The Forum Games Discussion Thread - Farming RPG Coming Soon

For all your silly time-killing forum games.

Moderators: jestingrabbit, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Vytron
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:11 am UTC
Location: The Outside. I use She/He/Her/His/Him as gender neutral pronouns :P

The Forum Games Discussion Thread - Farming RPG Coming Soon

Postby Vytron » Sat Jun 29, 2013 11:30 pm UTC

For a list of Moderated games check: Moderated Games List (for MODS)

Old Organized Games List:


--------

In this thread, you can discuss stuff! Yeah!

We should keep the discussion lighthearted and silly, and that if you have to post a trigger warning at all it's probably a topic best left for discussion in Serious Business, so we in forum games can focus on pointless things like insignificant grammar rules and time travel. You know, the really important stuff.


Like, stuff other people want to keep out of their game threads! Or, as it turns out, non-game threads!

Maybe this topic will be useful on the future.

dudiobugtron wrote:re: "Vytron vs it", one could equally argue:
Vytron wrote:The reason 'xey' doesn't work is because:

Jaime was sitting on Jaione. Xey had four legs.

Wait, who? Jaime or Jaione?


Using "he/she" makes it unambiguous, and we even know Jaime's gender, but using "xey" doesn't make it unambiguous without revealing that. It makes it ambiguous (this joke doesn't work with 'xey'). And yes, Jaime had four legs.


Wait, what? Did you blindly convert the argument into a new one without reading it? Because, using "she" or "he" wouldn't make it unambiguous, as Jaione could be male or female. If she and he don't work, it's no surprise xey doesn't work either.

You'd need to reformulate the statement to be unambiguous, while with the chair and xey example, you don't need to, because xey can't refer to the chair (there's it for that.)

dudiobugtron wrote:Ambiguity in pronouns is exactly my design in recommending 'it'. Maximising ambiguity is the only way to stop pronouns being used to distinguish between people. Why do we need pronouns that make a distinction on gender? Or on humanity? Or on (for eg) hair colour?


If it's relevant, then I don't have a problem with a word like blonde.

Also, "it was beautiful" doesn't say anything to me, "she was beautiful" tells me a lot.
Last edited by Vytron on Thu Jan 14, 2016 5:04 am UTC, edited 19 times in total.

User avatar
Vytron
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:11 am UTC
Location: The Outside. I use She/He/Her/His/Him as gender neutral pronouns :P

Re: The Discussion Game!

Postby Vytron » Sat Jun 29, 2013 11:50 pm UTC

((Take that as a satirical message following Poe's law - I don't really have a strong position on the issue, calling everything 'it' may actually work))

User avatar
dudiobugtron
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:14 am UTC
Location: The Outlier

Re: The Discussion Game!

Postby dudiobugtron » Sun Jun 30, 2013 12:06 am UTC

Vytron wrote:In this thread, you can discuss stuff! Yeah! Like, stuff other people want to keep out of their game threads! Or, as it turns out, non-game threads!

Sounds like a fun game - but how do we win? Do you have to reply to the previous person's post? Is there another gimmick?
And if not, why not just put it in general?

Anyway, I'll assume you have to make a reply to the previous poster's argument, and then make a new argument that the next person has to reply to.

Re Vytron's argument:
I wasn't trying to argue that xey is better than 'he' or 'she'; that was your argument. I was trying to argue that 'xey' still has ambiguities and so isn't better than 'it', which I did.
If we're scoring, then: Vytron: 0, dudiobugtron: 1 :P

My new argument:
I think that child sexuality should be encouraged, like it is in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. As soon as we have some way of preventing that being abused by gross lecherers. Children who have been brought up to understand their bodies and their sexuality will be much happier and less repressed, and also our society will be a lot better off too.
Image

User avatar
Vytron
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:11 am UTC
Location: The Outside. I use She/He/Her/His/Him as gender neutral pronouns :P

Re: The Discussion Game!

Postby Vytron » Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:11 pm UTC

dudiobugtron wrote:
Vytron wrote:In this thread, you can discuss stuff! Yeah! Like, stuff other people want to keep out of their game threads! Or, as it turns out, non-game threads!

Sounds like a fun game - but how do we win? Do you have to reply to the previous person's post? Is there another gimmick?
And if not, why not just put it in general?


It's meant to be related to Forum Games, or to include people that play in Forum Games, more, localized discussion, like, we can share our opinions of the development of the Broken Picture Telephone game, or what would we have posted on the Minimize the post:view ratio! thread if it didn't have <272195 views, and I think such discussions wouldn't be right to have in General, specially as most people there wouldn't have a clue of what we're talking about - but ALSO, a thread like this encourages Forum Gamers to participate in the discussion so we know their opinions on stuff and more about them (I don't even visit the General Thread and stick to Forum Games and Time Thread only).

We can even use it to discuss what kind of games people would be interesting in playing, so mods can create them, akin to the The Gojoe Memorial Mafia Discussion Thread in the Mafia subforum.

OF COURSE, just discussion generalized like we've been doing is fine, since it's more likely only Forum Gamers will participate, which is the point.

BTW, how does one win in the Hugs game? D:

Note: I had thought about creating a thread to discuss other Forum Game threads since long time ago, but didn't have a reason to create it until now, thanks Weeks and Belial!

dudiobugtron wrote:I wasn't trying to argue that xey is better than 'he' or 'she'; that was your argument.


What? No, my argument was that it was better than it and other genderneutral pronouns... Actually, I forgot to say xey sounds much more neutral than xe (looks like he), zhe (looks like she), xyr (looks stupid), etc. - What we need is standardizing the usage of "they" for third person neutral, without the ambiguity of referring to one or more than one person.

dudiobugtron wrote:I was trying to argue that 'xey' still has ambiguities and so isn't better than 'it'


It adds the extra ambiguity that people are confused with objects. When several people are in place, it's more efficient to just call them by names, as in "Jaime had four legs", but if there's only one person then xey suffices unambiguously.

dudiobugtron wrote:If we're scoring, then: Vytron: 0, dudiobugtron: 1 :P


Why not?

Vytron: 1, dudiobugtron: 1 (never said xey was better than he/she, which would mean I think neutral pronouns are better than non-neutral, while I think each has their uses.)

Vytron: 2, dudiobugtron: 1 (xey is less ambiguous than it because xey can't refer to objects)

dudiobugtron wrote:I think that child sexuality should be encouraged, like it is in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. As soon as we have some way of preventing that being abused by gross lecherers. Children who have been brought up to understand their bodies and their sexuality will be much happier and less repressed, and also our society will be a lot better off too.


I have never read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World but I agree in principle. Did you know that the most harming thing (psychologically) about rape is not the act itself, but the way society handles it? Freeing people from sexual taboos since early ages would help with that, and may actually decrease the rape rate (which is caused in one factor by unhappy and repressed sexuality, so helping with that from the ground up should improve things.)

User avatar
dudiobugtron
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:14 am UTC
Location: The Outlier

Re: The Discussion Game!

Postby dudiobugtron » Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:59 am UTC

I'll accept that it is a "harming thing (psychologically) about rape". You're right that a more sexually liberated society would not be as likely to punish the victim in cases of sexual assault, which many societies are guilty of doing at the moment.

However I'm not convinced that 'repressed sexuality' is a cause of rape, any more than 'liberated sexuality' is. I don't think my proposed changes would affect the rate of any sort of unwanted inappropriate sexual advance. It will probably change people's attitudes towards them, however.

Vytron wrote:It's meant to be related to Forum Games, or to include people that play in Forum Games, more, localized discussion, like, we can share our opinions of the development of the Broken Picture Telephone game, or what would we have posted on the Minimize the post:view ratio! thread if it didn't have <272195 views, and I think such discussions wouldn't be right to have in General, specially as most people there wouldn't have a clue of what we're talking about - but ALSO, a thread like this encourages Forum Gamers to participate in the discussion so we know their opinions on stuff and more about them (I don't even visit the General Thread and stick to Forum Games and Time Thread only).

