unreality

to be honest it doesn't matter whether global climate change is a fact. What matters is that we need to get off our @sses and start saving the ONLY PLANET we KNOW OF that supports LIFE! The disrespect some people have for our Earth astounds me. If you ask "why help the earth if we're unsure about global warming?" i ask "WHY NOT???"

octopuppy's message: phillip1882's message: Duh Puck's message: It was interesting looking at the differences in reasoning. I did not make this up, I got from a Martin Gardner book on paradoxes. In essence, it's a paradox about free will as well as the belief in supernatural Beings. My interpretation... If you believe in free will - or in the absence of Beings - you're likely to say that the Being has already made its decision and the money is either there or not. By taking both boxes you will get all of the money that you possibly could have. If you believe in the absence of free will - or if you believe in supernatural Beings with mystical powers - you're likely to say that the Being's track record speaks for itself and it has predicted what you will do correctly and is true to its word and thus you should pick the risk box and take the million it is expected to put there. But here is where further paradox comes up: you picked just the risk box because you believed that the Being knew your decision beforehand and so put the million$ there. Let's say that the Being spoke truly when it said it can see the future and knows exactly how it will turn out, deterministically. If that's possible than what you do now has the ability to CHANGE THE PAST. If you pick just the million$ box, the Being will have seen that and put the million there. If you pick both, the Being will have seen that and put nothing there. But that opens up paradoxes of time travel, causality and temporal paradox… if the boxes were clear and you could see what was in both, making a mental choice can't change the situation in front of your eyes… but assuming that the Being can't really see the future but just makes accurate guesses about someone's character and is very good at it, you should take just the million$ box. But why not take the other box too for an extra grand? ~~~ This sort of shows how initial presumptions can affect the evidence... thanks for taking part, guys

I'll give details like that later. Races, Classes and Skills (each person will be able to pick three Skills) will depend mostly on the setting and maybe the combat system

when you also vote, please sign up if you want to play! The more the merrier! Host: Unreality 1)

thanks for the input, guys. We seem to have sufficient interest in this so I put up a second poll to decide the combat system and the game setting: Please continue discussion there, thanks

~~~ Combat System One ~~~ ~~~ Combat System Two ~~~ Each encounter consists of three steps: (1) Planning strategy with teammates (2) Presenting to me the plan for winning or escaping (or whatever the goal is) the encounter (3) Hearing from me the outcome of the plan. I may take into consideration factors you are not aware of as well as evaluating how realistic of a chance you have, etc. ~~~ Combat System Three - a mix of One and Two ~~~ Each encounter consists of three steps: (1) Planning strategy with teammates. If very well thought out, it means it was thoroughly discussed. Or you could just jump right into combat. If something attacks the group, you might not have time for this step (2) Second-by-second action. Instead of playing it in a round-by-round style (like we would with system One) each player PMs me their general strategy for the encounter. This stage might happen again after major events that would shift the action (such as a player dying) (3) Post-battle post by me, saying what happened each second and how it ended up System Three would still have a stat-based system like System One, but it wouldn't be as complicated. It'd be something like this: AR = Attack Ranking. Some percentage DR = Defense Ranking. Some percentage AC = (AR-DR)/100. So if your AR was 70% and the opponent's DR was 20%, your attack's AC would be 50%, and in general will succeed half of the time. * Physical close-range weapons have high AR but low APS (attacks per second). A sword might have 80% sucess (80 AR) but only get 1 APS. So there's a lot of luck involved, but that's why the AR's are usually high. A single hit from a high-AR low-APS weapon would deal lots of damage * Magical/ranged/fast/monk attacks would have low AR but high APS and low damage per hit… some magical flurry attack might have 10% AR but 100 APS so every second it would get around 10 low-damage hits in The second vote will be about the setting… I have envisioned two settings. Setting A and Setting B. Setting A: Vulkanoa: set on a tropical volcanic archipelago centered around a powerful mystical volcano, Vulkanoa. Most players would be explorers or adventurers from the Motherland, the far off center of civilized society. Some players might be natives of the tropical archipelago region. Most adventuring would be very wild with overgrown ruins and reclusive lizardlike tribes and colonialism outposts Setting B: Atmos: this is a very unique setting I recently dreamed up, haha. The entire planet is gaseous, not with oxygen or anything we know but with an element known just as Sky. Lots of things float in Sky, including Earth… sky islands occupy the right level of density in the atmosphere. Atmos is their name for the entire universe because the inhabitants believe that it is the entire universe and that Sky = Life. Where the Sky runs out and Space begins, they cannot comprehend this and claim the edge of the universe. The lowest altitude of Atmos is known as the Core, an eternal dark sphere of impenetrable gases. Surrounded that is the Storm, a perpetually stormy layer that is extremely dangerous for skyships, and extremely mysterious. Above that is "the Aire", the majority of the planet. It's split into the Lower Aire (very dusty, floating in a sea of reddish/orangish dusty haze in all directions), Middle Aire (a wide variety