinite? Likely not much. To be fair, when we say "we know much" we don't compare with all that potential knowledge, but with the knowledge of the generations that preceded us, or compared to the uneducated goat herder on some steppe, or some such thing. But this is also tricky, because they knew/know thing that we don't and so we find ourselves in a muddy morass, even when guessing how much we know (compared to someone else), let alone trying to accurately assess this. Unless we are very specific of course, like narrowing it down to maths or nuclear science. Come to think of it, that's probably what you meant. OK, scratch this.
winwang 2y ago
You're describing games of incomplete information (i.e. as opposed to a perfect game like chess). Interestingly, when I look this up, the first thing that pops up is "Bayesian Game".
- rthnbgrredf 2y ago
  A Bayesian game is a strategic decision-making model that assumes players have incomplete information. In such games, players are aware of the rules and the mechanics governing the game, but they lack full knowledge about certain aspects, like the strategies or payoffs of other players. Poker is a classic example where the game rules are clear to everyone, but players do not know each other's hands. This contrasts with the real world, where we do not fully understand the "rules" of reality. While we have well-established theories like Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, and general relativity, these frameworks do not provide a complete explanation of everything. In reality, we are continually searching for new rules and understandings. Imagine playing a game with three known rules while being told there are additional unknown rules. Calculating the odds of these unknown rules based on the existing ones is simply not possible from my perspective. Then we have concepts like the anthropic principle, which states that "conditions observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist." This statement is a tautology, meaning it is self-evidently true. It's similar to saying, "a game that is played must have conditions that support playing." While tautologies are logically true, they do not offer new information and thus don't allow for substantive new conclusions to be drawn. They simply restate the obvious without providing additional insights.
kromem 2y ago
The argument of "we can't say because of all we don't know" needs constant updating. Early on, you have Elihu in Job arguing that we can't understand creation because why it rains and where snow comes from is beyond human understanding. Now we learn it as a nursery rhyme. Maybe we should entertain the idea that we do have adequate information to assess our overall situation and see what we find.

Reality is not a chess board. Thing is, we don’t know what we don’t know and we can't put a probability on that. We don't even know how much we don't know, but I would intuitively say very much.

andsoitis 2y ago

> We don't even know how much we don't know, but I would intuitively say very much. I choose to believe that there is, and always will be, much more that we do not know than what we know. That is truly exciting because it means our curiosity can never be satiated.

stareatgoats 2y ago

> I would intuitively say very much Potential knowledge is probably infinite. How much is a finite fraction of infinite? Likely not much. To be fair, when we say "we know much" we don't compare with all that potential knowledge, but with the knowledge of the generations that preceded us, or compared to the uneducated goat herder on some steppe, or some such thing. But this is also tricky, because they knew/know thing that we don't and so we find ourselves in a muddy morass, even when guessing how much we know (compared to someone else), let alone trying to accurately assess this. Unless we are very specific of course, like narrowing it down to maths or nuclear science. Come to think of it, that's probably what you meant. OK, scratch this.

winwang 2y ago

You're describing games of incomplete information (i.e. as opposed to a perfect game like chess). Interestingly, when I look this up, the first thing that pops up is "Bayesian Game".

rthnbgrredf 2y ago
A Bayesian game is a strategic decision-making model that assumes players have incomplete information. In such games, players are aware of the rules and the mechanics governing the game, but they lack full knowledge about certain aspects, like the strategies or payoffs of other players. Poker is a classic example where the game rules are clear to everyone, but players do not know each other's hands. This contrasts with the real world, where we do not fully understand the "rules" of reality. While we have well-established theories like Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, and general relativity, these frameworks do not provide a complete explanation of everything. In reality, we are continually searching for new rules and understandings. Imagine playing a game with three known rules while being told there are additional unknown rules. Calculating the odds of these unknown rules based on the existing ones is simply not possible from my perspective. Then we have concepts like the anthropic principle, which states that "conditions observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist." This statement is a tautology, meaning it is self-evidently true. It's similar to saying, "a game that is played must have conditions that support playing." While tautologies are logically true, they do not offer new information and thus don't allow for substantive new conclusions to be drawn. They simply restate the obvious without providing additional insights.

kromem 2y ago

The argument of "we can't say because of all we don't know" needs constant updating. Early on, you have Elihu in Job arguing that we can't understand creation because why it rains and where snow comes from is beyond human understanding. Now we learn it as a nursery rhyme. Maybe we should entertain the idea that we do have adequate information to assess our overall situation and see what we find.