Introversion

bert_the_turtle,

Correct I don't see how multiplayer would work unless it was some MMPORG and everything was set to 'real time' (or at least real time on the most nano level)
but then I supposed others who have mentioned this time and again would be correct in saying that such a dragged out and prolonged warfare would take too much attention away from what is the general theme of Defcon. Even great movies, stories, and friendships have time limited.. I understand when you drag out a game that should have last 30minutes to 30 days the whole essence of it is lost. As much as I loved to watch the movie Titanic had it last 8 hours instead of 3.5 hours even I'd get bored of it.

As for singleplayer I don't see why this couldn't be done (absent the economic recession and death of PC gaming) it would be "turn based" in the sense that the player controls the turns and the time rate. And the player wouldn't even have to be everywhere doing everything at once. If you play as weapons control and do well that "score"/rank is remembered and reflected and migrated to every other allianced submarine weapons control station, you eventually move up to Captain and your command style, your stats, your preferences are copied to all other captains of the similar types of ships or fleets.. Basically in this manner you could personalized your entire military to reflect your style, or skills and ability, your values and believes and then spend most of your time on the high level, (or do time compression and let the NPC versions of you do the battle in warped time) and then only every down and then go down to one of the lower levels and play the game that way.

Also Bert, I was thinking more along the lines of one grant MMPORG where there is only ever one single epic Defcon game going on at any one time. This always for the "persistent" state of things I talked about earlier. All the online players who join will be in that game, if you leave your stats will be saved and an appropriate NPC of similar skill levels will take your place until you come back. Since the only time is "real time" that solves the temporal scaling dilemma. And players on each and every abstraction level will for the most part only interact in environments with others of equal or lateral abstraction levels.. So an FPS would still be shooting and dodging from other FPS on the battlefield, generals will still be high level commanding with other generals of the same team or against generals of the other side(s).. fighter pilots will still be fighting other fighter pilots.. etc

The major difference would be the level of immersiveness.. gameplay would be truly embodied and the local and and global systems would somehow be made to interact like never before. If a cargo plane gets shot down because the fighter jet escorting the precious cargo was unable to protect and defend it, well that adds to the logistics problem for troops on the ground or in the front line that are in desperate need of whatever supplies or ammunition.. the outcome of a fighter jet simulation has an effect on all other elements of the war. So it would be different from a turn based game in the since that everything is dynamically running in real time, and each and every action has the potential to affect everything and everyone else. This would not be deterministic insofar as we assume or accept as given (whether it is actually true or not) that humans ourselves are not deterministic. Since (like any hierarchy) most of the players would be on the "bottom rungs".. this capitalistic democracy gives everyone a motive to do well and command more people and move to the top. Emergent properties would arise out of the complexities of the individual players on the lower levels.. taken in aggregate and as a totality, the lower levels affect the high level strategies of those on top of the chain of command, and the reverse is true: high level strategy constraints the mission parameters for the lower levels. A game in which both the top-down and bottom-up play a vital role.

In single-player everyone can be command in chief, but in multilayer and as in real life, very few people make it to the top. Some/most people would be happy and content simply driving subs or flying jets, or directing air traffic, etc.. Specialization offers a certain element of fun that abstraction does not afford, and vice versa. But this is different than simply a bunch of war simulations crammed together .. it would be a dynamic war.. where all actions have some impact.. and whether or not it changes the ultimate "score" is largely irrelevant.. it is the experience that counts, and the experience is greatly enhanced whenever diverse interactions occur.

Barbarossa wrote:

Jordy... wrote:...But its like the butterfly effect of chaotic systems, you never know if one small victory could turn the tide..
Chaotic dynamical systems are one of the most misunderstood pieces of mathematics in the history of the world. Mention of chaos theory and the butterfly effect by anyone who doesn't have an advanced degree in mathematics should be punishable by hanging. It is almost as bad as woo-woo mentions of quantum mechanics. Fuck you, Michael Crichton.

I don't know shit about mathematics, but I do know some about chaotic dynamical systems, and I know that modern science all revolves around mathematical models and all, but what you're saying is just so short-sighted in mu opinion, math is old, and if anything, chaotic dynamic systems should spur the research into new ways of modeling and describing phenomena and theories.