of gases) and Upper Aire (perfect crystalline blue skies, shining sunlight [they believe that the Sun is their God and Goddess having sex and producing light], tops of towers from below, etc)… most sky islands have their lowest tips in Lower Aire. Some sky islands are very small, and some are miles across. This ones usually spout cities that ascend for miles up, from great hazy foundations in the Lower Aire through tall parallel bustling city towers ringed by platforms, bridges and landing docks in the Middle Aire and up to shining golden tower tops in the Upper Aire. Above the Upper Aire is a mysterious region known as the Aetrium. It's where Sky starts becoming sparse and the air gets harder and harder to breathe. The Aetrium is associated with psychedelic journeys as one runs out of Sky to breathe, mystical experiences and dazzling calm viewpoints of the world below. The Aetrium is characterized by its purplish dark sky speckled with stars ("sky-gems") and far-off galaxies and nebulas and aurora lights dancing at the top of the world. In general Atmos is stormiest at the Core and gets calmer and calmer the farther you go out, so the Aetrium is hauntingly calm and tranquil and quiet. Water floats in Sky ergo it tends to clump up. Water is precious, obviously. There is something called the Ocean which is a giant globule of water somewhere in Middle Aire. You would enter Vulkanoa during a time of rampant colonialism and exploration and changing ways You would enter Atmos during a strenuous guerrilla war raged against the Monarchy by secretive empires While adventuring in Vulkanoa would be mainly wild with ancient ruins and whatnot, as I said, the way of life in Atmos would be more city adventures and epic quests and politics and things

it also requires personal experimentation and curiosity. If you saw a microwave and knew nothing at all about it, after some experimenting around you might have at least some idea By the way, Phillip, only octopuppy has responded to my proposed scenario in the post above yours (still waiting on Duh Puck), but feel free to PM me about it too if you wish

yeah... I need quite a bit more votes I think to make doing this a good idea... at least two or three more votes of "I will definitely play" since one of those is mine

yeah it lies in how the algorithm uses and interprets all the information it receives through both arrays and the 'i' variable. That makes algorithm vs. algorithm interesting, but not algorithm vs. random, which is why originally I had not used that, I don't know why I caved in 1) Unreality 2) phillip1882 3) Izzy 4) ... It's only interesting when all algorithms have the same restriction, because it's about how well they use the data given to them to pre-empt the opponent's next move. Granted you could make a program that has a random array 0,1,1,0,2,1,0,etc and then use the i variable to sample the next number from it, but that would be the same as random and thus cheating (unless there was some pattern to the numbers that could be calculated from 'i' without needing the array)

:lol: doh!

izzy submitted what appears to be a very clever algorithm... it was a bit of a challenge to program, but fun She also suggested that I write a completely random program to see how it matches up, so I did... [programs we make are not allowed to be random, of course] 1) Unreality 2) phillip1882 3) Izzy 4) Random Opponent 5) ... let's see who else we get. I know a few other people that are interested ;D PM your friends/BD friends and get them over here!

I sort of made the beginnings of a fun template for an RPG-esque game. I would be the game master and we would need probably 4-8 people playing different races/classes etc (based on the game template). It would be very open to what the players want to do. I was a DM for a very long time so I have a lot of experience but we could make story-telling/role-playing as in-depth as you want as full-on RPG or it could be just more of a choice-based choose-your-own-adventure type thing. Whatever the players want... we could even make a simple battle/combat system if desired... what do you think?

the idea would be to give you both the same set of starting axioms and see where you end up. I guess it'd be a test of how definite the rules of manipulating the axioms would be. Hmmm. It definitely couldn't be pure logic seeing as that's designed to be consistent, at least at any non-chaotic level I could think of. It would have to relate more to the real world. I'll think about this maybe we should have multiple experiments. Here's a starting one just to see if this will work: You have found yourself in a sort of contest run by a mysterious Being... in this contest, you are in a room with a table. On the table are two black boxes of equal size. The boxes are locked and need a special piece of wireless technology from the Being to unlock. In the box on the left is $1000, always. The box on the right has either NOTHING or a MILLION dollars. The Being entered the room this morning and put in either a million or nothing, depending on what It thinks you will do... because that's the catch. The Being claims to be able to see the future. You have two options. You can get the key to just the MILLION/NOTHING box. Or you can get the key that opens BOTH boxes! If the Being thinks that you will open just the one risk box, It will put $1,000,000 inside. If the Being thinks that you will open both boxes, it will put NOTHING in the risk box! The Being has already entered the room this morning to put either a million or nothing in the box. The money is either already there or it's already not. What do you do? Take only the risk box, or take both boxes? Is your answer changed by the statistic that the Being has run this contest 100 times before and predicted correctly what the person would do each time? 10 times before? 10000 times before? Think about it a little before answering (PM your answer). The question is a little more subtle and confusing than it at first seems Anyone that reads this, feel free to PM me what you would do (don't post it here)...