We can even use it to discuss what kind of games people would be interesting in playing, so mods can create them, akin to the The Gojoe Memorial Mafia Discussion Thread in the Mafia subforum.

OF COURSE, just discussion generalized like we've been doing is fine, since it's more likely only Forum Gamers will participate, which is the point.

That seems like a good idea for a thread - but if it's not a game, may I suggest naming it something like "The Forum Games Discussion Thread" instead of "The Discussion Game"?

BTW, how does one win in the Hugs game? D:

By playing! :P

Edit: Also, I've always wanted to view the 'if you view, you must post' thread, but I don't want to post in it, since then it will be forever marked with an asterisk! What are they talking about in there? Is it worth viewing?
Image

User avatar
Vytron
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:11 am UTC
Location: The Outside. I use She/He/Her/His/Him as gender neutral pronouns :P

Re: The Discussion Game!

Postby Vytron » Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:10 am UTC

dudiobugtron wrote:However I'm not convinced that 'repressed sexuality' is a cause of rape, any more than 'liberated sexuality' is.


A cause of rape is that the rapist's only access to sex is by outright forcing it, in a society with more liberal sex where it's somewhat easy to get and the rapist does have access to it without having to force it, the chance that he goes and does it (because he's left without options) will decrease.

Like well fed people will have less chance of stealing a piece of bread than very hungry people (and I'll go all the way and say society produces their own criminals.)

dudiobugtron wrote:but if it's not a game


We also have another thread around that is not a game, and you have there Belial jumping in with red letters telling people to post their stuff somewhere else or people complaining about what should be posted in the thread.

Imagine someone comes and says "guys, it's the discussion thread, please stick to discussion only", when it's a game, then, such things won't happen.

dudiobugtron wrote:may I suggest naming it something like "The Forum Games Discussion Thread" instead of "The Discussion Game"?


As soon as it stops being a game, it stops being fun: what would be my incentive to discuss things on this thread? But what about changing it to "The Forum Games Discussion Thread Game"? That sounds like fun.

dudiobugtron wrote:
BTW, how does one win in the Hugs game? D:

By playing! :P


One wins here by discussing! :)

dudiobugtron wrote:Edit: Also, I've always wanted to view the 'if you view, you must post' thread, but I don't want to post in it, since then it will be forever marked with an asterisk! What are they talking about in there? Is it worth viewing?


I can put a summary of the thread:

Poster 0: I forgot I wasn't meant to look at this thread.
Poster 1: Darn! I looked at the thread!
Poster 1 (again): Oh wait, since double posting is encouraged, I should have used one post per word, though.
Poster 1 (again): It's
Poster 1 (again): Not
Poster 1 (again): Too
Poster 1 (again): Late
Poster 1 (again): For
Poster 1 (again): That
Poster 2: I can't find a single post worth reading in this thread.
Poster 3: Me neither.
Poster 4: *Quote Pyramid*
Poster 5: I'm helping!
Poster 6: Oops.
Poster 7: Looked. Posted.
Poster 8: Do you people really post every time you look? You can look without posting, you know?
Poster 9: *Quote Pyramid*
Poster 1: *Quote Pyramid*
Poster 0: *Quote Pyramid*
Poster 5: I looked a second time.
Poster 5: And a third.
Poster 10: *Inside joke*
Poster 0: Here again.
Poster 0: And again.
Poster 1: Fancy a smiley?
Poster 1: *Smiley*
Poster 5: And a fourth.
Poster 5: And a fifth.
Poster 11: *Quote Pyramid*
Poster 0: *Portmanteau of posting in this thread*
Poster 9: *Quote Pyramid*
Poster 0: *Quote Pyramid*
Poster 12: *Another
Poster 12: guy
Poster 12: doing
Poster 0: THIS*
Poster 12: this*
Poster 0: HA!
Poster 12: *And
Poster 12: Some
Poster 12: More*
Poster 0: *funny picture*
Poster 13: I was tricked into looking in this thread! Do I have to post now?
Poster 14: I can post multiple times to increase the ratio.
Poster 15: Yes.
Poster 16: I'm thoroughly satisfied.
Poster 1: Whoops.
Poster 17: First post here. I bet I'm doing it wrong :(
Poster 16: I do what I must because I can.
Poster 1: Another whoops.
Poster 1: Sorry.
Poster 1: I want to avoid increasing views by mistake.
Poster 1: But I think I've been doing it.
Poster 18: *cliche*
Poster 19: This was accidental.
Poster 1: This wasn't. But not worth it.
Poster 9: *Quotes previous post* same here.
Poster -1: Hey guys, running a research for The Discussion Game.

Spoiler:
Note: The names of the posters have been altered to protect their identity.

Furthermore, all the messages have been rewritten so that it's impossible to know who posted what, unless you actually look in the thread. The rewrite may have caused several messages to lose their original meaning, intention, or purpose, but effort was put to keep the spirit of the thread. Except for Poster -1.

User avatar
dudiobugtron
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:14 am UTC
Location: The Outlier

Re: The Discussion Game!

Postby dudiobugtron » Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:01 am UTC

Thanks for the thread Summary! That's about what I expected, and sorry for forcing you to post.

[Trigger warning: sexual assault and the causes thereof, un-reasearched or under-researched opinions]
Spoiler:
Poster -1 wrote:
dudiobugtron wrote:However I'm not convinced that 'repressed sexuality' is a cause of rape, any more than 'liberated sexuality' is.


A cause of rape is that the rapist's only access to sex is by outright forcing it

I know you are saying 'A', and not 'The', but I still don't think this is a particularly noteworthy cause. Even in the contrived situations where people genuinely do have no other access to sex, that is probably not the underlying cause. I doubt that there is even much correlation between the two, let alone causation.

A cause of rape that's worth mentioning is the rapist's feeling of entitlement to sex. A cause of rape that's worth mentioning is the societal attitude of not respecting people when they say 'no' (re: 'playing hard to get' etc). A cause of rape that's worth mentioning is the rapist's desire to control or dominate the other person, or to humiliate them. I don't think these would go away just from better sex education.


Poster -1 wrote:One wins here by discussing! :)

Touché!
Image

User avatar
bluebambue
An der schönen blauen Donau
Posts: 900
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:14 am UTC

Re: The Discussion Game!

Postby bluebambue » Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:11 am UTC

I second the proposal to rename thread to "The Forum Games Discussion Thread"

User avatar
Vytron
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:11 am UTC
Location: The Outside. I use She/He/Her/His/Him as gender neutral pronouns :P

Re: The Discussion Game!

Postby Vytron » Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:24 am UTC

[Trigger warning: sexual assault and the causes thereof, un-reasearched or under-researched opinions]
Spoiler:
dudiobugtron wrote:I know you are saying 'A', and not 'The', but I still don't think this is a particularly noteworthy cause.


I think it is, did you know that if prostitution was legalized, the expected rate of raping could decrease by 25%.

BAM!

I think sexual education's impact would be even higher, and sometimes the solution may be much easier than you imagine.


bluebambue wrote:I second the proposal to rename thread to "The Forum Games Discussion Thread"


Oh well, the majority has talked!

User avatar
dudiobugtron
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:14 am UTC
Location: The Outlier

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby dudiobugtron » Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:33 am UTC

My apologies, I completely forgot that prostitution was not legal in some countries. One extra point to Vytron.

I really haven't done enough research to comment further, sorry!
Image

User avatar
Vytron
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:11 am UTC
Location: The Outside. I use She/He/Her/His/Him as gender neutral pronouns :P

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby Vytron » Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:42 am UTC

Welp! Subject change!

Time Travel: Back when I was a kid, I had a list of all possible theories about time travel, theory 1 being "it's impossible, end of story", 2 being "The universe ends on the first paradox" - and 4 others that allowed traveling to the same dimension or a different dimension stably.

Now, I think I could name at least 12 such theories, but they are mostly science-fictioney, so the question is, do you think time travel is possible in reality, and if so, how would it be like?

