metadigital

Agreed neither theory is proved; and agreed I know it is not possible at this time to prove either one. But more information is pending from the scientific community ... No I didn't "state" the universe was infinite, I ruminated. Conjecture. Blue sky mining. Thought experiments. And it seems to me that any discussion on the explanation of what is beyond what we know as "everything we can observe" is going to consist mainly -- if not solely -- of conjecture. Yes, but as I have already said above, religious dogma actually restricts your options quite significantly. (And, you are having a bet each way, saying either scripture is right or science!) Ah, but my absence of "proof" is seen by some expedient religious dogmatists (not you, of course) as proof of the divine hand. Not so much anymore, I grant you, but I will always make sure this conceit remains as unpopular as it is illogical. I mentioned Socrates to underline my use of the word "axiom", which seemed to be totally misapprehended. Newton beleived in astrologoy and alchemy; I need not believe in either to calculate the velocty of an apple falling from a tree. I will put it down to my personal uncomfortableness with the faith in what I believe an inherently untrustworthy plethora of documents, and scientific rigour, being bedfellows within the same mind. Yeah, you started it.

Is it? I'm not so sure, since space and time are closely related, and it looks like time began with the Big Bang. Theoretically, it is space that is bent in the presence of large masses creating the effect known as a gravitational field. While we tend to equate "vacuum" and "nothingness" with "space", they are not the same thing. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, I think you are confusing "Space" and the "fabric of Space", which I think the latter is the (known) three dimiensional "spatial" volume that we exist in of length, width and depth. What does this finite "Space" you talk about exist inside of? A vacuum, perhaps? Space. There's nothing magical about God. And there's no need to scream in fear either. You see, it's the default explanation, until we can get us a better one. You are defending the idea that we are, and I agree with you. But simply accepting that we have always been is like not wanting to know more. And as for God always being there, it's not really a double-standard or a contradiction because while we need to find logical mechanisms for the Universe, the same may not be true for God if he exists outside this universe, and therefore outside logic. I don't believe it's that way, but I see no fault with that reasoning. Unfortunately, you have to make assumptions (some would call them beliefs) either way to reach a conclusion. But obviously, the validity of said conclusion depends on the assumption being true. And since, by definition, those premises can't be proven, we have effectively reached a dead end. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't see it as a default explanation. I see it as an additional construct. We are discussing the "laws" or "physics" of events and objects that are by definition outside the "universe" that we have experienced. I think we need to nail down some definitions, because we are in danger of endlessly arguing semantics. Universe seems to be a much mis-used word. It can mean "all we have evidence of", "all we know or hypothesize about" or even more simply "everything". (The "multi-verse" is really a semantic clarification, not an actual difference to the universe in this respect.) You can argue that God is outside the universe, and you would be right if God exists and we don't use the last definition. The beauty of science is that it does not limit what might be the cause of the universe, I'm sure if scientists found evidence for a super-being that sneezed the universe out of its nose then they would measure the blast radius and nasal rifling of the being. Seriously, though, there is nothing in science that restricts the existence of "life" above our comprehension; we just don't have a way of measuring it yet. Would this life be divine? Depends on your definition, again. Religious doctrines actually limit the possiblities, and are based merely anecdotal heresay that allegedly is divinely inspired (and I just had to work heresy into the same sentence -- maybe if I said that dogma is the heresay heresy of science! :cool: ). If we look at strict probablity, it is much more likely that my unlimited scientific "let's wait and see based on further evidence" approach will be proved correct rather than the impulsive "God did it" one. The latter mean the definition of "God" must be continually redefined, or at least the boundaries between us re-drawn. If there is a divine world I would prefer to think it is more in the mold of the Robert Heinlein approach in Job. So, I would rather say "I don't know" and stare into the void looking for answers without knowing, then stand back and say "I know -- God told me". I think that is more cowardly. Seek the truth, don't invent it.

So, he's like 99yo

Yep, I've not been back to read further yet, I'll be back soon. I would hope that writing is something you enjoy doing, despite anything everyone else might say.

I don't agree. I've only played K1 three times because there are no new things to discover. K2 is like the Matrix: The story is so complex that you to "see" it a couple of times to understand it. There are many conversations that are as deep as the one in Reloaded with the Architect: You have to read through the dialogue a couple of times to really GET IT. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Similar to the Matrix Reloaded, however, the re-reading is not because of the profundity of the philosophical content, but the ineptitude of the dialogue used to convey it.

