'Because Science' Demonstrates Turing Completeness of Magic: The Gathering (youtube.com) 29
New submitter jklappenbach writes: Further cementing Kyle Hill's nerd creds, he's just released a YouTube video [via Because Science] where he demonstrates how Magic: The Gathering can be used to construct a Turing Machine, using both a specifically-constructed deck and the current rules of the game (except the ability to pull cards from all of history). Kyle posted the full setup of the deck in a comment below the video, with a link to the paper that can be found via arXiv.
Idiocracy was wrong. (Score:3)
Science will not only research hair loss and prolonging erections!
Re:Idiocracy was wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
Science is a process, used into understanding. Eg Why is the sky blue. In which we try to test different hypothesis. With each hypothesis there are results from data we expect to see. If they sky is just reflecting the ocean then in large landmasses should change the color of the sky. Which doesn't seem to be the case. So we reject the hypothesis and go to a new one. Until the data matches the hypothesis and the hypothesis is corrected to align with the data. Where the most simplest answer is found that matches the data. Now this isn't fixed in stone, if new evidence and data shows something else, then we need to go back and work it out again. However it is logical approach towards understanding, that really tries to clear up human biases.
Engineering, is using what we have learned in the process of science, to come up with an actual product or method to do something. Science shows air scatters light differently at different frequencies. So the engineer knows this will design the laser sensor to respond to a particular tolerance.
I see Anti-Intellectuals arguing the value of Science when someone spend a lot of resources to study something seemingly stupid. As the knowledge of the fact will not lead to an invention. However it will create a greater understanding of the universe, and could be used as a tool later on for the Engineers. Eg finding Turing Completeness of Magic: The Gathering, may be useful for future algorithms and approaches.
There is confusion with pseudo-science too. (Score:2)
Generally, I agree.
Though the point of science *is* to make useful predictions. Useful in the sense that they are reliable and verifiable and may be used to alter things to get you closer to a goal (in the most general sense).
Unless that criterion is met, it is by definition pseudo-science.
Sadly, there is a host of mathematics and philosophy deciples, who hold the schizophrenic belief, that math and logic are not the tools that emerged out of our very human way of experiencing the world, to model it for our
Re: (Score:2)
Though the point of science *is* to make useful predictions.
The *point* of science is to explain how nature and the universe work.
The method science uses to determine which explanations are correct is to see which one's make the better predictions.
Re: (Score:3)
What do you mean "the point of science"?
Whether a prediction will turn out to be useful or not cannot in general be determined a the time it is made. Often predictions made at that time are wrong.
Your idea of what is science and what is pseudo-science is incredibly wrong. Pseudo-science is the making of claims that have not been, or cannot be, proven, and also claiming that they are science.
N.B.: "Making a claim" is not the same as "Stating a hypothesis". Or with proving that a claim is mathematically c
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe not. Remember, when we get down to sub-atomic scales, Uncertainty becomes an important factor. Thus, instead of having the point sources of gravity that relativity expects, you have what might be called "blob sources" because of the uncertainty in position. It may not be that relativity breaks down, but that we're trying to a
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIKT it's a reasonable idea, but you're explaining just how it might break down, not that it doesn't. And not all interpretations of quantum theory accept uncertainty as an actual result rather than as an artifact of the ways we are doing our observations. So, reasonable, but how would you test it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unnnhhh..... General Relativity is supposed to apply in all contexts within the universe (though sometimes the effect is extremely small). So saying "this part of the universe isn't a covered area" doesn't work. And quantum theory is supposed to also be universally applicable. So when they make different predictions there's a conflict, even if we can't measure to tell which one is correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Though the point of science *is* to make useful predictions.
I have always thought the point of science was just a set of rules for eliminating human bias in discovering the nature of things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see it as two things.
First, science is not always about boring stuff. It can be about stuff pe
Done years ago (Score:3, Informative)
It was done in 2012 by someone else. http://www.toothycat.net/~holo... [toothycat.net]
It is a bit different with two players I guess, but fundementally nothing new. (One can easily modify tye construction on that website to 2 players as well).
Re:Done years ago (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Done years ago (Score:5, Informative)
It was done in 2012 by someone else.
Ah children. "It was done by someone else" and proceeds to link to a paper written by the same person 7 years ago saying they are starting on proving what today's article finishes.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people spent 7 years proving that a card game was Turing complete.
Re: Done years ago (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I did.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting (Score:1)
Interesting video - but did he have to shout everything?
Re: (Score:2)
His volume is directly proportional to his hair length.
(and I'm entitled to say so! I used to have hair even longer than his. But I had to cut it or else my future wife, whom I hadn't met yet, would have nothing to do with me)
Of course it is Turing complete (Score:2)
It is freeform text.
Okay, okay, they built some sort of Turing machine with existing cards.
Alan (Score:5, Funny)
Turing Completeness of Magic: The Gathering
Wtf, this is like the kind of thing that only matters to nerds. Why is it on a political rage troll site?
Re: (Score:2)
stfu kennedyfag nerd no one cares about ur apollo crap & landing on the moon is impossible