"chess" is not just the board. It is also the learning problem, i.e. one needs to include the subjective learning process as object of the formalism. Well, need is a big word. If one wants a better "ground" level, meaning the set of assumptions to agree from and build something that yields interesting new statements by logic applied to this bigger definition or construction of the problem.
The video shows well that logic itself is just about finding the consequences of the set of assumptions, it can't itself leap to changing those assumptions toward better assumptions. It works within those human created leaped bounds.
Yet there are rational ways to think about various formalism given the data of the "universe" we try to model something about.
We have to be clear about what that last part is the something about, the universe and the model are to be clear in which set of questions (well defined mutually) we want to answer, in relation to which "ground" assumptions we are willing to include for our fog to have some domain.
logic needs meaning to be useful. We provide the meaning.
@dboing said in #129:
> you are keeping this thread from automatically archiving, which allows, future posts in that rare scope of topics that the op introduced. That is fine. You could say Bump... but having something to say on top is bonus. Fine with me. I am not the op though, but from relatively recent posts, it is fine with op as well. I think lichess still automatically closes (archive) after 3 weeks, right?
Didn’t know about that. I guess I just enjoy adding things that seem interesting to me and keep the conversation alive to some extent, fueled by my passion (perhaps obsession) for new ways to approach chess improvement/game theory philosophy, as well as the incessant desire for indisputable progress to be made in figuring out the conundrums described in this article series (which I realize/admit won’t really happen to my satisfaction until OP writes part 5).
Ok so it was a coincidence that the post before you was only 3 weeks past. I am not sure if this is still the period of inactivity that triggers it. I have been enjoying your comments in the past, and so did the op. . Keep this thing alive as you wish, I say.
Difficult questions without ready-made solution recipe, need a good dose of passion, to get over the obstacles and our small brain limitations, so we can try again another day... digesting deeper the experience from being at passion level mode of motivation. Passion can be its own attention engagement method. Intrinsic?
Alright, it's been 3 weeks, so... the next thing I'll give a link to is Numits, a YT channel which will be attempting to "solve chess" using self-referential logic: https://youtu.be/z0Er3yfUeWQ?si=yJCdxp59pvYxunQG.
just writing so the author can give updates on how he's going(not allowing it to automatically be archived)