Thanks for participating Phillip, your algorithm looks great (I converted your description to java and sent it back to you, let me know how you like it ;D). I think it will hold up its own pretty well Also I'm thinking we should have a Round-Robin tournament style, where everyone plays everyone once. numGames = 50 I think is still a good number

I think that what you said (about randomness being optimal) is only correct for humans (and non-tournament-serious humans at that), but part of this exercise is finding out, eh? Furthermore, a random game will only get you to win 1/3 of the time (the other thirds are losing and tying). Surely that can be further optimized. Also, when ALL the players are deterministic non-random algorithms, there's something to be said for strategy At the very least it will be interesting to see what people come up with ;D

Interesting. I don't want to get into the religious debate thing either (although my response would be that because we are alive in our universe, it must be true that this universe can support life - I believe it's called the anthropic principle) but that aside, your assertion that assertions are meaningless sans mutual starting point (which is nigh impossible due to our individualistic natures) is a compelling one. I have to think about this. It could spell the downfall of much rational thinking. I propose a game/experiment in which I give you and Octopuppy a set of axioms, rules, presumptions, etc and see where you guys end up. Would Duh Puck and Octopuppy be willing to participate in such an experiment? Oh I think memories are for the most part accurate, if for no other reason than fear of my life being a sham Have you seen the movie 'Moon'? It's haunting in its implications and raises philosophical questions about memory. For the most part I think memory is fairly accurate. There are cases where it gets distorted, of course, and oftentimes repetitive things can get hazed together, but I guess that's a space-saving technique (like jpeg compression or something haha), but in general memory is okay. However, our INTERPRETATION of memory after-the-fact can distort the memory itself. I'm not necessarily questioning the "weirdness" of your experience but just pointing out that we can post-modify things to make them more dramatic or leaning toward our pre-existing belief structures. But you already said that you agreed that anecdotal evidence is purely subjective and as often incorrect as it is correct, so let's move on from that and back to what we were saying before: this comes back to that experiment/game I proposed as well

yeah it's not hard... I'd recommend posting here to sign up but you don't others to design their algorithms against yours, so you can just PM them to me. I've already made mine (I'll post it here openly in a second) so don't worry about me cheating public int hawk(int[] a, int[] b, int i) { if (i==0) return (int)Math.pow(2,21) % 3; int[] num = new int[3]; for (int z=0; z<i; z++) { num[b[z]]++; } int x=0; if (num[0] > num[1]) { x = 0 ; } else if (num[1] > num[0]) { x = 1 ; } else { x = num[x] % 2 ; } if (num[2] > num[x]) x = 2; return (x+1)%3; } all algorithms will start with public int hawk(int[] a, int[] b, int i) { //// BODY HERE } remember, a is an array of the moves YOU'VE made, b is an array of the moves THE ENEMY's made. i is what round # it is. 0 means first round, then 1, then 2, 3, 4, etc. You don't need to know programming!!! I will make it for you based on your description! For example, to produce 'hawk', you could've done this for your algorithm: * if it's the first round, just do something pseudorandom (i did (2^21) mod 3, albeit not very random but it works as long as I don't check what that result is haha) * for all other rounds, find out what the opponent has used most, then use the move that beats that move that's what 'hawk' is. The only other extra thing needed would be how ties are handled and other minute things [for example, in hawk, if the enemy does rock and paper equally, which one 'hawk' picks to defeat is pretty much random based on the local environment. Then if all three tie, that same random result is used. If rock and scissors tie, or if paper and scissors tie, it will go with the rock or the paper to beat, not scissors.] for those test programs I put above, here is the code and beneath that, an algorithm description that would show me how to make said code for you: ~~~~~~~ what is this "%3"? The % stands for modulus and means remainder-after-division. Any number 'mod 3' will produce an integer less than three - ie, 0, 1, or 2 (ROCK/PAPER/SCISSORS) 0 mod 3 = 0 1 mod 3 = 1 2 mod 3 = 2 3 mod 3 = 0 4 mod 3 = 1 5 mod 3 = 2 6 mod 3 = 0 7 mod 3 = 1 8 mod 3 = 2 9 mod 3 = 0 10 mod 3 = 1 11 mod 3 = 2 12 mod 3 = 0 13 mod 3 = 1 14 mod 3 = 2 15 mod 3 = 0 16 mod 3 = 1 17 mod 3 = 2 [etc.] That can be a helpful tool Beware of some tricky behavior when negative numbers are involved (http://mindprod.com/jgloss/modulus.html#SIGNRULES) but if you're describing to me how you want your algorithm to work I'll take care of that stuff for you