If my little understanding of the butterfly effect is right, then it is that a system in which such a thing can happen, it is impossible to model trough math, and you need to search for larger patterns or whatever to be able to predict outcomes.

But please, continue your discussion on Defcon 2.

I'm not sure how the age of mathematics ("math is old") has anything to do with its validity. Physics is the underlying language of all physical systems, (every other discipline like biology, sociology, the many other sciences, etc) can be derived from and reduced to physics. Mathematics is the engine or language that drives physics.

There are some things that are impossible to "model"/describe/explain or convey through the use of language and symbolism of social constructs (however abstract, platonic or existential these may be) like English language, computer languages, and yes even mathematics itself, but chaotic dynamic systems should not be one of these.

Old, in the sense that it has become impractical and it's time to move on, not in the nominal sense of course.
It is not THE underlying language, it is THE underlying language USED to describe all these things. And I do not agree that all physics can be reduced to math.
All I'm saying, there should be a thought of a new method to describe physics, and chaos theory is one of the motivation to do it, since maths in it's current status walks to it's boundaries in describing chaos systems.
And the point of the butterfly effect, imo, is that it's impossible to predict these outcomes with math, or deterministic values.

But, I'm off-topic here, so please forgive me and carry on.

First off, Jordy..., I must thank you for not being a complete douche nozzle. You have actually responded to something that I have said (albeit indirectly) in a courteous and thoughtful manner. Maybe you aren't a trolly git, after all.

Jordy... wrote:It is not THE underlying language, it is THE underlying language USED to describe all these things. And I do not agree that all physics can be reduced to math.

I wouldn't even go that far. Mathematics is an abstraction. Nothing in mathematics exists in the real world. We take certain ideas, and declare them to be true, then see what the consequences are. It is all a mental game, with no connection to the real world. Take, for instance, the parallel line postulate of Euclid. One of the consequences of his postulate is that given a line and a point not on that line, there is only one line coplaner to the point and line that is parallel to the original line. In the last couple of centuries, mathematicians have proven that there are other possible systems where there are either an infinite number of parallel lines, or none at all (as an example of the former, consider the Poincare disk; as an example of the latter, consider the surface of a sphere, where all lines are defined to be great circles).

Why should we choose one geometric model over another? Does the universe adhere to Euclidean rules, or is it more like a multidimensional analog of the Poincare disk? As inhabitants of a roughly spherical world, spherical geometry may make more sense in many day to day tasks, such as navigation, but we are stuck with the Euclidean model for historical reasons.

The point is that none of these models actually exist in the real world. They are like a Platonic ideal of how things could work. Sometimes there are mappings from mathematics to the real world, for instance a cabinet maker can use Euclidean geometry to great effect. This doesn't mean that the universe is a Euclidean space, only that in certain conditions it is possible to describe certain parts of the universe with Euclidean ideals.

The math is still in the imagination of the mathematicians, but there are sometimes practical applications and approximations.

Jordy... wrote:All I'm saying, there should be a thought of a new method to describe physics, and chaos theory is one of the motivation to do it, since maths in it's current status walks to it's boundaries in describing chaos systems.

Again, mathematics should not be thought of as a way of describing the universe. The real world and the world of mathematics should be thought of as two separate domains. There are some mappings from one to the other, but there will never be a perfect match. When mathematicians attempted to model weather and climate using mathematics, they got some really startling results, namely that their models behaved in unpredictable ways. This does not mean that the climate actually behaves in this manner, only that the models do. If a model does not account for a butterfly flapping its wings, then the model will get different results than if it did account for it. This does not imply that a butterfly can fuck up the weather, only that the model does not match the real world perfectly.

Jordy... wrote:And the point of the butterfly effect, imo, is that it's impossible to predict these outcomes with math, or deterministic values.

And that is dead on correct.

xander

, I'm glad we're on better terms now. I agree with what you're saying, it's more precise then what I was trying to say. Altho I couldn't follow your explanation of the parallel line postulate of Euclid, I got your point.

