General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
14 Oct 10
15:28
Joined:
Date Joined:
29 Apr 06
Stephen Hawking believes the human brain is just like a calculator - you feed in certain information and you get a certain result. However, he goes on to say that the calculations are too complex - that to replicate it's workings would require a replica of the universe (or words to that effect). He, therefore, goes on to say that it simpler to refer to humans and discrete complex systems and say that humans have "free will".
If the human thought process is not predictable, how can sports results (dependent on humans) be accurately predicted, either individually or on average? Surely the two models "free will" and "sports results" cannot exist together?
If the human thought process is not predictable, how can sports results (dependent on humans) be accurately predicted, either individually or on average? Surely the two models "free will" and "sports results" cannot exist together?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 78
|
By:
probability
|
|
By:
Depends on what you mean by accurately predicted I suppose.
|
|
By:
"Probability" is not devoid of prediction. It is, in fact, a prediction of ALL likely outcomes.
|
|
By:
* ALL possible outcomes. Surely this makes it even more difficult to achieve, not easier than predicting just one outcome?
|
|
By:
eh ?
 |
|
By:
Very deep Betfairy. how come when given the same info,
we can come up with different views ? |
|
By:
But it is impossible to achieve isn't it? No man can accurately predict the result of any future (non-fixed) sporting event can he? I thought we all just guessed, and those that have the best talent for guessing will be those that put the most research into their guess, probably based on history. That's my guess anyway, interesting to hear others views.
|
|
By:
The betting patterns of humans is predictable though Betfairy. If you know what the crowd is likely to do, you can use this to your advantage.
|
|
By:
Hawking is just looking for excuses as to why he did his brains on Nadal/Melzer imo.
|
|
By:
Of course people are predictable. If you go out on a saturday night and come home late all pissed you know exactly what the wife is going to do and say! Most people have a very narrow band a of awareness with regard to what they are going to do in a situation and likewise sports people. So once you have seen what they have done before you can predict what they are likely to do again. This goes for horses as well and working on that basis profits can be made betting on that likely outcome
|
|
By:
if you could predict one thing, just one event, with 100% probability, then there would be no such thing as Free Will, no such thing as Betting, and, most likely, no such thing as the Universe.
imo  |
|
By:
Good try at upping the intellectual level of the forum Betfairy.
Lost me though, I'm afraid, in the process. |
|
By:
Btw Betfairy I can never predict your thought processes. So QED.
|
|
By:
Where does Hawking state this belief in freewill ? , always thought he was a determinist .
|
|
By:
I thought he was a dermatologist.
|
|
By:
Same thing.
|
|
By:
It seems to me that he is not saying that the human thought process is not predictable, but that it is too complex to predict with certainty.
Obviously if I step out into the street and punch a random guy in the face, I can play through a set of scenarios of what is likely to happen. If I first collected background information on the individual I would be able to assign a probability to the events a)run away b)fight back c) start shouting d)make threats etc. If we could predict things with 100% accuracy, there would be no betting as everything would fall under yes it will happen or no it won't. |
|
By:
Also you might kill him with your first punch.
|
|
By:
"to replicate it's workings would require a replica of the universe (or words to that effect)."
IMO everything is constantly changing and the brain is only a physical "calculator" mechanism in that sense for what the non-physical mind plucks from the Universal thought consciousness. So an individuals thoughts and choices would constantly change and adapt through their experiences, making it impossible to "read" them with 100% accuracy. At the same time that doesnt mean the collective consciousness of the masses engaged in one event, so to speak, wouldnt repeat patterns of learned behaviour, especially with regards to a betting exchange and the fear and greed traits seen everyday for example. I have always felt that intuition plays an important role in trading the exchanges. Some people stick rigidly to prices and probability to find a margin, but in my view, intuitevly reading the "herd" is also a powerful tool to work with. |
|
By:
The human thought process perceives ambiguous data in erroneous and predictable ways. The shrewd layer or bettor can exploit this if aware of these biases.
|
|
By:
Some people stick rigidly to prices and probability to find a margin, but in my view, intuitevly reading the "herd" is also a powerful tool to work with.
The same thing IMO. Reading the herd, usual over reaction, betting against it etc, etc, etc |
|
By:
The smarties all seem to think they're contrarians.