I think an idea that was very underutilized was the interaction between party NPCs. The sort of conflict between Kreia and Atton, for example, should have been more pronouced, such that some NPCs would refuse to talk / fight / fraternise with in general. Sure, Hanharr and Mira did this to a small extent, but I think this could have been more broadly and deeply implemented to a greater effect. Geometric Progression An exponential series would start with the simplest example of 2: 2, 4, 8, 16, ... , 1024, 2048, ... 65536, ... etc 2^1, 2^2, 2^3, 2^4, ... , 2^10, 2^11, ... 2^16, ... etc Now, the amount of work to script 10 puzzles of key length 4 would be a geometric 10 x 4 = 40 scripted dialogues. This is a minimum, however, you could always increase the complexity by allowing interactions between the puzzles, though this would be adding to the number of keys for the puzzle: e.g. a if the PC has already got the skeleton key from the Undead Golem, then the PC doesn't need to complete the four-part key quest for this door (of which the PC will have one innate part of the key and three other parts to obtain). It's additive not multiplicative, so we'd get 4 key parts multiplied by ten puzzles with an additional nine possible extra keys (one from each of the remaining puzzles) = 49. Again, this would not be exponential, just a different geometric series. I am struggling to come up with an example of a true exponential series in this model. It entail each puzzle having solutions that effected each of the consequential puzzles, such that the four initial key parts would each have four different key parts to each of the next puzzles, in order. So that you would get four to the power of ten = two to the twentieth power = 1,048,576 dialogue options in total. There's a world of difference between 1,048,576 and 49. 1,048,527, to be exact. :D

Well done I am constantly surprised at the rapid progress your team is making! Any proofing or such work I would be pleased to help with.

That dosnt make sense for the following reasons. 1. A movie is much shorter than a game and 3 hours isnt time for an average movie to have a complex plot. ... As for people being annoyed because they cant ditch Kreia, well too bad you cant ditch any of the KOTOR I characters either because the story is told through them in the same way. Since you could see Bastila's fall coming a mile off (plus it was pretty much a carbon copy of NwN) why did you never get the option to leave her with the Jedi. Or lock her in the cargo hold. That is an accusation you would have to level at both games. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Obviously you haven't watched the Direector's Cut of the LotR trilogy ... I think Peter Jackson is gunning for Wagner's crown. :D If you ditched / hid / rubber hose over the head and stuff in a closet Bastila in KotOR then someone else would have to be sacrificed to escape from jawless. Or the PC would be captured / turned / killed. So as obvious as Bastila's cature and fall was, it was alsofundamental to the very simplistic plot. I certainly agree that K2 had a better plot; it was woefully implemented and therefore didn't translate into a good game. (Poor philosophical dissertation, notwithstanding. " ) I used to be able to watch the direst acting as long as the underlying plot was good (Doctor Who anyone?). Then I learnt about acting, and more importantly good acting, and now I can't watch a film where I can see the acting. Shadowlands is a simple true story about CS Lewis meeting the love of his life; no special effects, no grand designs -- yet it is masterfully compelling because of the superior performance of Antony Hopkins. K2 has a great plot, good shade in the light / dark -- good / evil -- but the terrible implementation meant playing it is like trying to watch Gigli. That said, the two stories are very different animals, and all comparisons are odious.

No, it's like telling a falling man he can't fly if he chooses to.

So, a sort of "Good-Chaotic-Neutral" type? (Like North North-West is more north than West-North-West.)

I'll start off with the best game I have played: Deus Ex. First Point: no elves or orcs. Magic is limited to medpacks. An interesting near-future scenario, ripe with intrigue and -- eventually -- overwelming conspiracies. Although the narrative is quite linear (which was addressed in the sequel), the tactics used to complete each "level" or geographic section are quite flexible, and there are three different ways to complete the game. For example, for my last play-through I didn't kill any third-parties who had no idea they were being used by a secret agency, prefering to tranquilize them instead. I especially like the technique -- used later to great effect in Max Payne 2, as well -- where the PC is introduced to a new area whilst the NPCs are friendly, and then later has to battle back through said area under fire. Gameplay is simple, but not simplistic; guns and munitions help the PC adopt either a full-frontal "tank" all the way to subterfuge and a "thief" attitude. Weapons can have imporvements added like damage, accuracy, ammo capacity and range mods, and a silencer. There is a basic "levelling up" feature, whereby completing plot advancements gains proportional points for use in any aspect of a dozen different skills. The skills are from untrained to mastery, and effect game play with aspects like toxic waste resistence and rifle or pistol control. There is also the opportunity to add bio-modification nanites of different and sometimes mutually exclusive powers; e.g. silent running or powerful leaping. And there are four levels of biomod power, as well ... I also found the plot interesting, as I had read a lot about the various groups mentioned in the narrative before I had even heard of Deus Ex. Regardless, the plot is compelling and certainly contains all the necessary accoutrements for a rip-roaring tale. The pacing is sublime; the PC is only given powerful biomods later in the narrative, after experiencing how difficult a given task is without, and again with the added hurdle of a more dangerous enemy to test the new biomod. I can't recommend this game highly enough, the only negative point I can bring myself to mention is the very long and involved plot is a little too linear to replay continuously (just continually, with a short break :cool: ). And it is also all true.