User avatar
thecamoninja
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:17 pm UTC
Location: All these sick scenes
Contact:

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby thecamoninja » Sat Jul 06, 2013 10:03 pm UTC

I motion that I'm too lazy to do more than skim all of the previous posts in this thread.
I motion that I did read through and thoroughly enjoyed Vytron's rendition of the 'if you look you must post' thread
I motion that we should keep the discussion lighthearted and silly, and that if you have to post a trigger warning at all it's probably a topic best left for discussion in Serious Business, so we in forum games can focus on pointless things like insignificant grammar rules and time travel. You know, the really important stuff.
I motion that Vytron amend some of this into the OP, like keeping the discussion lighthearted and making "making motions" an official thing.
I motion that I'm really sorry if any of this has already been said in any of the posts that I just skimmed

So: on time travel:
Traveling forward in time is obviously possible, we're all doing it right now, and we even know that it's possible to travel forward at an increased rate by just moving really fast so relativity makes us slow down or something (I took a high school physics class, guys! Oh well, I'm sure you know what I mean). But obviously, Vyton's probably most interested in the prospect of traveling back in time. I'd say I have three favored time-travel theories:
Number one is that it's simply impossible to change anything in the past, and time-travelers who exist in a given moment in time are always there, forever, doing what they're doing to alter the past, and that has already happened, resulting in one big happy unbroken, unparadoxed, unsplit timeline. Essentially, this assumes that the universe is paradox proof, that it's simply not possible to kill one's own grandfather in the past, no matter how hard one tries: whatever the time traveler wants to change has, from the time traveler's perspective, already happened in the time traveler's own past, done by the time traveler themself. What immediately comes to mind as an example of this is Harry Potter: that's how time-travel via time-turners works in his universe, although the possibility of paradox is still apparently possible, as everyone issues dire warning about not interacting with your past self, et cetera.

My second most preferred theory is that time travel can only take one back in time as far as the first time machine ever invented. After that, all bets are off, fuck around in history as much as you like, but you can't go back before people knew time travel was possible. This creates a dilemma, though: what if some aliens invented a time machine billions of years ago? That basically leaves no restrictions on humanity as far as time travel goes, unless it's somehow based on one's location in the universe (or at least, location relative to other objects in the universe) so it would have to be the first time machine in our galaxy, or maybe even just our solar system or something. Or, if our machine uses different methods to time travel than the aliens' machine, that could put the restriction back on us as well.

The third theory is the one used in Homestuck, and I don't like it because it necessarily seems plausible, but rather it's just a new and interesting concept that I hadn't considered before. In this theory, time travel is rampant and everywhere, and changing the past causes alternate timelines to split off, but there is only one "alpha" timeline, in which events go as they are "supposed to", and split timelines where history was changed are no longer "alpha", but are instead "doomed timelines". So rather than having an infinitely branching pathway of timelines, you have one central alpha line with doomed branches splitting off of that.

Those are my top three ideas for what backwards time travel would be like if it were possible. However, as it happens, I don't think backwards time travel is possible within reality. (god I am just in wall of text mode today. Apologies)
Formerly known as Camoninja
- - -
Join /FG/ on Discord
Hardcore will never die, but you will.
- - -
Subsequently known as Lavender Manna

User avatar
Vytron
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:11 am UTC
Location: The Outside. I use She/He/Her/His/Him as gender neutral pronouns :P

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby Vytron » Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:53 pm UTC

On motions:

I don't like the idea of having motions on the thread, I think it would soon start looking like... Nomic, where eventually we have so many rules it's hard to keep track of them, and people are scared about posting on the thread because they don't want to break some motion.

On time travel:

Number one is that it's simply impossible to change anything in the past, and time-travelers who exist in a given moment in time are always there, forever, doing what they're doing to alter the past, and that has already happened, resulting in one big happy unbroken, unparadoxed, unsplit timeline.


Oh yeah, I like this one. It however, disables time travel entirely by this thought experiment:

Some scientist has finally managed to build a time machine, he did it alone, and didn't tell anyone, and nobody discovered or suspected it, so, as a given, only he knows.

Now, the way he implemented it is with an exit portal and a entry portal. Say, you can turn on the exit portal for one hour, and it allows anything to cross it when coming from the entry portal. Then, after the hour (at any point in the future), you can turn on the entry device, it'll be functional for one hour, and everything that crosses it will appear at the exit point.

Now, when going into the "it already happened and it's impossible to change the past", what happens if the scientist decides to turn on the machine for one hour, and then, if he sees himself coming out of the machine, he'll go ahead and turn the machine for one hour without entering.

If he doesn't see himself leaving the exit point, then, he'll turn it on for one hour and enter it.

According to this theory, there'll be a diabolus ex machina that ensures things remain consistent no matter what. But we don't know which one is it. Maybe, from the exit point the scientist's dead corpse comes out, breaks a container with poisonous gas, accidentally turns on the entry point, and when dying by poison, the scientist enters the entry point and becomes the corpse that causes all this.

Or time travel causes people to go crazy, and from the exit point a mad badly beat up scientist appears, badly beats up the original scientist, and throws him into the entry point, etc.

What if the scientist takes measures against all these possible occurrences? Then things get even weirder. After one hour of seeing that nobody leaves the exit point, he will be unable to enter the entry point by the same diabolus ex machina: Maybe he gets a heart attack and dies before turning the entry point on, or slips and hits his head with a table, or gets sudden amnesia, etc.

The problem I have is all these scenario rely on accidents and unlikely events to avoid changing of the past, and seem to require creativity and someone writing them out, to avoid time travel from taking place.

And the thing is, the easier it gets to cross the entry point, the bigger and more ridiculous the diabolus ex machina has to be to avoid it.

Suppose the scientist doesn't have any intention of entering the machine, he just turns it on to see what comes out of it. If nothing comes out, then, he makes knowledge of the entry point known to everyone, puts it in a public place, and offers 2 million dollars to anyone going to enter it. Now, everyone will fail? What's this? Right before someone is going to cross the entry point, an asteroid comes and destroy the planet?

See how things have to be made up for people to fail entering the entry point? This is my problem with this theory, and while it's good for science fiction stories where you caused the death of your dog when trying to go back to save it, or it turns out your grandfather wasn't it and you killed the wrong guy, I don't really believe there'll be a diabolus ex machina in real life causing accidents and events just at the right time to stop time travel. Why don't we go all the way and say such a thing would just make people unable to invent a time machine in the first place?

My second most preferred theory is that time travel can only take one back in time as far as the first time machine ever invented.


I don't think this theory is incompatible with most other theories of time travel, just restricts the exit point so the past can't be changed, but instead of "what would happen if we traveled 1000 years into the past", we'd be discussing "what would happen if the machine was invented today and 1000 years from now we traveled to today", without much difference.

thecamoninja wrote:The third theory is the one used in Homestuck,


I haven't read it but I think I understand how it goes. Isn't is like Back to the Future where if you come from a "doomed timeline" you become doomed yourself? What I don't like is the arbitrary ripple in reality when the doomed lines are overwritten on the alpha line, which is equivalent with the universe end (of that timeline). I.e. at this point in time, either time travel to this point is impossible, or we'd never know because at the moment it was we'd already had been overwritten by an alpha line.

Anyway, my favorite theory is a hybrid between one timeline to rule them all and infinite time lines, but this is already a very long post so I'll leave it for another day.

(Also, I love wall of text mode: it's very efficient since you can say all this in one post instead of having to do it over several posts or leaving concepts unsaid.)

User avatar
orangedragonfire
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:45 am UTC
Location: It exists. Probably.

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby orangedragonfire » Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:47 pm UTC

Theory 4: Time waves

You go back in time. This changes the timeline. However, the timeline is not changed instantaneously; the change takes some time to propagate through the timeline. This has the neat side effect of allowing for a time travel system that can be used in a real time strategy game. Bonus points for those who have heard of this game.

User avatar
thecamoninja
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:17 pm UTC
Location: All these sick scenes
Contact:

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby thecamoninja » Sun Jul 07, 2013 11:13 pm UTC

Oh! I totally have heard of that game! I forget what it's called, but I remember seeing a trailer for it and thinking "that look insanely confusing and difficult and also really friggin cool". The idea of timewaves only really works from the perspective of an RTS, though, or rather, someone outside of the whole time-system looking in on it, so their time remains constant even as the timeline they're watching changes.