Not really possible though. |
|
By:
I think one has to be contrary if, say betting on football,
as overall, it's a fact that around 90% of punters lose and perhaps 90% of them, go with the popular vote, with the rest being contrary for no other reason than that. After all there are some matches when it is impossible to back one side against another, other that to being contrary. Does that make sense ? Maybe not. |
|
By:
In theory you have to take into account all factors of the universe to calculate the move of the Moon around the Earth or that of the Earth around the Sun.
But Newton did it with a simplified model with a high degree of accuracy. The same will sooner or later hold true for the human brain, given that the number of neurons, interconnections of neurons and relevant external factors are finite and within human scales (although we still lack the computational power) |
|
By:
Don't hold your breath though.
|
|
By:
Nobody really expected computers to take on human chess players so soon and with such a superiority with machines at the reach of our fingertips in any shop ...
|
|
By:
Hawking went on a blind date the other night. He came home with a black eye, two cracked ribs and badly grazed knees.
The b1tch had stood him up! |
|
By:
Very good posts saint-pilgrim!
When I was 12 years old one of my teachers said chess computers would never be able to beat humans, as it was humans that provided the input. How could they create something better than themselves? I remember saying that humans had created calculators that could calculate faster and with greater accuracy (or to put it another way: better) than any human, so why wouldn't the same be possible for a chess program. I remember that quite vividly, as it was the first time I really started to question what we were being taught. One of my favourite quotes is one by George Box: Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful. A model simplifies what is really going on and helps us to understand it. Personally, I believe that an infinite level of complexity exists in nature. We can only understand what is going on by creating artificial boundaries and examining what lies within. |
|
By:
You are really seriously comparing the programming of computers to play chess with the programming of them to replicate the human mind in totality.
Well you read on here first I suppose. |
|
By:
^
That's what I mean by creating artificial boundaries. Parts of what we as humans can do can be replicated by a computer. Calculation, interpreting written text etc. The more things you add to this list, the closer you get to replicating the human mind in totality. I believe you can eventually get close to it, but you can't actually replicate it due to the 'infinite level of complexity'. |
|
By:
The computer chess solution is a red herring. The software doesn't replicate the human mind at all - instead it uses a clever mix of memory "book knowledge" and brute force. The human thought process is much more subtle.
The end results are the same in this case, but that's about all. |
|
By:
A mobile phone won a category 6 tournament with a performance rating 2898. Chess engine Hiarcs 13 running inside Pocket Fritz 4 on the mobile phone HTC Touch HD won the Copa Mercosur tournament in Buenos Aires, Argentina with 9 wins and 1 draw on August 4–14, 2009
 The thought processes of Wayne Rooney dont add up to anything meaningful when working out odds on man u matches. Cattermole is always likely to get sent off though and should be factored in to Sunderland odds |
|
By:
Logically there is no difference between the human brain and the computer it has devised. The only difference, and it is a very pure one, is that the human brain is aware of the decisions it makes and the consequences of those decisions. The human has a moral centre. Why evolution has played such a trick is open to debate, but it has. Computers will never gain the capacity for moral understanding.
|
|
By:
Never is too strong a word to use in predicting anything.
I prefer probably never. |
|
By:
It's time for the "Worker of the Week Award". I can't believe we've overlooked this week's winner for so very, very long. We simply could not function without his tireless efforts. So, a round of applause for...this inanimate carbon rod!
[Everyone cheers] |
|
By:
.
http://picture.funnycorner.net/funny-pictures/5178/Inanimate-carbon-rod.jpg |
|
By:
The Betfairy Joined: 29 Apr 06
Replies: 7584 15 Oct 10 20:31 The computer chess solution is a red herring. The software doesn't replicate the human mind at all - instead it uses a clever mix of memory "book knowledge" and brute force. The human thought process is much more subtle. The end results are the same in this case, but that's about all. No, because the computer can also predict with a high degree of accuracy most of the candidate moves for a high level player, so it shows that within this admittedly limited field the human thought process is highly predictable. |
|
By:
A computer won't undertand exactly how a human player selects candidate moves, which I think is what you're getting at?
Does it matter though? |
|
By:
Why does Kenilworth now post in italics, is he special?
|