And what I was really trying to argue, is that maybe there are other methods for describing, clarifying, predicting, etc. universal phenomena.
Math has it knows problems for quite a while and probably more unsolvable problems will come, yet mathematicians try to work there way around these problems in all kind of crafty and intelligent ways, but also clutter the math more and more.
Now science begins to realize the immense inter-connection between different kind of agents and systems and the importance of adaptive systems in nature and probably in all kinds of applications, it is now probably more then ever time to start to think of new ways to replace math.

Cause, correct me if I'm wrong, math is above all a deterministic system based on platonic ideals. Likewise science is largely structured that way. And all tho we might work our way around certain problems in artistic mathematic models, that get the same outcome as real life events, it will grind to an end eventually I think, or considerably slow down at least.
Maybe it's time for some eastern philosophical influence in our western science base, and let loose our appraisal of deterministic models and values.

xander wrote:First off, Jordy..., I must thank you for not being a complete douche nozzle. You have actually responded to something that I have said (albeit indirectly) in a courteous and thoughtful manner. Maybe you aren't a trolly git, after all.

Jordy... wrote:It is not THE underlying language, it is THE underlying language USED to describe all these things. And I do not agree that all physics can be reduced to math.

I wouldn't even go that far. Mathematics is an abstraction. Nothing in mathematics exists in the real world. We take certain ideas, and declare them to be true, then see what the consequences are. It is all a mental game, with no connection to the real world. Take, for instance, the parallel line postulate of Euclid. One of the consequences of his postulate is that given a line and a point not on that line, there is only one line coplaner to the point and line that is parallel to the original line. In the last couple of centuries, mathematicians have proven that there are other possible systems where there are either an infinite number of parallel lines, or none at all (as an example of the former, consider the Poincare disk; as an example of the latter, consider the surface of a sphere, where all lines are defined to be great circles).

Why should we choose one geometric model over another? Does the universe adhere to Euclidean rules, or is it more like a multidimensional analog of the Poincare disk? As inhabitants of a roughly spherical world, spherical geometry may make more sense in many day to day tasks, such as navigation, but we are stuck with the Euclidean model for historical reasons.

The point is that none of these models actually exist in the real world. They are like a Platonic ideal of how things could work. Sometimes there are mappings from mathematics to the real world, for instance a cabinet maker can use Euclidean geometry to great effect. This doesn't mean that the universe is a Euclidean space, only that in certain conditions it is possible to describe certain parts of the universe with Euclidean ideals.

The math is still in the imagination of the mathematicians, but there are sometimes practical applications and approximations.

Jordy... wrote:All I'm saying, there should be a thought of a new method to describe physics, and chaos theory is one of the motivation to do it, since maths in it's current status walks to it's boundaries in describing chaos systems.

Again, mathematics should not be thought of as a way of describing the universe. The real world and the world of mathematics should be thought of as two separate domains. There are some mappings from one to the other, but there will never be a perfect match. When mathematicians attempted to model weather and climate using mathematics, they got some really startling results, namely that their models behaved in unpredictable ways. This does not mean that the climate actually behaves in this manner, only that the models do. If a model does not account for a butterfly flapping its wings, then the model will get different results than if it did account for it. This does not imply that a butterfly can fuck up the weather, only that the model does not match the real world perfectly.

Jordy... wrote:And the point of the butterfly effect, imo, is that it's impossible to predict these outcomes with math, or deterministic values.

And that is dead on correct.

xander

The terms "real" (ie real world) and "existence" are often used and applied quite liberally and loosely by most people. What is it for something to be 'real' or to be said to 'exists' at all? Are there not many forms of existence? Who or what is to say that platonic existence is any bit more or less real than the so-called "physical world"? How does one define vigorously "existence" or "reality" or what is the 'a priori' model of a definition in the first place? See the likes of : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UniversalExplanation

To a blind person who has never experienced colors before no amount of words, equations, knowledge of physics or understanding of the EM spectrum will convey to him the canonical qualia of the raw sensations of the redness of red itself. Language/equations/(re)definitions are all wholly inadequate at conveying NEW qualia/experiences that can only be experienced first-hand directly! http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