Another good theory I just thought of is one presented in Isaac Asimov's novella The End of Eternity, which deals with time travel on small local scales, but is more concerned with its effects over millenia. Basically, one can go back and change things, and that will shift around the future, but history is also resilient against change and overall even as you change things the timeline tends to shift back towards what it would have been even without the change, so rather than butterfly effecting into a totally different world long after the change in history, the ripple of the change dies out and has virtually no effect on the world a few millennia after the change.
Formerly known as Camoninja
- - -
Join /FG/ on Discord
Hardcore will never die, but you will.
- - -
Subsequently known as Lavender Manna

User avatar
dudiobugtron
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:14 am UTC
Location: The Outlier

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby dudiobugtron » Sun Jul 07, 2013 11:17 pm UTC

thecamoninja wrote:Oh! I totally have heard of that game! I forget what it's called, but I remember seeing a trailer for it and thinking "that look insanely confusing and difficult and also really friggin cool".

It's called Achron. I hadn't heard of it either, but I have since bought it (based on odf's 'testimony' above).
Image

User avatar
Vytron
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:11 am UTC
Location: The Outside. I use She/He/Her/His/Him as gender neutral pronouns :P

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby Vytron » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:08 am UTC

@Theory 4: But at what speed do the time waves travel? And, is there a way to even measure their "speed"? (as in, is there a "time" layer over time so that after some time has passed on the layer one can expect the effect of time waves to have been affected later? Like, for every 5 minutes of change the time waves would have moved 10 minutes or something?)

Anyway, theory 5:

Let's start with a normal time line, this is the one we perceive every day and things are simple, past is on the left, present some time in the middle (or, at the right in the middle, since our brain takes some time to process them, and sometimes processes them before they happen, etc.) Future is on the right.

Image

Here's just a guy counting up. For the purposes of this example, the guy is counting veeery slowly, so the time between pictures isn't just one second.

Okay, so this simplified version doesn't allow time travel at all, because, after this guy counts to 5, he HAS counted to 5. It's on the past, no matter what you do, you can't change that (well, you'd need to invent time travel in reality and use some other theory from stopping me from drawing the guy counting to 5, but alas, I don't think this has happened yet.)

In this theory, time travel is impossible, however, one can perceive things the same way as if one traveled through time, by accessing further dimensions:

Image

They run parallel to each other, and there seems to be an infinite number of them up and down. This has some problems, and it's that, people already have problems thinking about all the things that may be on the Multiverse, and it also includes an infinite number of such timeline copies of the whole Multiverse? Isn't that inelegant and unnecessary?

It also poses the following problem: free will. If all the things we're going to do are in a copy of the future in some other dimension, then we never decide what to do at any point, we just copy the moves of the guy in the next time line. This also leads to a deterministic universe, and fatalism (what is going to happen already happened so you may as well get under your bed and rot, because, if you do that, THAT was going to happen anyway). People can't also be made responsible from their actions, they're just following the steps set up by fate, like marionettes.

Theory 5 deals with these problems.

At first, this last image I posted looks like a box that contains all events that happened since the beginning of time up until the end of time, and the present time is just us traveling through the box like zombies. This is not the case.

Just like in reality, there is a NOW, a present time, in the box, it looks like this:

Image

Okay, I lied. The guy hasn't counted to five yet. The diagonal line represents the true present, and anything at the right of the line represents the future. What is in blue, is just one possible future, and we know that, in one of them, the guy decides to count to five. That's the one we'll be looking at, but that doesn't mean it was pre-scripted that he was going to, or that he didn't have another option. He used his free will to do it and the other mainlines did it simultaneously.

What this means is that, for all practical purposes, there's only one time line, because, there's no time line ahead of the other, all of them resolve events at the true present.

The difference appears when, the guy is bored from counting, so, instead of counting to eight, he pulls up his time machine:

Image

Let's focus on the guy in red, this is the guy in the true present on the time machine. What the time machine does is bending the true present line, so that events that were previously black below him, become blue, possible events. they become changeable.

He can now travel vertically, though, he can't ever travel to the left of the red line, because these events are already in the true past and unchangeable. But, who cares about that? For the purposes of time travel, traveling down the red line gives him access to his past. Traveling upwards is indistinguishable from traveling to the right, but he'd be basically freezing up until the true present (the blue line) catches him up.

Anyway, so he wants to experiment with time travel, the very first thing he does is traveling to the possible past and killing his own self before he pulls up the time machine. he's going to go at the point he counted to seven, and kill himself (erm, his past self, not commit suicide).

Image

Here, the question: "if he killed himself when he counted seven, how come he was able to travel to kill himself?" answers itself: the guy that he killed was the one that was going to come back to kill him.

Also, in the time it took him to kill himself, time has moved on, so, his red line, has moved too, and now, he doesn't have access to times at which his past self counted to six (they're all in black) but he has access to timelines in where he's right now still counting to six (on blue below the frame), or yet to count to six.

Due to the way the true present works, for all practical purposes, there's only two mainlines, one where he disappears into nothingness, and another where he comes out of nowhere and kills himself. But "for all practical purposes" is reality, since all the timelines have the same distance from the true present, they are one and the same.

At this point, it seems as if he could travel down and stop himself from going back in time to kill himself. However, this would just create a third timeline:

Image

Image

Image

Here, the guy kicks himself in the face, and the other guy will not be able to stop the kick on his face because it has already happened.

It's called time travel because, if instead of putting the time lines in the previous way, one does it in this one, it looks as if the red guy managed to travel to the left.

And that's it, thanks to the concept of the true present, one doesn't need to keep a copy of all the dimensions, only as many time lines as have been changed, since the other ones will be "in sync", and events beyond the true present are yet to happen, they're in blue, allowing us to change them by just traveling to the future one second per second.

User avatar
dudiobugtron
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:14 am UTC
Location: The Outlier

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby dudiobugtron » Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:54 am UTC

Theory 6:

Vytron wrote:traveling to the future one second per second.


This sort of time travel, as we perceive it (at the rate of one second per second) is an illusion. To an extra-chronal observer, time is just another dimension, like the spatial dimensions (although perhaps it looks different, depending on how extra-chronal vision works, and also on the frame of reference they chose!). At any point in time, we have memories of some of the things that 'happened' before that point in the time dimension. So, at that point in time, we feel as though we have traveled in time (at 1s/s) up to that point. But that is just because of the way our memories work. An outside observer would be no more likely to say we're traveling in time than to say we're 'traveling in height' (say, from our feet up to our head) at a rate of 1 metre per metre.

-----------------------------
To visualise what I mean, imagine there is one spatial dimension (y), and one time dimension (t). If you draw a graph of y as a function of t, then you can imagine it as being a graph of the location of some point-sized person as time changes. If that point-sized person (named 'Pointy') had a memory, it might remember where it had been in the past, but not in the future. Someone looking at the graph, however, could tell where Pointy would go in the future too.

If Pointy has such a memory, then at any point in time, it will feel as though it has traveled through time up to that point, even though we (as outside observers) can clearly see that's just an illusion.
-----------------------------

Whether, within this illusion, points like Pointy or ourselves will be able to be in the past while having memories of things that happened in the future, and without otherwise affecting their sense of identity, is outside the scope of my theory.
Image

User avatar
Vytron
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:11 am UTC
Location: The Outside. I use She/He/Her/His/Him as gender neutral pronouns :P

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby Vytron » Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:38 am UTC

Um, theory 6 looks like a theory of time itself and not time travel, i.e. it may be compatible with the other 5 previous theories.

So, I guess it's time for:

Theory 7: Time doesn't exist at all. There's only what we call the present, and thus, all things that are in the "past" no longer exist, just like things in the future don't exist yet. The present stops existing as it becomes the past. Therefore, any attempt to travel to the past would lead to traveling to nowhere.

User avatar
orangedragonfire
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:45 am UTC
Location: It exists. Probably.