http://www.dumblaws.com/ according to that, in Michigan, "There is a 3 cent bounty for each starling and 10 cent bounty for each crow killed in any village, township, or city in the state. (Repealed, 2006)"

Here's the challenge: write a little code snippet in java or just generic pseudocode or even just describe your algorithm (you don't even have to know programming, I can just convert your algorithm for you!) that plays ROCK PAPER SCISSORS against an enemy... that enemy is another algorithm! THE GAME We all know the game rock paper scissors could use a little strategy... sure there is some psychological merit to it, but most of it is luck. Well, that's about to change.... you will create a deterministic algorithm that will battle against other algorithms for the ultimate title of ROCK PAPER SCISSORS CHAMPION!!! There will be no randomness functions, no chance, no luck. It's about skill. Is your algorithm a simple numerical ninja? Or is it a complex meta-algorithm that attempts to counterguess the enemy's strategy? MAY THE BEST ALGORITHM WIN!!!!! TECHNICAL SPECS Your algorithm has access to three different inputs: it has an array of all the moves its used previously. This array is called a. There is another array, b, that contains the moves used by the enemy in this match. You also have a variable, i, that denotes the round number (i=0 is the first round, i=1 is the next round, then i=2, etc). Right now I have the global var numRounds set to 50. Ie, there will be 50 rounds before we see whose won more games. Let me know if you think that number should be something else. 0 = ROCK 1 = PAPER 2 = SCISSORS [rock beats scissors, scissors beats paper, paper beats rock] the arrays a & b are of the datatype int and hold zeroes, ones and twos up to a or b. a and all values after that in the array is NULL, same with b. So the array is only defined from a[0] to a[i-1] or equivalent for b. For the very first round, i=0, there will be nothing in the arrays. So if your algorithm uses previous data to make future decisions, you'll need to have some primer value for i=0 For anyone interested, here is my java code that runs all this: All algorithms must return one of these three integers: 0 (ROCK), 1 (PAPER), 2 (SCISSORS)!!! good luck and post here with remarks, questions, etc.... let's get a signup list? 1) Unreality 2) ... should we shoot for eight people? REMEMBER YOU DONT NEED TO KNOW PROGRAMMING... you just need to make a killer algorithm that's a whiz at R/P/S I can write the actual code for it for you if you want!

that's a good idea, I love Pendragon!

oh man that article really riles me up. I don't want to bring up specifics but this part: "or example, evolution has no explanation as to why and how around 1.4 million species of animals evolved as male and female. No one even goes near explaining how and why each species managed to reproduce (during the millions of years the female was supposedly evolving to maturity) without the right reproductive machinery. Nor does any evolutionary believer adequately address the fact that all those 1.4 million species managed to evolve into maturity together in our lifetime. Nothing we have in creation is half evolved." All I know about evolution are the fundamental basics and I still know that the whole quoted italic phrase is just some of the dumbest sh*t I've ever seen, pardon my language. This guy has the completely wrong mindset ... "nothing is half evolved"??? There is no final manifest destiny to evolution Mr. Comfort. There is no gauge that we can look at and say "hey we're 87% done with our evolution, yay!". There is no final model of a working uterus that the parts need to work toward. No ultimate blueprint of a human eye that just magically assembles itself over time... Evolution is a natural process that is always ongoing. With each birth and death all animals are evolving! There is no goal to evolution, and it's that which allows the wonderful diversity and breadth & depth of life we experience on Earth... I could probably go on and on so i'll get out now

this probably adds nothing to the website but I landed here for an unrelated reason: http://www.ipl.org/div/farq/plotFARQ.html and saw in the 3-plot section brief mention of "the logical choice". There it is again... now that I think about it, that theme comes up all the time. The big hero follows his/her intuition instead of the colder, logical choice to leave someone behind or let a smaller # of people die or whatever, and find the optimal solution. As octopuppy and Duh Puck (and I) have said, in those kind of moral decisions it's essentially impossible to apply logic in the first place so if we can recognize that on a metalogic level then the logical choice and intuitive/ethical choice become one and the same.