Qualia exists outside both the abstract, logical and platonic realms of mathematics and outside the physicality of the so called physical universe and its physical domains. The QM wave function encodes everything there is to know about a physical system state and yet it leaves out "qualia".. (what could possibly encode the actual "redness" of "red"?) That is totally unaccounted for and seemingly inexplicable. The EPR Spooky experiments have proven that the hunt for a final quantum receptor ends in an impossible infinite regress unless one takes "consciousness"/qualia to be MORE fundamental than even the so called "physical" universe/multiverse itself! http://barbarossa.110mb.com/Can-Matter- ... usness.pdf

The many mysteries of quantum entanglement can be readily "resolved" if one takes the stance of "hard determinism" (instead of asking inane questions like 'how did the particle KNOW which orientation the researcher HAND IN MIND when he was making the observation?' -- as if the researcher had a "choice" in the matter!!!) and that there is truly nothing random (or nothing truly random, lol) and that "entanglement" is nonlocal, nontemporal, omnipresent and since it rests on the shoulders of determinism, it too can be reduced to nothing more but more empty rhetoric.. but it does wax poetic..

The fact that (for example) the Mandelbrot set contains infinitely more information density and complexity than the entire universe itself - and that all of our genetic structure (and in fact the entire universe itself) when encoded properly (the patterns at least) can be found in the sequence of PI (3.14159...) an infinite number of times indicates that the physical world/realm does not and can not possibly contain the "existential/abstract platonic/ epiphenomenon" realms and in fact it is the other way around. A perfect circle does not exist in the physical world but the Reals can in fact encode the entire universe. There is nothing "physical" about "physicality". Using the word "physical" doesn't add anything of substance. Its invocation is essentially empty rhetoric. Our entire universe is an emulation in qualia - qualia encodes all there is. Software is all there ever really is, even the "hardware" is 'software'..

Therefore the "hard problem of consciousness" aka "mind-body problem" will never be resolved by looking for 'awareness' in physical systems. No amount of emergent complexity or inanimate physicality will ever give rise to 'the redness of red' -- certainly no more than 'abracadabra'! It is in fact the
"machine that is in the ghost" and NOT the other way around.

Ultimately through, and I suspect just as Penrose had ventured to guess, the "three worlds dilemma" can only be united and satisfactorily unfed and understood when they are seen in some yet unbeknown perspective as one and the same. Saying that mathematics is any bit more or less 'real' than the "real world" is largely meaningless until or unless you can come up with a reformation of just what it means to define something as existing in "reality"..

Jordy... wrote:Cause, correct me if I'm wrong, math is above all a deterministic system based on platonic ideals.

Only if you discount the field of probability, which is decidedly non-deterministic.

Barbarossa wrote:--==<snip>==--

You know, it is bullshit philosophizing like this that (a) makes me glad that I studied mathematics in school and (b) makes me hate philosophy majors.

xander

xander wrote:

Jordy... wrote:Cause, correct me if I'm wrong, math is above all a deterministic system based on platonic ideals.

Only if you discount the field of probability, which is decidedly non-deterministic.

Barbarossa wrote:--==<snip>==--

You know, it is bullshit philosophizing like this that (a) makes me glad that I studied mathematics in school and (b) makes me hate philosophy majors.

xander

Except none of the was philosophy.

Barbarossa wrote:Except none of the was philosophy.

Well, it certainly isn't science, so how would you classify it?

xander

EDIT: To expand on that, you link to three articles supporting your view. The first is some random wanker's ramblings on Wikipedia. Those ramblings propose a kind of universal equation to describe the entire universe. This is not math, and is not physics. It falls into the realm of philosophy. It is spiced up with pretty mathematical looking notation, but is actually really nothing more than a bunch of pseudo-mathematical philosophizing. In fact, mathematically, it is gibberish. He is trying to create a logical system that is self-consistent, and can be used to model everything. This violates Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

The second link is from a publication of Imprint Academic, which, on their own website, says "Imprint Academic publishes books and peer-reviewed journals in philosophy, politics, psychology and religion." Reading over the references section of that paper, I see references to other articles in journals such as Neurophilosophy and Journal of Philosophy. He also cites the book Meditations on First Philosophy. Further investigation into the journals cited indicate other philosophy and related journals. The second author on the paper is the chair of the Philosophy department at Elmhurst College. That certainly looks like paper on philosophy to me.