It's more a political control over the enormous and increasing Islamic population within the Russian Federation, isn't it? What did Churchil say? The best argument against democracy is to talk to one of the electors ...

He took his mother to the last Oscars.

Read Isaac Asimov. And all the short stories of PKD. And listen to another piece of Mozart every day.

Oops, I just wrote a big tirade. :D I'll have to continue tomorrow, the Boss has called time for today.

Socrates has said many things, by reputation. ... [snip boring irrelevant biography of Socrates and feeble attempt to compare ancient philosophy with modern science] ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, I was simply restating the first "misapprehension" you made of my earlier post, that I was asserting that science tells us there is no god. Why stop there? Why not simply use all of antiquity as your palate? The Earth is stting on the backs of two giant turtles, isn't it? Just because science hasn't given us the raw information from which we can jump off the cliff of blind faith, doesn't mean we have to jump now. I am confident, certainly, that as much as I know about science (and I'll bet its more than most people on these boards, but that is moot for my point) there is a lot more I don't know, and I am patient enough to keep my powder dry before starting the final apocalyse and sending out the invitations to the three horsemen. Actually I was giving a simplistic view of the Big Bang, and commenting that yours and others' predeliction for a magical cause because you haven't found a scientific one is patently illogical. But that's okay, you are a person of faith, and faith abhors proof, lest it deminish to nothing. Where did matter ultimately derive from? I don't know, yet, but I'll keep looking, rather than scream in fear and say "It must be GOD!". Of that there is no doubt. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm still waiting ... Actually, you've managed to torture logic to your own ends, as the question remains unanswered by your own reasoning. After all, the initial question revolved around the creation of matter. If I'm understanding your mental gymnastics, then it's clear that you don't care to discuss how matter came into existence. Fair enough. It's a cop out, largely so you can argue against the reality of God. What's odd to me, however, is that we've managed to take a discussion about the nature of our origins, argued by and large along scientific lines, and turn it into a freshman philosophy course. There's one thing that proves the lie in your assessment that it's more simple to believe it all just exists: folks don't seem to believe it. Scientists continue to search for answers in science. Believers continue to search for answers in God. Virtually everyone searches for meaning, even those who have no God. Now it's your turn. Regale me with quotes from Socrates. I'm waiting with baited breath for you to flex your mental muscles. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Now I shall resort to science, as this is the main point of the thread. (I was demonstrating the utter absurdity of using faith in a scientific discussion with philosophy, as it has zero bearing on real science.) It is probable that as a scientific community we have not matured enough in our studies to answer this question to any degree of satisfaction (if we could then there would hardly be a need to discuss it, it would be clear for all to see). I wouldn't be at all surprised if an entire new system of thought would be required to frame the discussion, much like quantum mechanics was necessary because Newtonian theory was insufficient -- not irrelevant, mind you, just not sufficient to describe the new terms. I wouldn't be surprised if we needed a new system defined by this new system, either. Our science, if you believe Professor Stephen Hawking, cannot explain what is before the Big Bang by definition. To explain, it is similar to trying to represent a negative number on the natural number system. Or for me to try to speak Chinese. It just isn't built for it. Shall I ruminate? Okay, why not (as I have an audience)? The universe is infinite. But matter is finite. Therefore life is finite, ergo life is non-existent (as any finite divisor into an infinite dividend equates to zero). Yet here we are. So perhaps this entire universe is nothing more than a ripple on the pond of -- whatever the universe exists in (we have no word for the "beyond everything", the meta-universe, so I'll use that) -- the meta-universe. Therefore it is not difficult to imagine that, much as a positron and an electron can simultaneously and without direct known cause spontaneously appear (and indeed disapear), it is only a question of scale to include the universe or the point of Big Bang origin. I suspect we will have a better idea what caused matter and energy to "precipitate" or "incorporate" once we have a better idea what these forms are. We can still only think about such concepts as gravitrons as force particles. FORCE PARTICLES. And light has mass, I've seen it push a metal flange in a vacuum. We don't know enough about the essence of matter and energy YET to make any meaningful guess as to what the universe came from. This is what seperates us, though; my inability to explain something scientifically does not make me reach for a complex diatribe of convoluted, translated, abridged and edited aphorisms and fables in the hope that, by geographic accident, this particular book and no other is the real word of the alleged creator, and that I and people I necessarily entrust, can and will faithfully interpret it to our and my best interests. That's a lot of faith. (If it came to it, I would sooner be Jewish; at least their religion is reasonable.) I have no issue with your belief in a creator (the Alpha and Omega, as it were), I just believe it is not necessary as I have faith in logic. You, on the other hand, would have me believe in a God, because you cannot conceive of a universe without one. I'll throw the ball back to you: where did God come from? Oh that's right, God has always been here. And that's not a paradoxical double standard, because it's religion.