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby orangedragonfire » Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:39 pm UTC

Theory 8:

Time is circular, and you can only travel forward in time. By traveling far enough ahead, you will end up in the past. Depending on whether time is really circular or just a spiral (so it "almost" repeats, but is slightly different), you'd either be able to change things or not.

User avatar
Vytron
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:11 am UTC
Location: The Outside. I use She/He/Her/His/Him as gender neutral pronouns :P

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby Vytron » Sat Jul 13, 2013 4:39 am UTC

Nice! I hadn't heard of that one :)

Theory 9:

Time is a Timey Wimey Ball (aka big ball of wibbly-wobbly... timey-wimey... stuff.) Just like the future is "fuzzy", as in, it changes depending on your actions, the past is also "fuzzy".

This also means that the present is also fuzzy, as in, all the matter in you room right now may be there, or may not. Things may disappear without you noticing, to never be found again. Others may "time slip" into the present, so you find objects you've never seen before, and you don't know from where they come from. This explains to where you missing odds socks go.

In other words, reality is like a dream, you may turn around, and objects may have disappeared behind you. It's just reality is a lot more consistent, so you usually find the object you're looking for, but ignore the others. You will not notice this unless you're paying attention.

This doesn't affect memory, though, so: Have you had a discussion with another person about recollection of past events where you can't ever agree of what happened? It's not faulty memory, it's that you both lived reality differently, but the past is fuzzy, so, from your perspective that other person has time slipped to replace the person with whom you lived the events, but both of you are right in your recollection.

Have you ever remembered wrong the color of a car? Or when you passed on a street you always pass, noticed suddenly an old tree or an old building you've never seen before? In recorded history those ones have been planted and built long time ago, they've always been there. From your perspective, they have just appeared, they weren't there any of the other times you crossed the street. You time slipped in this present where they were. Both versions of the story are correct. But you'll just go and assume you just hadn't noticed them before, because you assume a consistent reality.

Under this theory, changes to the past happen like this. So, if you go to the past and plant a tree, for some people the tree will appear suddenly, but when they're not looking, so they'll assume the tree was always there, but they didn't notice. If you stump the tree, others may remember the tree being fine, but will assume it was stumped recently.

Books on missing time and Discovery Channel episodes have been made about this theory.

User avatar
dudiobugtron
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:14 am UTC
Location: The Outlier

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby dudiobugtron » Sat Jul 13, 2013 5:56 am UTC

Vytron wrote:Nice! I hadn't heard of that one :)

It's a pretty old theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Linea ... lical_time
Image

User avatar
thecamoninja
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:17 pm UTC
Location: All these sick scenes
Contact:

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby thecamoninja » Sat Jul 13, 2013 7:20 am UTC

Hmm, I think it's tiem for a new topic of discussion. It seems to me time travel is mostly worn out by now (feel free to ignore me and keep talking about it if you want to).

New topic: has anyone noticed how Vytron copypastes everything? I'm not calling him an idea thief or anything, he always attributes his copypastas, but it just seems as though he does it more often than anyone else. What's the deal with that? Does he only do it to me? (first example that springs to mind: my intro for Superhero rumble.)
Formerly known as Camoninja
- - -
Join /FG/ on Discord
Hardcore will never die, but you will.
- - -
Subsequently known as Lavender Manna

User avatar
dudiobugtron
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:14 am UTC
Location: The Outlier

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby dudiobugtron » Sat Jul 13, 2013 7:31 am UTC

Yes I have noticed that he does that too. I think it is cool, but it means I should watch what I type more.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery btw ;) .
Image

User avatar
Vytron
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:11 am UTC
Location: The Outside. I use She/He/Her/His/Him as gender neutral pronouns :P

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby Vytron » Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:38 am UTC

dudiobugtron wrote:
Vytron wrote:Nice! I hadn't heard of that one :)

It's a pretty old theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Linea ... lical_time


Oh, I knew about the cyclic universe theory, and all that, it's just the first time I've seen it used to traveling in time (has the cool feature that, it doesn't require an infinite number of universes existing in parallel, just an infinite number of "repetitions", and it's compatible with all theories that strictly prohibit traveling to the past, because you're just going into the future into the next cycle!

All the stuff of theory 5 works in this one, with alternating repeating time lines (in one cycle, the guy travels to the future to kill his other self, in the next cycle, he's dead, so nobody stops his self on the next cycle to travel to the next after that one, which will be identical to cycle one (which also ensures that, no matter what, eventually, there will be a cycle identical to this one, so regardless of the actions of other time travelers, you're always able to travel into a future identical to your past)

(there's also the argument that says that it's impossible that time travel to the past at any time in the future, in the matter in which, if you state that, if you ever have the chance to travel to the past, you'd travel to this point in time *nobody appears* and that if one of your descendants ever has the chance of traveling to the past, they'd travel to this point in time *nobody appears* - so all the people doing this would prove it'll never happen in their descendant's future (or, that the human race will end before time travel is possible)

With this theory, you just have one cycle where that happens, so, it's indeed impossible to travel to this cycle's past, but in the next one, yourself and all your descendants come knocking the door after you make that decree) (And also, no need to specify all the dimensions being in a "true present" time, because, if there's only one dimension cycling, then, it's a given there' only one present, the now.)

so only one dimension has to be active at all times, that brilliant! So I guess
I'll make theory 8 my favorite now, and its number has the infinity sign sideways, so I think it's a great theory to close the subject!)

Wait, I had another one of these unclosed? How come?)

Oh wait, I ruined that with theory 9, didn't I? Oh well, hopefully I won't do that on the next cycle...

thecamoninja wrote:New topic: has anyone noticed how Vytron copypastes everything?


Wait, what? Haven't I used it for the starting content on opening threads like Where in the Wolrd is Vytron and Super Hero Rumble? Where else do I use copy paste?

I even have proof that I've been using copypaste less than before! Previously, I had been using copy paste for every single time I had to type the name of someone, even if it was as short as flicky. Not anymore!

You can look for the keyword dubiobugtron, which is a misspelled dudiobugtron, you'll see I misspelled his name 13 times! Which makes it clear I was typing it wrong every time instead of using copypaste (except for the 3 times in where I copypasted dubiobugtron instead of writing it out without noticing the original was wrong.)

I'm pretty sure I use copypaste much more than the typical user, though, it's their fault if they want to be inefficient (I'd still be resolving the first turn of UTS if I couldn't rely on copypaste...)

User avatar
dudiobugtron
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:14 am UTC
Location: The Outlier

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby dudiobugtron » Sat Jul 13, 2013 11:59 am UTC

I hadn't noticed that - d's and b's look the same to my brain anyway unless I pay close attention! Even dubiodugtron looks right to me...

I had mostly noticed it when you use someone else's wording for something, like camo said. An example is higher up in this thread, where you copy and pasted my "[Trigger warning: sexual assault and the causes thereof, un-reasearched or under-researched opinions]" before your spoiler.
In this case, I had assumed it was because you didn't really agree with the need for using a spoiler, but were happy to go along with it, and you wanted to communicate that you were doing it out of politeness rather than from your own strong feeling on the subject. (Perhaps I misinterpreted it though.)

Anyway, I have no problem with copy & pasting stuff that someone else has already done to save yourself reproducing it needlessly (as long as it is attributed, or the attribution is obvious); I think it is a sensible idea.
Image

User avatar
Vytron
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:11 am UTC
Location: The Outside. I use She/He/Her/His/Him as gender neutral pronouns :P

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby Vytron » Sat Jul 13, 2013 2:03 pm UTC

dudiobugtron wrote:where you copy and pasted my "[Trigger warning: sexual assault and the causes thereof, un-reasearched or under-researched opinions]" before your spoiler.


Oh, yeah, that kind of thing I do it all the time (but "copy pastes everything" sounds like I'd be doing that also in this discussion thread (like, I copypaste text about time travel), or I did that when reffing Super Hero Rumble (like, copypasting the adventures of Trollfaceman) or the reffing I did for Pokémon (like, copypasting Abygail and Yntec's jokes), which all would be false, since I participated in those games to write my own stuff; probably thecamoninja's expression was just like "all the time", and not meant to be taken literally - probably "all the time" can be taken the wrong way too, oh well! :mrgreen: ).