The final link appears to be from your website. There is no author or association given, but the paper proposes to change the current scientific paradigm, and intorduce another. Again, this is s work of philosophy, not science. Moreover, that paper goes on about quantum mechanics in a way that makes no sense at all. Again, quantum mechanics is an area that has been exploited by a lot of woo pedaling charlatans. It is a very complicated and deep area of physics, and there are very few people in the world that actually understand the underlying theory well enough to comment on it. I am not one of those people, but it seems that I am not alone. The author of the last linked article seems to not understand quantum physics, either. The paper is a post-modern word salad, with a veneer of the scientific provided by quantum entanglement gobble-de-gook.

xander wrote:

Barbarossa wrote:Except none of the was philosophy.

Well, it certainly isn't science, so how would you classify it?

xander

EDIT: To expand on that, you link to three articles supporting your view. The first is some random wanker's ramblings on Wikipedia. Those ramblings propose a kind of universal equation to describe the entire universe. This is not math, and is not physics. It falls into the realm of philosophy. It is spiced up with pretty mathematical looking notation, but is actually really nothing more than a bunch of pseudo-mathematical philosophizing. In fact, mathematically, it is gibberish. He is trying to create a logical system that is self-consistent, and can be used to model everything. This violates Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

The second link is from a publication of Imprint Academic, which, on their own website, says "Imprint Academic publishes books and peer-reviewed journals in philosophy, politics, psychology and religion." Reading over the references section of that paper, I see references to other articles in journals such as Neurophilosophy and Journal of Philosophy. He also cites the book Meditations on First Philosophy. Further investigation into the journals cited indicate other philosophy and related journals. The second author on the paper is the chair of the Philosophy department at Elmhurst College. That certainly looks like paper on philosophy to me.

The final link appears to be from your website. There is no author or association given, but the paper proposes to change the current scientific paradigm, and intorduce another. Again, this is s work of philosophy, not science. Moreover, that paper goes on about quantum mechanics in a way that makes no sense at all. Again, quantum mechanics is an area that has been exploited by a lot of woo pedaling charlatans. It is a very complicated and deep area of physics, and there are very few people in the world that actually understand the underlying theory well enough to comment on it. I am not one of those people, but it seems that I am not alone. The author of the last linked article seems to not understand quantum physics, either. The paper is a post-modern word salad, with a veneer of the scientific provided by quantum entanglement gobble-de-gook.

It is your dualistic ways of thinking that prevent you from higher levels of realization and understanding. Merely applying labels of convenience and demarcating this as "philosophy" or that as "science" (or the so called scientific method) is a futile and roundabout way of getting no where and making no progress. What you are fallaciously doing is attempting to attach meaning to these labels where none exists - as if magically by classifying or categorizing these things into neat little boxes you would tell yourself you've created an explanation space for these phenomenon of which you cannot adequately explain and do not really understand. Throughout history many things that were once part of the 'realm' of religion or philosophy are now incorporated as scientific canon.. I suggest you learn a bit more about the reality of the world and existence that we actually live in before jumping to closed-minded and (more importantly) incorrect conclusions.

Barbarossa wrote:It is your dualistic ways of thinking that prevent you from higher levels of realization and understanding. Merely applying labels of convenience and demarcating this as "philosophy" or that as "science" (or the so called scientific method) is a futile and roundabout way of getting no where and making no progress. What you are fallaciously doing is attempting to attach meaning to these labels where none exists - as if magically by classifying or categorizing these things into neat little boxes you would tell yourself you've created an explanation space for these phenomenon of which you cannot adequately explain and do not really understand. Throughout history many things that were once part of the 'realm' of religion or philosophy are now incorporated as scientific canon.. I suggest you learn a bit more about the reality of the world and existence that we actually live in before jumping to closed-minded and (more importantly) incorrect conclusions.

I can't help but feel that you are one of the Bogdanov brothers.

Montyphy wrote:

Barbarossa wrote:It is your dualistic ways of thinking that prevent you from higher levels of realization and understanding. Merely applying labels of convenience and demarcating this as "philosophy" or that as "science" (or the so called scientific method) is a futile and roundabout way of getting no where and making no progress. What you are fallaciously doing is attempting to attach meaning to these labels where none exists - as if magically by classifying or categorizing these things into neat little boxes you would tell yourself you've created an explanation space for these phenomenon of which you cannot adequately explain and do not really understand. Throughout history many things that were once part of the 'realm' of religion or philosophy are now incorporated as scientific canon.. I suggest you learn a bit more about the reality of the world and existence that we actually live in before jumping to closed-minded and (more importantly) incorrect conclusions.

