Barbarossa wrote:I have already provided on numerous occasions and in countless posts very substantial ideas on what could be theoretically a perfect ideal Defcon game of the hypothetical future.
First off, I disagree with that statement, but I have already pointed out why and how. The discussion has clearly evolved beyond a simple discussion about a hypothetical multi-scale game.
Barbarossa wrote:From the beginning it has always been self-evident to any reasonable mind that you have made it a point to be dismissive and condescending, purposefully argumentative (for no other seemingly sane reason other than to boost your own ego, and to plain argue because you feel like you can), close-minded, and with that pompous air of arrogance of yours you have displayed an undue amount of ignorance.
I call them like I see them.
Barbarossa wrote:Jordy misquotes me on several occasions, and you take it on your own initiative to extend upon that error with your further addendums of fallacious straw man and ad hominem attacks.
First off, whether or not Jordy... misquoted you, I was responding to his statements, absent your own. My response to him was unrelated to anything you said. That you took it as an attack on you belies a persecution complex (as does the entire body of the post to which I am responding).
Barbarossa wrote:Then you attempt to undermine and derail my posts, under the guise and pretext of academia.
It has nothing to do with attempting to "undermine and derail" your posts. You proposed a very pie-in-the-sky world simulator, and I asked how you would make it into a game (1
). You then made some very general statements about the economy, the state of the art, and the nature of reality (2
). You did not answer my question. Instead, you opened up the can of worms with which we are now playing. And yet you have the audacity to accuse me of derailing the topic.
Barbarossa wrote:(If you ask me, self-promotion is more like it..)
Ah, yes. My internet penis gets bigger with every post!
Barbarossa wrote:Never mind the fact that contrary to your alleged and purported so-called rebuttals and rude misinformed remarks I have never even claimed mathematics was the underlying language of physics nor did I ever state all physics can be reduced to math..
Nor have I claimed that you did.
Barbarossa wrote:yet you [i](a self proclaimed academic erudite, bachelors in mathematics who takes it upon himself to not only openly and promiscuously flaunt his so called title whenever the slightest inkling of an opportunity arises or presents itself but also to instruct and dictate to others to "self censor" in any topic or subject that you yourself deem too complicated or complex to understand)
As far as I know, I have only brought that up in the topic, as a way of demonstrating that I know enough to know that I don't know what I am talking about. I know enough mathematics to know that chaotic dynamical systems are extremely complicated and difficult to understand, and to know that there are very deep flaws in the average person's understanding of those systems. You demonstrated ignorance of those systems in your post, and I called you on that ignorance. You don't like my tone? Get the fuck over it. The content is just as valid, whether presented by a nice guy or an asshole.
To wit: you made the assumption that the butterfly effect has some deeper meaning than it does---that it relates to the real (or empirical, or physical, or however you want to describe it) world in some way. In fact, the butterfly effect is the result of models that to not perfectly reflect the real world. You also made the implicit assumption that the butterfly effect has predictable results, which it does not (assuming that we are talking only about the models, and not the real world).
You made a mistake in interpretation which was compounded by your next post (3
). It happens. Move on.
Barbarossa wrote:go on to spread your disinformation in the context that (and I paraphrase) "..anything existential/platonic or mathematical isn't real and has no real connection with the real world other than inside one's imagination.."
You claim that this is misinformation. I disagree. At worst, we come from different epistemological standpoints. Clearly, there are mappings from the empirical world to the mathematical ideals, but they are neither one-to-one nor onto. The empirical world and the world of mathematical ideals are disconnected, and related to each other only through the application of human intelligence (i.e. imagination). However, if you feel that Platonic ideals do exist in the tangible, empirical world somewhere, please point me in the right direction.
Barbarossa wrote:When I presented you with the facts that the "real world" isn't any more substantive than the platonic world, you give my insights not the due diligence that it deserves but the sort of cursory and condescending treatment that has become typical of your style and tone of text.
You presented no facts. You presented three links. The first and third were presentations of assertions, without evidence. The second was somewhat more interesting, but still did not establish as a fact that the real world is without substance. It made that argument, but in no way did it present that point of view as incontrovertible fact. Perhaps that is why it was published in a journal of philosophy, rather than a journal of physics?