Clint Eastwood turned 75 yesterday.

Taxidermy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ... Or glue manufacture.

The band who sings the songs on the soundtrack called "Nothin's Gonna Stand In Our Way" and "Hunger" is listed on the soundtrack credits as Spectre General, but the band's name is actually Kick Axe. When the soundtrack was being assembled, they thought the name "Kick Axe" sounded too threatening, so they listed them as "Spectre General". The band was not notified about the change.

Did he make the Women's team? PS Very rude, is he trying to show his "sensitive" side to impress a girl, or going there with a mate to get drunk and watch the women mud fight?

However, emptiness does exist, too, even if only as the reality within we exist. It is a necessary part of it. Much like before carrying out operations within a mathematical space you need to define that space. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think "Space" is an adequate definition without need for mathematical explanation. After all, we are talking about the absence of everything, even mathematics. Did you read my post? I'm actually tempted to quote myself. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I skimmed it, but I got bored. Perhaps religious people will, but I'm not religious so the point is moot. And just "Universe" is an even more ineffective and incomplete explanation than God -> Universe. You could try to apply the same reasoning to the Law of Gravity claiming that stuff falls just because it does. However, gravity needs to be introduced in order to satisfactorily explain why does it fall. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Which should have been your first clue; I was responding to a certain Eldar point that my "science" was faulty, when in fact I was speaking in (I thought rather obviously) philosophical terms. I thought it was especially obvious, since quite a few posters (including your good self) have already established that science is not equipt to deal with concepts outside the universe of space and time that we inhabit. But I am merely stating a very basic concept, and one that is axiomatic: I exist (cogito ergo sum, as Ren

[1]Bush Sr. took notice to the UN mandate just because it was in his interest, if it hadn't been he would have done otherwise just like his son did.... [2]I feel sorry seeing american boys getting killed all the time just because some rich fat political and military oligarchy saw it going to Iraq as a good move.....but then again what your commander and chief says must be done without question....and your re-election of Bush was a big mistake....the only bigger mistake was ellecting him in a first place (if that was that case - Florida anyone... " ) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 1. Bush Sr was the leader of a huge coalition of countries, all of whom had banded together to act as one in the name of international law. This coalition included just about every Arab nation, most of whom would not have been complicit in the invasion of a sovereign country (after all, there was only Isreal as a democracy in the region at the time: who's next?). In fact General Stormin' Norman Swartzkopf was ready, willing and able to completely neutralize Saddam's forces: in fact he insisted, because it is correct military procedure to remove a threat completely and not leave it to fester and become a threat once more (Sun-Tzu). 2. The neo-cons may very well have made a political decision to invade Iraq; that is, after all what their job is -- protect and help their country prosper. To say that George Dubya Bush was unelected is rediculous: his mandate has just been re-afirmed with the largest population of people voting for him than has voted for anyone else in the country's history. If you want to start putting the US democracy on trial, then let's check a few others, like the corrupt Indian process, for example. And at least the US is a democracy, not like the "one party democracies" of South Africa, Zimbabwe and Russia. Russia is still trying to prevent Chechnya from succeeding, after all: a little too much oil revenue there? (Because Latvia and Lithuania, in contrast, didn't bat a Russian eyelid.)

Many thanks, I was recalling from a couple of decades ago.

