Feynman :: Rules of Chess
defjam99b1 HN recommender · recommended in 1 month, 2011–2023
lecture · general · evergreen · 2011–2023 on HN
A three-minute clip of Richard Feynman using the rules of chess as an analogy for how science works, discovering rules by observation and sometimes meeting surprises like castling. It touches on incremental progress versus revolutions.
Cited in discussions of the scientific method and empiricism as Feynman's classic analogy of watching a game to infer its rules.
Up next
1 mo on HNDoes Time Cause Gravity?
PBS Space Time
1 HN recommend · 2021–2023
6 mo on HNIntelligence and Stupidity: The Orthogonality Thesis
Robert Miles AI Safety
6 HN recommender · 2022–2026
5 mo on HNClassic Game Postmortem: Sid Meier's Civilization
GDC Festival of Gaming
4 HN recommender · 2017–2021
2 mo on HNA conversation with Elon Musk about Starship
Everyday Astronaut
3 HN recommender · 2019–2025
5 mo on HNTimothy Snyder: The Making of Modern Ukraine. Class 1: Ukrainian Questions Posed by Russian Invasion
YaleCourses
6 HN recommender · 2022–2025
2 mo on HNChatGPT with Rob Miles - Computerphile
Computerphile
4 HN recommender · 2023–2023
4 mo on HNExplained: "Go Fast" UFO Video - Not Low and Not Fast - Like a Balloon!
Mick West
6 HN recommender · 2019–2023
8 mo on HNTiedustelueverstin arvio Venäjästä | 3.12.2018
fin_topsu
14 HN recommender · 2022–2024
15 mo on HNThe Quantum Conspiracy: What Popularizers of QM Don't Want You to Know
Google TechTalks
11 HN recommender · 2012–2025
11 mo on HNJames Burke Connections, Ep. 1 "The Trigger Effect"
DRS_Education
12 HN recommender · 2019–2026
10 mo on HNHamming, "You and Your Research" (June 6, 1995)
securitylectures
11 HN recommender · 2012–2023
9 mo on HNWhy Being Delusional is a Superpower
Veritasium
9 HN recommender · 2020–2024
4 comments from Hacker News
>It's nonsense, top-to-bottom. This isn't a formal physical theory, just a heuristic for evaluating lines of investigation. Richard Feynman gave a good explanation of the principle, which he said he found helpful in his work. ▶ this video
> that we cannot use empiricism to determine universal rules, we indeed cannot do this and Feynman illustrated this frequently using the analogy of chess ( ▶ this video ). As Kant argues we can never observe the rules of the physical world as things in themselves, just as we can't directly look at the rules of chess by observing games. We can only get individual hints that we piece together into models of the world in ways we can understand.
I suspect the metaphor is inspired by Feynman's one about gods playing chess [1]. As it's almost always the case, Feynman manages to immediately inspire and illuminate. On the other hand, the present article seems to me to get some important things wrong. For one, it's not the case that overall white and black win 50% of the time each. More importantly though, if somebody is interested in investigating chess, they will supposedly understand that it's some activity that other (somewhat) intelligent beings are undertaking. Even if everything seems like a blur, an alien scientist should not be content with dismissing it as uninteresting randomness. More so, if somebody actually starts investigating seriously, they will immediately obtain useful results about the game, results that should almost certainly provide useful predictions about the game outcome (at least better than "it's all random"). I might find, however, some agreement with the spirit of the article. It seems to me that, even though the author doesn't articulate it properly, the idea is that scientists should pursue more fringe theories even if immediate confirmation is lacking. I think there's quite a bit of value in this, as long as your predictions are always checked against reality. [1] ▶ this video
Science is a blackbox. We make theories about the world we live in based upon the results of experiments. Richard Feynman commented method of thinking about science on one of his videos. ▶ this video