Barbarossa wrote:Instead of climbing down from your Ivory Tower and examining your own misconceptions, you continue to choose to play armchair devil's advocate, without the slightest bit of substantive reasoning or logic to back up your mindless assertions
That's funny, coming from you. You have asserted
that the real world is some kind of mental construct. You have provided basically zero evidence that this is true. One of the nice things about science is that it gives us evidence that there is, if not an objective reality, at least a pretty consistent intersurjective reality. There is a great commonality in the experiences that people have. This speaks to a world that is independent of the observers. Go science!
The reality of this situation is proven every day by functional power generators, vaccines for deadly diseases, and images from other planets. It seems to me that it is rather stupid to reject this observable universe in favor of vapid claims about mystical quanta that are poorly understood and even more poorly described.
Barbarossa wrote:(if we can even call it that)
By the way, I love these little parenthetical attacks. You must be really angry to make them. Perhaps you should take a few deep breaths, and try to figure out why I am annoying you so much. Personally, I don't have a dog in this fight (well, I don't like wishy-washy woo-woo psuedo-science very much, but I am not deeply offended by it), but I do like to argue, and I really don't care if it offends you. However, I would note that I have attacked not you, but your ideas. Perhaps you could show the same courtesy?
Barbarossa wrote: - and then when that doesn't work out as planned you resort to foul language and childish juvenile behavior.
No, I use foul language because I fucking love it. Profanity is a wonderful thing. It is a great part of our fucking language. Perhaps you should use more god damned profanity. It might keep you from feeling like shit when your ideas are attacked.
Barbarossa wrote:Despite my genuine intentions to put reason into you,
Ah, the great Barbarossa, descended from the heavens to fill me with his warm, creamy reason!
Perhaps if you made a reasonable argument, I might be able to see your reason.
Barbarossa wrote:for causes unfathomable and unbeknownest to me you have steadfastly chosen to engage in what can only be described as some sort of propaganda smear campaign against me
Not against you. I don't care who you are. Your ideas
are what make no sense, and are deserving of mockery. You should not identify yourself so much with your ideas. As far as I can tell you are a perfectly nice person (based on posts in other parts of the forum). IN this particular topic, you are spouting a like of bullshit that makes no fucking sense.
Barbarossa wrote:- you are undoubtedly not one shy or reserved with deploying the underhanded tactics of doublethink and misinformation..
More personal attacks without basis.
Barbarossa wrote:Using the scientific method, and unless you can provide verifiable proof to me that there is indeed a "physicality" to the "physical world"
Incorrect. The scientific method cannot be used to prove existence, only non-existence. That is the basic idea of falsifiability. Here's how it works:
- Scientist A proposes a hypothesis to explain how the universe works (say, for instance, that mass, distance, and acceleration due to gravity are related by a proportion of some kind).
- Scientist A and other scientists examine this hypothesis to see what kind of effects this would have in the world. The goal is to create experiments that would result in contradictions if the theory is wrong. If contradictions are found, one of two things will happen: (a) the hypothesis will be tweaked to better match the empirical results, or (b) the hypothesis will be rejected in favor of another hypothesis.
- In the case of (2a), the hypothesis is modified and new experiments are devised to disprove it.
- In the case of (2b), the new hypothesis is tested. Note that in the absence of a new hypothesis, scientists will generally continue to work with the old one. This is why Newtonian physics lasted for 200 years before it was (mostly) rejected in favor of general relativity. People knew that there were problems with Newton's model, but no one could propose a better model.
Number (4), along with a definition of the "physical" world, is the important bit. I have argued that the physical world consists of those things that are perceived by human senses, and by mechanical extensions of those senses. Since the label "physical world" seems to bother you, why don't we call it something else---say, the empirical world. Do you have another definition that you would like to provide?
In the absence of a definition from you, the vast body of scientific work over the last several centuries support the existence of my empirical world. Different observers across time and space are able to observe the universe and come to the same general conclusions. Despite efforts to show that, for instance, the speed of light is not a constant, all observers have concluded that it is. Experiments have been done to demonstrate that the empirical world is inconsistent, and they have failed to find those inconsistencies---that is, experiments and observations give the same results across time and space. Eclipses can be predicted, and all observers of any given eclipse report seeing the same thing. Different geneticists can take the same DNA sample and get the same sequence. There seems to be a great deal of intersubjective agreement, which points to some objective, empirical world.
That is my evidence for a physical world, as well as an understanding of what that world entails and implies. Either provide counter-evidence, or provide a different definition for what is meant by a physical world.