I can't help but feel that you are one of the Bogdanov brothers.

No, I've not heard of them.

Barbarossa wrote:It is your dualistic ways of thinking that prevent you from higher levels of realization and understanding. Merely applying labels of convenience and demarcating this as "philosophy" or that as "science" (or the so called scientific method) is a futile and roundabout way of getting no where and making no progress. What you are fallaciously doing is attempting to attach meaning to these labels where none exists - as if magically by classifying or categorizing these things into neat little boxes you would tell yourself you've created an explanation space for these phenomenon of which you cannot adequately explain and do not really understand. Throughout history many things that were once part of the 'realm' of religion or philosophy are now incorporated as scientific canon.. I suggest you learn a bit more about the reality of the world and existence that we actually live in before jumping to closed-minded and (more importantly) incorrect conclusions.

Yay! More post-modern pap. Let me know when you come up with something that can, you know, actually do something useful for someone.

xander

xander wrote:

Barbarossa wrote:It is your dualistic ways of thinking that prevent you from higher levels of realization and understanding. Merely applying labels of convenience and demarcating this as "philosophy" or that as "science" (or the so called scientific method) is a futile and roundabout way of getting no where and making no progress. What you are fallaciously doing is attempting to attach meaning to these labels where none exists - as if magically by classifying or categorizing these things into neat little boxes you would tell yourself you've created an explanation space for these phenomenon of which you cannot adequately explain and do not really understand. Throughout history many things that were once part of the 'realm' of religion or philosophy are now incorporated as scientific canon.. I suggest you learn a bit more about the reality of the world and existence that we actually live in before jumping to closed-minded and (more importantly) incorrect conclusions.

Yay! More post-modern pap. Let me know when you come up with something that can, you know, actually do something useful for someone.

xander

That depends entirely on what you mean by utility. I'll be honest, quite frankly I haven't figured out what is the ultimate teleological means-to-an-end of anything and everything at all. Life is a pattern, a meme, that exists simply because well anthropically it could, and so the laws of darwinistic evolution dictate that it will. The struggle for existence is the only real goal, everything else are just distractions along the way. To exist.. simply just to exist.

Though I'd like to think pattern is the essence of form, and all manifestations and expressions of existence that exists as these multifaceted relativisms in all its resplendent glory have by default intrinsic meaning and value of their own. Contrast is what gives rise to existence, because to exists is to be, and to stand out...and that is its own meaning, purpose, value and utility - in albeit a self-recursive, and self-determinant manner. The experience of the full and all-encompassing spectrum and range of canonical and higher order qualia (even for example, differences in opinions) is what life is all about. Ironically, this isn't far off from what I was hoping to be the ultimate ideal Defcon game. In a world that is full of illusions, our dreams become the ultimate reality.

Old, in the sense that it has become impractical and it's time to move on, not in the nominal sense of course.
It is not THE underlying language, it is THE underlying language USED to describe all these things. And I do not agree that all physics can be reduced to math.
All I'm saying, there should be a thought of a new method to describe physics, and chaos theory is one of the motivation to do it, since maths in it's current status walks to it's boundaries in describing chaos systems.
And the point of the butterfly effect, imo, is that it's impossible to predict these outcomes with math, or deterministic values.

But, I'm off-topic here, so please forgive me and carry on.

Hey you misquoted me. I never said mathematics was the underlying language of anything. I stated that "Physics is the underlying language of all physical systems".. I didn't say all physics can be reduced to math. I said "all physical systems, (every other discipline like biology, sociology, the many other sciences, etc) can be derived from and reduced to physics." I'm unclear in what you mean by "a new method to describe physics".. Is chaos theory in the forefront of improving the standard model of physics? Is it going to bridge the gap between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and finally be able to explain the totality of observable physical phenomenon on all scales? I'm not saying the truth is to be found in some variant of string theory or that kind of stuff.. But to that end, I disagree with your opinion that chaos systems will carry us forward into the final frontier of physics and science.