Stop being so skeptical and unpeaceful about the idea that the world can have peace with differences and without cooperation.

Skepticism in a smaller sense is obv a good thing, we should question everything including our foundations. We should also question whether skepticism is correct, and whether questioning everything is correct.

But we should not walk into every conversation attempting to prove it wrong in order to test its validity. That will produce false negatives.

As for the peace, you might think its cute what you do here, but I urge to watch your news today and so whats going on in this world because its not so funny at all.

And as for a world that supports differences and un cooperation in the way it does today that is the opposite of the definition of peace.

Which of us is trying to move towards peace here?

Do we even know if poker has a NE? My impression is there are transitivity problems. A can beat B. B can beat C. But C can beat A. Pretty sure the game has not been solved or they would have bots playing optimally.


PairTheBoard

You walked into this conversation and are attempting to prove it wrong.

See below.

I have peace with people i have differences with. So you can have peace and differences.

I didn't fully understand the beginning of your quote but I think i can answer it all anyways.

Peace it total, as is freedom. You cannot be at peace while the world is at war. It is your belief that you can that creates war in the world.

It is hypocritical to suggest you can be at peace while others are not, and that hypocrisy is conflict.

Freedom works the same way, you are not free unless we are all free.

Once you realize this...

This we should go into.

The answer should be sought after through real life cooperation bringing the strategy along as far as we can.

No bot could compete with that. I'm not sure any single mathematical conclusion could either.

If one changes the context in which they play poker I think it can be shown to be moral, by any reasonable definition of the word moral.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47...02/index2.html

By playing poker with the intention of bringing peace, we are playing for the highest moral reason possible.

So then it is true that the morality of a poker profession depends on the motivation.

This makes sense since regardless of our occupation if our goal is to exploit others for gain irl, we are acting immorally by any sane definition of the word.

There will always be differences. This one guy are work cant lift vary heavy things. But im at peace with him and that difference and just lift the stuff he cant. Once you learn to have peace with people you have differences with....

Yes you are correct in that, but you are not correct in your underlying assumption that the person that is different than you is separate from you or not you.

More importantly I agree with you, but peace is total in regards to the world not a small game between you and those around you.

Because if peace only refers to your surrounding then you are ignoring the world and that is a violent box of perception.

It is also the very box that is the cause of conflict in this world.

No were separate.

Its no game its real life.

Im not ignoring the world you are. I see a world where differences can lead to conflict and a world where they dont necessarily lead to conflict.


Your box of trying to rid the world of differences has been done by many ugly totalitarian leaders throughout history.

that is a religious belief. And I can show you that, if you will entertain this idea that your self is possibly and illusion

No you are talking about a 'part' of irl, real life addresses the WHOLE world, not just a part which is just a box that thought and religion creates.

I see people being slaughtered in Syria daily, and countries like India we rape is the daily life in many areas.


I am not against differences and you should not paint me as such, further more you are just afraid of what you do not understand.

You dont seem willing to entertain the self it real. So no.

The part makes the whole.

I see a world where people who are separate sometimes get along.

Stop being afraid of what makes us separate and live and let live.

Yes I have entertained both, and you have to entertain both in order to know which is true. Once I show you what the self is, you will be able to judge for yourself. Without knowing what I am talking about, why would you think your opinion on it is valid?

All of the parts make the whole.

Yes and if you claim that is peace, you are ignoring the world.

This ignorance is the REAL cause of the worlds suffering. You might think its bullet that are the cause.


Turn your news on tonight and look at what is REALLY going on in this world. I am not ignoring it, "To live and let live" is to ignore it.

I am not afraid.

When you are finished fighting with me, we should try to get along.

If getting along means me seeing everything the way you do it is unlikely. Maybe you could see everything the way i do...

I think this is what bothers me the most. The victim game. It takes two to fight and argue but in your mind its the other who is the fighter not you.

Its the other who is in their box not you. Its the other who doesn't see the world not you.

Either way i made my points take em leave em.

I wouldn't suggest such a thing.
I definitely think striving to see your view is part of having a proper conversation.

I am not as worried about whether we fight or argue, I ask that it not be your intention to fight. It is certainly not mine.

I'm not sure what you are referring to as the world but am referring to what is actually going on, not some spiritual perception. The world is a terrible place right now, have a look.

did you come to declare these things or communicate about them?

See there you go again. I declare my views you communicate yours. Oh well.

No i am not trying to point at your faults, I am asking if you want to actually have a conversation about this, or have you come here in the name of conflict?

sigh...

that phenomonon just means the NE will be a hybrid strategy (ala 33/33/33 in rock paper scissors).

The bigger problem is that NE only applies to non-cooperative games. In games of 3 or more players, that isn't generally a good assumption (1 player gets ahead, everybody else gangs up on them) so finding the NE for those games may have limited usefulness.

Originally Posted by PairTheBoard
Do we even know if poker has a NE? My impression is there are transitivity problems. A can beat B. B can beat C. But C can beat A. Pretty sure the game has not been solved or they would have bots playing optimally.
-----------------



You've said this about a dozen times itt and I still have no idea what you're talking about. How exactly do you envision a cooperative effort to discover the NE and/or optimal strategy for Poker? Would people play poker and if someone is losing start to soft play him or something? Or stop the game and everybody teach him to play better? What really is your idea here? And how is it anything someone couldn't program a computer to search for in the same way a lot faster?

Also, supposing such a thing could be done, please explain exactly how that would provide the "tools" you've talked about to bring about a one world peace?

While you're at it, please explain exactly what it was Nash had to say about Einstein's theory of relativity? I've certainly not read it nor have I ever heard about it. So please explain what it is you're referring to. A link would be nice as well.

PairTheBoard

All players work together to solve poker.

Sorry if you still don't understand but you might understand now without me having to explain.

I don't know but it obv Nash could see through time in the same way K describes, there was an interview somewhere, within a couple years that said he had a better solution for Einsteins relativity work. We should obv find it before we take anything I say as valid.

nothing newguy says will be considered valid until he can provide nash's solution of relativity that was better than einstein's.

We should go into whether or not each of you would continue to play poker under the same context if you new that solving poker would bring peace to the world. Would you continue to exploit players and hide your knowledge on it. Or would you join the cause?

that line of thought is invalid.