Barbarossa wrote:(and I fail to see how that is possible when "sense data" is all we ever have, given the same set of "scientific" assumptions that there is a ontological dichotomy of duality and that indeed there is subjective and objective, internal and external reality, etc)
This statement is utterly baffling to me. You can either assume that your senses do a reasonable job of reporting the world to you, or you can assume that they are terrible. If our senses are terrible, how do you explain the commonality of experience described above? Also, where do you see this dichotomy? Can you define your terms, please? What do you mean by internal and external reality? If there is not an objective reality, how do you explain the results provided by scientific endeavor? Moreover, if the universe is not an objective place, but our models (which you claim depend upon an objective reality) continue to provide us with a good enough picture of the world that we can land probes on Mars and harness power from atoms, why does it matter that the universe is not objective? i.e. if it behaves objectively, and we can perform useful science under that behaviour, why should we assume that it is not objective?
Barbarossa wrote:you are in no more of a qualified position to call or label my enlightened assertions as "incoherent nonsense" as I am to question the long held traditional assumptions and status quo of the current scientific paradigm.
Your self-proclaimed enlightened assertions are just that: assertions. They are provided without evidence. If you have a better model of how the universe works, great. Don't just assert that it is better (as you are doing). Demonstrate why it is better. Provide evidence that it is the correct model.
Barbarossa wrote:And as for "fries with bullshit"? What is this? Second grade?
I thought it was funnier than simply calling it bullshit.
Barbarossa wrote:You ask for proof. What exactly is it that you would like me to prove to you?
I have outlined that above. Or, if you are really worried about this topic moving off on tangents (I am not, because the nature of communication and discussion is that topics will move off on tangents, but hey, whatever floats your boat), why don't you explain to me how a world simulator with multiple scales of control can be made into a good game. Don't make vague assertions about how, with enough time and money, it could be done. Explain what you would do, if you had that time and money.
Barbarossa wrote:What constitutes as valid proof in your opinion?
Evidence, not proof. I have provided examples of evidence which seem to indicate that there is an objective (or, at least, a consistent intersubjective) reality. Explain to me why the common experiences of human kind should not be taken as evidence of an "real world," and how your model can explain these shared experiences. Moreover, give me a way to falsify your model (my model could be falsified if we found out, for instance, that different scientists in different parts of the world measured the speed of light to be vastly different).
Barbarossa wrote:(I'm not sure I really want to ask that, lmao)
Barbarossa wrote:How can I prove to a blind man the qualitative color of red?
What does this even mean? Are you are asking "Can I give a blind man the experience of red?" If so, the answer is "Probably not" (although there have been some interesting experiments with deaf people and electrical stimulus to the tongue, allowing them to "taste" sound---their experience of middle C might not be the same as mine, but they are still experiencing middle C).
Of course, the other question is, what is the big deal about "the qualitative color red?" People perceive the world differently. Brains process the world differently. Some people cannot perceive the color red. Why is this such a deep meta-physical problem for you? I don't understand why this is such a crisis for empirical methods, and why it automatically implies quantum perception and woo-woo physics.
Barbarossa wrote:Your entire stream of consciousness is so random and haphazard its a wonder anyone could decipher what you were attempting to convey at all - minus all the moments when you are sprouting gibberish - which unfortunately is way too often.
I reply to the posts that you make. Perhaps if your posts weren't so random and haphazard, it would be possible to reply in a way that satisfies you.
Barbarossa wrote:I witness a supreme ironic and twisted sort of hypocrisy in you..
This should be good...
Barbarossa wrote:I come on this forum at the request of sfericz to help "enliven it".. I do my best to come up with ideas that I think would make a better version of Defcon, and if you don't agree with them that's fine.
This is so not about your Defcon ideas. Don't get me wrong, I think that your ideas are crap, for two very different reasons. First, I don't think that your ideas are in the spirit of Defcon. Defcon is a very simple game: there are nine units (silos, airbases, radar, battleships, subs, carriers, fighters, bombers, and nukes), and a fairly simple set of rules according to which those units behave. Defcon is, at heart, not a simulation of anything in the real world, but an attempt to recreate the feeling of staring that the "big board" from a movie like Wargames. It is, at that point, already two levels of abstraction away from anything that might be considered the real world, and it is designed to be simple.