User avatar
orangedragonfire
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:45 am UTC
Location: It exists. Probably.

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby orangedragonfire » Sat Jul 13, 2013 4:01 pm UTC

New topics: Should there be any rules or restrictions for people proposing new topics in this thread? Or do we just let people run rampant with new topics???!!!

User avatar
Vytron
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:11 am UTC
Location: The Outside. I use She/He/Her/His/Him as gender neutral pronouns :P

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby Vytron » Sat Jul 13, 2013 4:13 pm UTC

Feel free to start new topics, reply to very old ones from long time ago or continue the ongoing one.

This is meant to be Fun Business!

Sadly, I have no new subject to discuss, so, hum, yeah, I didn't use copypaste in this message at all!

User avatar
ArDeeJ
Bastet Case
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 2:20 pm UTC
Location: Finland

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby ArDeeJ » Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:04 pm UTC

I motion this thread to be stickied and renamed to "The ArDeeJ Memorial Forum Games DIscussion Thread".
puzzles (bad) | tweets (worse) | they pronouns

User avatar
orangedragonfire
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:45 am UTC
Location: It exists. Probably.

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby orangedragonfire » Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:27 pm UTC

No motions, unless you want to turn this thread into a game of Nomic.

User avatar
Vytron
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:11 am UTC
Location: The Outside. I use She/He/Her/His/Him as gender neutral pronouns :P

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby Vytron » Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:42 am UTC

Okay, I got a new one:

The after death.

Do you think there's something after death? I think so, by simple reasoning.

Assume that the life time of the universe is 26000000000 years, or something. Up until the end of time, when time stops because after some point nothing happens, this number is probably much lower, but works just as well.

Assume that you will live 100 years, the average is lower, but this works quite as well.

Now, ask yourself: What is the chance, that by hitting those 26000000000 years at random, we hit exactly the time frame of when you are alive, those 100 years? It's about one in 4x109, it's an extremely unlikely event, and yet, we're here.

Now, one can argue, that all the time prior to birth, doesn't matter, because since that time couldn't have been perceived anyway, one "zips" through that time, so one can't ever be at a time before being alive, duh! However, that changes nothing, because instead of trying to hit a random moment, it becomes hitting the very first moment in the line to the end of time, which is just as unlikely. Taking that into account, let's say chances improve to one in 2x109. Not much better.

And that, is the number chance that I say belongs to the probability that there's only one life, because, if there was only one life, then chances are, 2x109-1 out of 2x109 against, that we'd already been dead. But we're alive right now.

Now, take a look at different formulas, one in where we live twice, doesn't have the "must be at the beginning of the line" restriction, because we could be there, or we could be at any point following that line, in another segment, so, if we lived twice, the chance of being alive would be one out of 10x108. This looks better, and keeps getting better as we add more, and more lives.

Chances of being here with 4 lives, would be 1 out of 5x108, 40 lives would be one out of 5x107. And the more lives we put there, the more likely it is to observe that we're here, like we do.

Now, it would be a mistake to derive these number backwards since saying "if there was always a segment of 100 years where one was alive, the chance of being alive right now would be 100%" doesn't say anything about the chance that there's more than one life.

But it does say that, since we are here, the chance that there's at least more than one life is higher than the chance there's only one life. I don't care how slight its edge is, it's there, and so, it makes it a sound bet (even when ignoring the fact that the guy winning his bet about there being only one life wouldn't be there to claim it.)

Analogy:

Imagine that I come to your house one day, knock at the door, and told you that I have a big gift for you. It's several trucks carrying boxes. Each box has even smaller boxes. Each of the smaller boxes contains at least 100 candies, which are of the kind that are covered with chocolate, so you don't know their inside until you bite them.

I have you picking a truck from them all. Then a box from that truck. Then a small box from that box. Finally, you open it and pick one of the candies, and bite it.

It's vanilla flavored. This represents your life.

Now, the question is, do you really believe from all the other chocolates in the little box, from all the little boxes in the box, from all the boxes in the truck, and for all the trucks that there are, this is the only vanilla flavored chocolate in the entire batch? This is akin to thinking that from all the segments of time this is the only one where you're alive.

Derivative Analogy 1:

If the vanilla flavored chocolates caused total amnesia, so that you didn't remember anything from your past, and you suddenly appeared with total amnesia, and were offered to pick one, and it turned out to be vanilla flavored, how certain would you be that this is the very first one that you eat, and that there won't be another one?

Derivative Analogy 2:

Now you see that I didn't only bring a batch of trucks for you, I also brought an independent one for your neighbor, and another for a friend of yours, and another for your mailman...

And what you see is, that each of those people went and grabbed a candy, and they bit it, and it was vanilla flavored. Do you see where I'm getting at?

All people alive today are living in the present and the argument for your life also applies to the entire human race. So, if the human race was going to disappear, chances are higher that it'd have done it long time ago.

And it also works for the lifetime of the universe! So that, taking into account all the eternity of "time" after which nothing will happen, which will be infinite, the chance of being at the time the universe existed are virtually zero, so the chances the universe goes on forever (with stuff happening) are virtually 100, and this does applies backward to previous arguments: If the universe will live forever, and the human race will extinguish in finite time, then the chance of being at the time humanity existed are virtually zero, and...

BAM!

The same goes for your life, if I bring an infinite number of trucks to your house and you pick the vanilla flavored chocolate, that had a virtual chance of 0 from happening, unless there was in fact an infinite number of vanilla flavored chocolates in there, no matter how scattered, you'd eventually find one, and the chance there's more than one are higher than it being the only one in the batch.

User avatar
thecamoninja
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:17 pm UTC
Location: All these sick scenes
Contact:

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby thecamoninja » Sun Jul 14, 2013 4:16 pm UTC

I'm fairly sure that argument is super flawed, though I'm not exactly sure how to begin dismantling it. I'm pretty sure that there's some kind of problem with your probability calculations, but I don't really know how you got to them and I don't remember much about probability math from school, so I'll just assume that they're right. Even accepting that, though, I can still find problems. First of all, I think you're starting with the wrong null-hypothesis: I'd say your null hypothesis should be "humans only live one lifetime", and then you go about proving that wrong with all of your reasoning, but rather you seem to be assuming that it's even possible for humans to live more than once, and that it does in fact happen, and you try to manipulate the numbers to fit that. You're probably making some other assumptions you shouldn't be making but again I'm not worried about that at this stage.

Let's just look at your numbers: You say the chance of one human being born is "one in 2x109", which is improbable, because that such a huge number. But you're not calculating the probability of a human being born at all, you're calculating the probability of a specific human being alive during a randomly picked 100 year span, which as far as I can tell has no bearing on anything.

Or, from another angle, your chocolates analogy: you say it's silly to assume that there's only one vanilla chocolate, but in view, in order for this analogy to work, if each chocolate represents a human lifetime, and each single human lifetime is unique, then each chocolate in your analogy is utterly unique as well, in which case you can assume that there are no other vanilla chocolates, because you've just picked the only one! and sure, the probability of picking that one vanilla from the million other chocolates in the truck is, well, one in a million, the chance of picking every other chocolate is exactly the same. Sure the chance of getting any one specific chocolate is incredibly low, but you know you have to get a chocolate; the only thing that would be really surprising is if you came back with no chocolate at all.

Now, sure you could say that there's no way for you to know that there's only one vanilla chocolate, but that doesn't prove anything. You can assume all you want about the contents of all of the other chocolates, but you never know, because just as it's impossible for one human to consciously experience more than one human lifetime, apparently the chocolates all give you amnesia. This is the basis for a lot of belief systems: belief in life after death based not based on science or probability or knowledge of some greater truth, but assumptions made about what happens because we just don't know.