Space is a lack of matter. Emptiness. The absence of something. Space. (Think about it. It's a big concept.) Not quite. Logically, Occham's Razor is used to simply complex propositions. The universe exists. Axiom: I am here and I exist, whatever that means, therefore whatever this is is here, whatever that means. Adding another, unknown and unknowable quantity, like "God" or a creator for "this" is unwarranted and unreliable. You may choose to do so, but pure, blunt logic tells me "this" is here and that is all that is required. Hence Occham's Razor says that a creator is unnecessary for the existence of the universe, and, furthermore, sloppy logic and error-prone. We have a 100% "provable" statement "I 'exist'" to a completely unreliable one "God must have created me". Non sequtur. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Apart from the factual errors in your previous post, which I will address later, this is rather sloppy in and of itself. You suggest that I equate one statement, "I exist," as somehow equivalent with another statement, "the universe exists." The fact that I exist is self evident, and my reason for existing is not really the subject of debate at any rate. The question regarding the existence of the universe didn't relate to a question of reality. The issue under discussion is the nature of creation of matter and energy. Your fervent desire to use "Occham's Razor" has created a bit of a problem, as you've rushed headlong into a discussion of whether the universe exists and away from a discussion about how and why the universe exists as it does. The very question of how and why are the basis for science, and yet, to argue against God, you've gleefully run forward waving "Occham's Razor." Well, what am I to say? After all, I thought we were discussing the creation of matter. Furthermore, we have no understanding in our human existence of something "just being." It not only flies in the face of divinity, but also of science. You'd best be careful taking shots at me in regards to my religion lest you end up shooting yourself in the foot, as I submit you have already done. Science will never be happy to say, "it just is." ...And yet, as part of a rather clumsy attack, you are. Since science has not found a logical answer, and since the creation myths of the various religions are in dispute, there is a discussion. ...And, yes, the idea that we "just are" is quite a bit foreign to humanity, regardless of how many "Occham's Razors" you pull out of your coat pocket. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually I wasn't invoking science at all, but philosophy. At no place in that quote am I using science. It's philosophy. Hence all the inverted commas. I say the I exist (and you so kindly put it, that is self-evident: certainly I would call it an axiom, but that's just because that's what Socrates termed it). "It" is is a fact. I'm not inventing or abridging or perverting it, "it" is here. "I" am "here". That is the simplest statement one can make about existence. Full stop. How did "it" get "here"? Well, I think (perhaps you are different) that it is a less complex statement to say that it has always been here -- in some form (matter or energy in a zero dimensional Big Band, or spread out across the universe as we see it now) -- than it is to add a creator of "this". Please, regale me with my factual errors, I'm on the edge of my seat. Assuming that you could find a definite answer using "pure, blunt logic" (and that's an awful lot to assume), that is a flawed reasoning. Occham's razor only serves to simplify unnecessary entities from propositions, but in this case, God is not an unnecessary entity. It serves as cause for the existence of the universe, since the idea that the universe just "existed forever" or "created itself" isn't any more sound, from the standpoint of a "pure, blunt logic". Who or what created God is another matter. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Occham's Razor is just a fancy way of saying, let's simplify a statement. People of religion will say, "God created the universe". I will ask "Who created God?", they will undoubtably respond either directly or eventually "God has always existed". Occham's Razor simplies the statement: God -> Universe to just: Universe. That's it. That's what I meant by "blunt logic". Call it naked deductive reasoning, or Socratic Logic, or even specifically Argument from Definition. It's called the Watchmaker's Fallacy, after the usual "By Design" argument is spouted by religious people to induce the existence of God. Two corollories: "X begat God begat the universe", why is it okay for "X" to exist eternally and not the universe? (This is the same "Watchmaker's Father" fallacy.) "God is the universe" then all that is different from the above statement is that the universe is a compund substance including the extra "God".

Not quite. Logically, Occham's Razor is used to simply complex propositions. The universe exists. Axiom: I am here and I exist, whatever that means, therefore whatever this is is here, whatever that means. Adding another, unknown and unknowable quantity, like "God" or a creator for "this" is unwarranted and unreliable. You may choose to do so, but pure, blunt logic tells me "this" is here and that is all that is required. Hence Occham's Razor says that a creator is unnecessary for the existence of the universe, and, furthermore, sloppy logic and error-prone. We have a 100% "provable" statement "I 'exist'" to a completely unreliable one "God must have created me". Non sequtur.