Your proposal, on the other hand, is to simulate every level of reality, and remove as much abstraction as you can (never mind the fact that by removing some of those abstractions, you would actually make the game less
realistic, rather than more realistic). This makes me believe that you have utterly failed to understand what makes Defcon a good game, and what the developers intended Defcon to be.
Second, I don't see how your scale-spanning game could possibly make an enjoyable game. Let us leave aside, for a moment, the whole global thermonuclear war scenario. Let us talk about an abstract game where a player can play at any level, from first person shooter mode to god mode, in real time, against other players (others have noted that there are single player games that do some of this, and I am convinced by their arguments---a single player game such as you describe could work). As I have pointed out before (and as bert pointed out
), the game will devolve into either macro- or micro-management only, as it is going to be impossible to balance the macro- and micro- levels in such a way that both will be relevant to the outcome. Either the battle will be decided by good strategy at the macro level, or good tactics at the micro level. That sweet spot, in my opinion, unattainable.
Hence, your "better version" of Defcon is fatally flawed because (a) it is not Defcon and (b) it is not a viable game design.
Barbarossa wrote:It is not your place to tell me or anyone else not to post something simply because years back someone already posted something vaguely similar to it.
This is a freely accessible forum. Anyone can post anything they like, and, unless a moderator or admin gets pissy, they are within their rights. Moreover, the community generally polices the posts of other people. Posts (and worse, new topics) from new people that suggest ideas that have been discussed to death in the past show a disrespect for this community. It means that the poster did not make even a cursory attempt to learn the culture of these forums, nor did they try to see if their ideas actually were new, original, or interesting to the denizens of these forums. I generally try to point these hapless newbies in the right direction. Is my tone abrasive? Perhaps. But is the general content of such posts useful, if taken to heart? I think so.
You are welcome to disagree, but in the absence of specific examples, I don't know what else I can say.
Barbarossa wrote:But I would like to inform you that derailing other people's input
First off, you are responsible for the "derailment" in this thread. If you didn't want to discuss philosophy, you shouldn't have brought it up. Second, I don't see a problem with things going off topic, especially in this topic, which has become a dead horse that some newbie beats on every couple of months. There was no active conversation here before you posted, and, as I pointed out above, conversations have a tendency to ramble. I don't see a problem with this.
Barbarossa wrote:and injecting your own censorship
I am not censoring anyone. I don't have the power to stop you from posting, or to delete your posts. You are free to post bullshit, and I am free to call it bullshit.
Barbarossa wrote:through distraction via masquerading it as "nonsense"
If it quacks like a duck...
Barbarossa wrote:or indirectly referring or implying that it is "trolling"
I have not once called you a troll.
Barbarossa wrote:or indirectly referring through your self proclaimed "high and senior position"
My position is neither self-proclaimed, nor high and senior. I am a regular on these boards, and have been for a number of years. In most communities, people who have been around for a while tend to garner some respect, especially if they make positive contributions to that community. I would like to think that I have made some positive contributions around here, and I get the feeling that there are a few people here that listen to what I have to say, in the same way that there are a lot of veterans that I respect (in this topic, for instance, both bert_the_turtle and Montyphy are deserving of respect for time served and positive contributions to the community, among others).
I do not claim to have a high and senior position here, so I don't see how I can have a self-proclaimed position of that nature. I would hope that I have the well-wishes of certain community members around here, but, even if I do, I don't see how that gives me a "high and senior position" to anyone.
Barbarossa wrote:is not equitable, etiquette, polite and nor is it civil.
As you have finally discovered in the post that I am replying to, civility is overrated. Why should pretend that a steaming pile of shit is a rose in the name of civility? You made some bold assertions, and failed to back them up. I called you on it. I would call that clear communication. If you don't like it, ignore me. As to equitability, you and I are both free to say whatever you like. We are on equal footing. How is it not equitable?
Barbarossa wrote:But of course, I don't expect that to register with you.
Yup. I'm just a dumb hick.
Barbarossa wrote:I've quickly learned, through empirical experience, that with people like yourself, nothing ever really registers.
Oh, boy! I'm a stereotype now!
Barbarossa wrote:You are still welcome to discuss and exchange ideas, whether they be Defcon related or otherwise. But if your whole purpose of replying to my posts is to blindly attack me because of whatever reasons only you would know
I have not attacked you. I have attacked your bullshit ideas. There is a difference.
Barbarossa wrote:- then I'm afraid I won't bother to stoop down to your level.
Too late. The ad hominems
in the cyan text above speak volumes.