This also brings me back to what I was saying about your null hypothesis: You're making the assumption that there's more than one vanilla chocolate in the truck to begin with, but you just don't know whether or not that's true. And certainly, if there is more than one vanilla chocolate your other assumptions make sense, but without knowledge of the contents of the truck or the other chocolates, you just don't know. In fact, all you can see is your neighbor and your friend and your brother and your teacher and your mailman, etc. biting into chocolates that are very different from your own.
Formerly known as Camoninja
- - -
Join /FG/ on Discord
Hardcore will never die, but you will.
- - -
Subsequently known as Lavender Manna

User avatar
Vytron
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:11 am UTC
Location: The Outside. I use She/He/Her/His/Him as gender neutral pronouns :P

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby Vytron » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:31 am UTC

thecamoninja wrote:I'd say your null hypothesis should be "humans only live one lifetime", and then you go about proving that wrong with all of your reasoning


That's impossible to do, the reality when one only lives once, and the reality where one lives many times, are indistinguishable for a given life, because one doesn't remember the previous ones.

The argument only shows that:

1.- If there's only a single segment of "lives once" but up to 2x109 segments of "lives more than once" (the segment is much bigger because it includes "lives twice", "lives thrice", "lives four times" and all the other filling the universe's time.)

AND:

2.- If the more times you live, the bigger the chances that you are alive in the present (because you can be in any of the multiple lifes) AND only living once has some 99.999...(with 20 9's )% chance that the 100 years you're alive would have already happened.

The fact that you're alive right now makes it more likely that you're living in one of the many, many multiple lives (since there's the 99.999...(with 20 9's )% chance that the very first life that you lived already ended), than it is for you to be on the very first (and only one.)

But that's it, one can't prove more than one life with this argument, all the people may actually be picking the only vanilla flavored candy in the entire batch, by luck.


thecamoninja wrote:but rather you seem to be assuming that it's even possible for humans to live more than once


Well, in what other way can one make a hypotheses? One has to assume that "if everything was possible, one would make these observations", here the observation "I'm alive" can only be made in a very small segment of time, with a life once, but can be made on many, with multiple life - seem proving there can't be multiple lives would be much harder to do.

thecamoninja wrote:But you're not calculating the probability of a human being born at all, you're calculating the probability of a specific human being alive during a randomly picked 100 year span, which as far as I can tell has no bearing on anything.


Why? This is about you, and your belief in the afterlife! You, thecamoninja (whoa, it's hard to get rid of the "general you"*) are the very specific human. One doesn't have to prove that all humans live more than once, one doesn't have to prove that you will live again after you die, we only have to ask you: from all the past segments of time, what was the chance that you'd be living on this segment, as opposed to have lived in a previous segment and dead long time ago?

If you think there's nothing after your death, then the numbers are against you: most of the time there's nothing, only a very short time there's something. There's something now. It's more likely that there's something now if you get multiple such segments of something, so you're can be on the second, or the third, or the fourth, or the 50'000th, while with "lives once", you'd need to be on the single segment, which is orders of magnitude harder.

Let's not discuss life and death, I put the analogies there for something: if you wake up with total amnesia and are informed that there's this candy that causes total amnesia, and you're going to eat it, how likely would you say it is that it's the very first one, and the only one, you'll ever eat? I say it's more likely you already had eaten one before, but it can't be proven.

(of course, it applies the "general you" for other people that hold the same argument)

thecamoninja wrote:Or, from another angle, your chocolates analogy: you say it's silly to assume that there's only one vanilla chocolate, but in view, in order for this analogy to work, if each chocolate represents a human lifetime, and each single human lifetime is unique, then each chocolate in your analogy is utterly unique as well, in which case you can assume that there are no other vanilla chocolates, because you've just picked the only one!


Ah, but the uniqueness of the vanilla cholocate doesn't matter: We know this vanilla chocolate is the only one like this, as in, if there are other vanilla chocolates, they will not be this one, they'll be different, they even each can have different shapes, and even if there were two with the same shape, upon closer examination you'd find differences, and could tell them apart. Your chocolate is unique.

But all that you've showed is, that you won't be the same person again, that thecamoninja, and his essence, can only live once. But, this is about being alive in the present, and whether there are other vanilla chocolates in the truck, even if they are different from the first one, and whether you've eaten them before, but don't remember.

Multiple lives isn't about being the same person, and, being unrecognizable on a previous life is what doesn't make multiple lives (if they exist) obvious.

thecamoninja wrote:, the chance of picking every other chocolate is exactly the same. Sure the chance of getting any one specific chocolate is incredibly low, but you know you have to get a chocolate; the only thing that would be really surprising is if you came back with no chocolate at all


If the vanilla chocolates represent being alive, getting a strawberry one would mean "oops, you don't get to life". If there's only strawberry ones, and one vanilla one, wouldn't it be very unlikely that you're eating the vanilla one right now given that the rest of the future there'll only be strawberry ones? I think it's more likely that you've eaten vanilla chocolates before, and you'll eat vanilla chocolates later, so what is special is the unique chocolate that you're eating, not that it'll be the only one of this flavor.

thecamoninja wrote:Now, sure you could say that there's no way for you to know that there's only one vanilla chocolate, but that doesn't prove anything.


I know! I'm not trying to prove there's afterdeath, just its likelihood.

If I bring one million chocolates and you pick a vanilla one, for it to be the only one, there'd need to be 999999 strawberry ones in there, and you were extremely lucky. If there was 500000 vanilla ones, you had half the chance to pick it. So, the fact that you picked one makes it more likely that there's another.

thecamoninja wrote:You're making the assumption that there's more than one vanilla chocolate in the truck to begin with


No, maybe it's the only one, but, given the observation that you did pick it, what is more likely, that it's the only one, or that there's another vanilla flavored? (even if it's not the same one, and each vanilla flavored is unique.)

User avatar
dudiobugtron
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:14 am UTC
Location: The Outlier

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby dudiobugtron » Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:07 am UTC

Replying to Vytron's posts from the Puzzle Showdown Round II thread, about whether prior knowledge in chess (and other competitions) is unfair.

Vytron wrote:Several people think like you and even the Chess960 variant was created so chances are huge that you'll play a position you have never researched or seen, so both you and your opponent discover the opening from scratch.

However, I think chess is about mental processes, and actually, the strongest players are the best ones at calculation and pattern recognition. That's it, on the rest of the thought processes like evaluation, discarding of dubious moves and extension of promising lines, intuition, knowledge (which includes a great deal of subjects in itself) material imbalance assessment, and all the paraphernalia, is basically the same for players rated 2300 to players rated 2800. But pattern recognition and calculation (depth) are critical. A 2700 player will usually beat the 2300 ones just by looking a position a ply deeper or because a pattern appeared in the board that the higher rater player knows how to play on the fly, while the other is ju7st surprised by the sequence.

My point is, that very small part of the brain are activated for these processes, just like with memory! So these are just mental processes, and I don't see why differentiating them, so, if one player beats another thanks to better knowledge isn't different from beating him for better calculation or because he had more experience in similar positions: all of that comes down to "the stronger player's thought processes were better", and I don't see why memory should be excluded from this, though, I agree players should try to put puzzles that most other players haven't seen, so we see more interesting thought processes than "yep, I've seen the puzzle."


I agree that it is arbitrary to distinguish between some forms of thought processes and others. But I don't see why this is limited to thought processes that don't involve looking up information. :P

It is really hard to remove memory from the equation, since without any memory, no one would be able to play chess at all. So obviously memory is important, and your memory skills are an important part of playing the game. If I was playing against someone, and they looked up the particular chess position in some chess position archive, to see what moves were good to do, I might feel cheated, sure. However, if I was playing against someone and had got into a situation that matched a 'chess puzzle' they had already seen the answer to, and they beat me by doing those moves, I wouldn't feel any less cheated. Basically, I think there are some times where 'already knowing' seems just as bad as looking up the answer.
Image

User avatar
dudiobugtron
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:14 am UTC
Location: The Outlier

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby dudiobugtron » Tue Jul 16, 2013 3:09 am UTC

OK, so in two posts, I have not only managed to double-post, but also derailed the conversation, and then brought it back to an earlier topic which everyone else had finished discussing. So apologies in advance for all of that!

Anyway, this post is about discussing my idea for a new forum game. It's based on a cross between the game Achron which odf hinted at above, and superhero rumble. I got the idea from Vytron's "Unreal Time Strategy Game". This was of course intended as a play on 'real-time strategy game'; however, in true xkcd style, I moved the hyphen over and read it as "Unreal time-strategy game". So basically, a time-strategy version of the FPS Unreal. The Working title is:

Super Retcon Rumble

Here are the rules so far:
Each player starts the game with 5 energy units. Each round, they can spend each of those energy units on shields, or on attacking another player (with their cool energy weapon). So for example, you might submit your moves like this:
Shield
Shield
Attack player 2
Shield
Attack player 2

(Basically, this is 3 energy on shields, and 2 on attacking player 2. Why you need to submit 5 different moves will become apparent later.)

If you get attacked for more total energy than your shields can block, you take damage, which reduces the amount of energy units you have available for use each round. You lose the 5th energy unit first, then the 4th, etc...
(You still need to submit 5 moves each turn, even if you don't have 5 energy left - you'll see why soon!)

There are no 'special powers' like in superhero rumble, but there is one other ability that players can use: time manipulation.
Once per turn, you can also use the time maniuplation device to 'retcon' a previous round - that is, go back and change time so that your actions were different. This does not cost any energy.
You need to submit what the new actions are. (Note, previous uses of the time manipulation device are anchored in time, so can't be changed!)
You can't retcon the same round twice in a row.

If you have zero energy left, then you can no longer submit retcons. However, you might still come back to life as the result of other players' retcons, and so you should still submit your actions (sans retcons) just in case. If you submit no actions, your actions are assumed to be the same as the previous round. If you are retconned back to life, you can start playing again, but cannot get back all any retcon opportunities you missed.

So here's what a move might look like.

Let's say Player 1 on turn 2 submitted this move:
Spoiler:
Shield
Attack Player 2
Attack Player 2
Attack Player 3
Attack Player 3

Retcon round 1 to:
Attack Player 2
Attack Player 2
Attack Player 2
Attack Player 2
Attack Player 2


Now, let's say that since Player 1 was defending in round 1, and has changed to attacking, she lost 2 energy units in round 2. This means that in round 2, she uses 1 energy on defense, and two to attack player 2. However, player 2 is dead now (thanks to her retcon of round 1), so these attacks do nothing.
In round 3, player 1 can't retcon round 1, since she has already. Player 2 can't do anything, as he is currently dead. Player 3 might wish to retcon round 1 to attack player 1, knowing that she can't defend; but this means that it'd have to stop attacking player 2, and player 2 would come back to life!

This game is really hard to visualise, and I'm not sure I've made the best choices with the rules. For example, I'd like retconning to be something you need to spend energy on, but then you end up with retcons which undo other retcons!

________________________________________
So, I'm looking for feedback. How would you change the game? In particular:

Should players still be able to retcon things once they die?
Should players be able to be retconned back to life?
Should there be a limit to the number of rounds you can retcon each turn? In total?
Should there be a scoring system? What should the victory conditions be?
Should you be able to retcon previous retcons? How would this system work?
Should you be allowed to retcon within a retcon?
Should retconning cost energy?
If so, how can you prevent 'retcon loops' - that is, changing the past so that the person in the future never actually came back and changed the past? Perhaps have it fry the energy unit in all times? Or should a goal be to get the other players stuck in such a loop?
Image

User avatar
orangedragonfire
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:45 am UTC
Location: It exists. Probably.

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby orangedragonfire » Tue Jul 16, 2013 3:24 pm UTC

Replying to Vytron on the after-death discussion:

I think you're ignoring the anthropic principle. You get something similar when you consider the universe, and how extremely unlikely it is that a random universe should produce life. Why are we in such an unlikely universe? If just one of the physical constants had been slightly different, we wouldn't exist. BUT, and this is the important point, such a universe wouldn't have any observers observing it. By being observers, the universe we exist in must support observers.

Similarly, by observing that we are alive, we must be in one of the time-periods of this universe where there was life; furthermore life that is capable of complex thought. Let's ignore other species like cats, dogs and dolphins, and just focus on humans. Assuming that we eradicate ourselves in the next 50 years of so (which is unfortunately quite reasonable), and assuming that you exist as one of the humans, we get a probability of over 1% for you being alive today, instead of the ludicrously small probabilities you gave; this is because there are so many more people today than during any other time when humans existed.

However, even if you get a tiny chance, your argument is still flawed. Unless you are postulating a soul, the chance of you existing is equal to the chance of a physical structure capable of thinking and containing your thoughts existing. Let this chance be x, and note that x is very, very tiny due to how complex you are. Now, the chance of such a structure existing twice is equal to x^2. This number a lot smaller than x, which was already ridiculously small. Existing more than twice would be even less likely.

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby Adam H » Tue Jul 16, 2013 4:07 pm UTC

dudiobugtron wrote:Should players still be able to retcon things once they die?
Should players be able to be retconned back to life?
Should there be a limit to the number of rounds you can retcon each turn? In total?
Should there be a scoring system? What should the victory conditions be?
Should you be able to retcon previous retcons? How would this system work?
Should you be allowed to retcon within a retcon?
Should retconning cost energy?
If so, how can you prevent 'retcon loops' - that is, changing the past so that the person in the future never actually came back and changed the past? Perhaps have it fry the energy unit in all times? Or should a goal be to get the other players stuck in such a loop?

No.
Yes.
Yes: 1. No, other than the natural limit of 1 less than the number of rounds.
Meh. Winner takes all.
No. N/A.
No.
No.
N/A.

Something sort of interesting could happen where if on turn 2, player1 retcons turn 1, but also other players retcon turn 1 which results in player1 dying in turn 1. Should player1's retcon still apply? Not sure if I'm missing this scenario in your post, but I say yes. Time manipulation can reasonably be considered unretconnable (best word EVER) if you don't make it require energy.

I suggest that if a player misses their turn, they submit 5 shields, rather than submitting their previous turn.

Basically, it's perfect how it is! I want to play. :)
-Adam

User avatar
bluebambue
An der schönen blauen Donau
Posts: 900
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:14 am UTC

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby bluebambue » Tue Jul 16, 2013 4:08 pm UTC

I think it's an interesting concept. Here are my thoughts
Should players still be able to retcon things once they die? : no
Should players be able to be retconned back to life? : yes
Should there be a limit to the number of rounds you can retcon each turn? In total? : I was thinking you can only retcon one round a turn
Should there be a scoring system? What should the victory conditions be? : Maybe whoever gave the most damage while still being alive at the end? I don't know you would define end, though
Should you be able to retcon previous retcons? How would this system work? : No. N/A
Should you be allowed to retcon within a retcon? : No
Should retconning cost energy? : Maybe
If so, how can you prevent 'retcon loops' - that is, changing the past so that the person in the future never actually came back and changed the past? Perhaps have it fry the energy unit in all times? Or should a goal be to get the other players stuck in such a loop?[/quote]

User avatar
Snark
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:22 pm UTC

Re: The Forum Games Discussion Thread

Postby Snark » Tue Jul 16, 2013 6:29 pm UTC

dudiobugtron wrote:Super Retcon Rumble
This sounds great! I just simulated a 3 player game by myself and it seems interesting. I'd play!
dudiobugtron wrote:Should players still be able to retcon things once they die? Fine either way.
Should players be able to be retconned back to life? Yes!
Should there be a limit to the number of rounds you can retcon each turn? In total? Once per round.
Should there be a scoring system? What should the victory conditions be? Last one standing wins.
Should you be able to retcon previous retcons? How would this system work? No.
Should you be allowed to retcon within a retcon? No.
Should retconning cost energy? No.
If so, how can you prevent 'retcon loops' - that is, changing the past so that the person in the future never actually came back and changed the past? Perhaps have it fry the energy unit in all times? Or should a goal be to get the other players stuck in such a loop? No.
Dashboard Confessional wrote:I want to give you whatever you need. What is it you need? Is it within me?


Avatar by Matt


Return to “Forum Games”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests