The problem, however, is that reality is not bound by our interpretation of it. While we use our interpretations to understand reality around us, we need to rely on certain common definitions, else communication is pointless. Mathematics has the freedom of allowing "alternative realities," which are pointless when referring to "absolutes" (which obviously references the non-alternative). This is the trap of many occult (and, yes, i am referring to the original definition of the word: hidden knowledge) religions, including a few regarding mathematics. The simplest example is Shroedinger's Cat, which he meant as criticism to quantom physics as a science, yet got hailed as a hero for demonstrating it. We all know that the cat is either alive or dead, however we, as a standard, don't come to any conclusion prior to opening the box. This does not actually mean the cat is "both or neither," but instead that we haven't come to a conclusion. This is where "Critical Theory" comes up with the idea that there is no objective reality, and actively attacks the notion of empiricism, on the basis that if theory is based on practice, then there should be no separation between the two (thus ignoring the possibility for bias in analysis in favor of support pure hubris). Even this is just a throwback to "mind over matter." At some point "the rubber [idea] hits the road [practice]," and we have to evaluate whether or not our thought experiment was actually useful or not. And, if not, why?

Except that sometimes, those "alternate realities" are just what scientists need to describe what they're looking at. For example, I believe General Relativity often involves non-Euclidean geometry; also one alternative geometry can describe how things behave on the surface of a sphere. (I heard there's some object, somewhere in the universe, that's mostly spherical and is inhabited by intelligent lifeforms capable of discussing this sort of thing.)

Or there's the fact that Schrodinger's equation, which describes quantum mechanics, is most easily stated if you allow imaginary numbers (that is, if you take real arithmetic and add the postulate that -1 has at least one square root).

The thing is, quantum mechanics is very counter-intuitive, so analogies like Schrodinger's Cat are useful. In particular, we have such strange things as particles being in two places at once, and particles tunneling through solid objects (which feels a lot like clipping through a wall in a video game because you're moving too fast; Morrowind is one of the easiest examples to illustrate this). (There *is* the Pauli Exclusion Principle which prevents two particules from being in the same state, but even this description is a simplification, and the law isn't as restrictive as you'd expect.) There's also the fact that you can't precisely know a particle's position and velocity at the same time; in a sense, this is equivalent to the fact that a particle doesn't *have* a precise position or velocity unless you observe it.

Quantum mechanics is *strange*, so having analogies like Schrodinger's Cat really does help people get an intuitive grasp over the subject.

These alternate realities are merely "analogies." It's not that these alternate realities actually exist, so much as their attributes are closer to the non-alternate than the other alternative realities in a way that is more useful. The problem with quantum mechanics is, very little rubber has hit the road, and i'm fairly skeptical of the (very few) examples i've been given. These example appear to require quantom physics to be useful, too, unlike other sciences that an understanding is not necessary to find something useful (like how most people here can't code their way out of their house, let alone have any understanding how ionic compounds can lead to decision making).

And then we have the "weird stuff" like "dimensionality" where i find myself conflicted over the usage of "occam's razor," given my past arguments against it's use for anything approaching an "axiom" or "fundamental."

But then wouldn't Occam's Razor question the use of the parallel postulate?

Euclid's axioms (from Wikipedia): Doesn't that last axiom seem a lot more complicated then the rest? Doesn't it feel like you *should* be able to prove it from the rest?

(If you answered "Yes" to those questions, you aren't the only one. Mathematicians tried to prove it (the most interesting being the attempts to prove it by contradiction, which end up deriving much of non-Euclidean geometry), yet we now know that there is no way to prove it (or otherwise geometry would not be consistent, I believe).)

(By the way, my preferred definition of consistency, which works for systems that incorparate basic logic, is that there has to be at least one well-formed non-theorem.)

Well Im thinking they should build the entire game around Karma, from plot to quest design to characters. Even enemies. Not just some feature.

Occam's Razor would not apply in that regard. Occam's Razor is to compared two or more ideas and simply state that the one that requires the fewest assumptions is the most likely answer. We're not comparing anything in thos axioms. Take this image for example. There are 3 explanations for what you are seeing (Keeping in mind this is a FLIR image that was slaved to RADAR lock to identify a UFO):

A) We are looking at a portal to another dimension.

B) We are looking at the rear-aspect of a twin-engine jet plane, such as another F/A-18 or even an F-15.

C) This is a tic-tac shaped spacecraft from another planet, evidence of intelligent life not of this world.

Occam's Razor says, B. We could easily rule out A, because a "dimension" is merely another direction (only media I've actually seen display the concept remotely correctly was a game called Adanaxis, which is a 4-dimensional shooter). We can rule out C, because it assumes both an aircraft and a being from another planet with that being piloting that aircraft, while B only assumes aircraft and a pilot.

The reason I'm hesistent to use Occam's Razor to things that are more axiomatic is because there are certain topics that we discuss that we must simply choose one axiom over another. The most common situation I hear Occam's Razor in (where it's very obviously used incorrectly) is the question whether or not a god exists. While Occam's Razor would certainly apply to any "miracles" we see, the question ultimately goes to "the origin of the universe," where, regardless of where you stand on "the God issue," requires a large number of assumptions (science calls this "the singularity," which is a point where mathematics says the laws of physics could not have possibly applied [especially in regards to "the big bang"]). Given the topic, regardless, requires not only assumptions, but the most fantastical of assumptions (the suspension of the laws of physics), it seems pointless to apply Occam's Razor simply to maintain some pretense of sophistication.

Similarly, I would like to posit that, according to Occam's Razor, many ideas seen in quantum phsyics is easily thrown away. However, due to the nature of quantum physics being a matter of fundamentals, that is difficult. I would argue that our universe is not only not n-dimensional, but it's not even 3-dimensional, or even 0-dimensional, but, rather, ∅-dimensional, because mathematics is a methodology of simplifying the universe so that it's simpler than we are, which is a pre-requisit to attempting to conceptualize it in order to manipulate it. The notion that numbers exist, let alone dimensions, is a recurrent problem that allows people to come up with such wild theories that most people would refer to as "Academentia." We certainly do have a problem where, because abstractions are useful, we will over-abstract, causing us to loose touch with reality. I understand you've done some programming, so a classic example would, indeed, but the levels of abstraction commonly seen in various APIs and libraries where the class hierarchy is so deep that you can't even identify which class would be more appropriate for your project, because you can't tell which of the two or more options you're looking at is derived from the other (even more fun when you're trying to find the one with the most functions to inherit, or just the one that actually has all the functions you plan on using).
I think there might be a few that do, but it largely doesn't change more than a few enemies or story options. The reason being, well, it's more about alignment. At the end of the day, if you're not using Karma as a proxy for good-evil, how do you establish any system, especially when offered two choices that either one will screw someone over? I understand there's the issue of people being off put by a game telling them right from wrong (like Fallout tries to do), so perhaps an alternative would be a system that balances "law" and "chaos"? Like, if you want it to be a whole new axis, have you gone as far as to both consider what exactly we're measuring, as well as how one would actually predict the outcomes of choices and outcomes of the karma level itself? If so, maybe you could make the game, yourself.

The funny thing about liberals is how convenient definitions are for them. And more so how they think social structure can't progress. Like they can typically imagine distant futures with mind blowing technologies, but somehow think capitalism is the best we can ever manage.

Then conveniently the only alternative of capitalism (vaguely defined as "freedom", even though it is not very free at all) Is "socialism". you know that word defined by government controlling everything and taxes, even though neither are socialistic. Or even more vaguely defined as anything bad. Like "My child died in a car crash", "It's sad when socialism kills children before their parents" *Doctor looks at a X-ray and sees cancer.* "Sorry, we will need to start you on chemo, you have socialism. "

Well whatever you want to call it, there are alternatives to capitalism. Alternatives that aren't against free markets, don't involve government control or taxes.

I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or if you're just trying to bait. If it's baiting, get better, please. If you're serious, you might want to take a chill-pill and read the first sentence, specifically, and return to your own definitions. You clearly defined socialism as "good," when the actual definitions don't actually bother defining it as "good" or "bad." It is through elaboration by the actual defined qualities that our conclusions come. I have to ask, specifically because of your stated country, is English your native langauge? Given the portion i've underlined, I do not believe you've been educated in these matters using the English language. I would recommend cross-referencing your dictionaries if simply looking up the terms doesn't explain why the underlined sections alone appear to be a paradox.

history proved capitalism is way better than socialism many times, people flee socialist systems to live in capitalist ones is a clear indication of this
so capitalism is not free at all? that's why free speech freedom of expression freedom of learning or doing the job you want is mostly represented in capitalist countries ... sure it is not free at all :D
so even if we have some errors with capitalism it won't be fixed by switching to socialism which is non arguably a much worse system for the average people

what we need is an evolved capitalism and most socialist things removed from it

Ignoring the other troll stuff, no I did not define socialism as "good".

LOL, stop BSing/lying. No one arguing against me has bothered to give a proper definition from their own opinion, of any of the key words we are using. I gave my definitions shared by many others (after being demanded for such) and was completely ignored.

This is atrocious of you. Is this all you have? Because you're not able to argue against me, instead you make up some BS about my English being bad, which is insulting and disingenuous at all sorts of levels. I guess you can only speak in troll logic fallacy. I see you haven't given one word in response to what I said, not a single one.

So you also have nothing to say in reply to what I said?

[Undertale spoilers (Genocide route)]

I remembered one other use of Karma in a game:

In Undertale's Genocide route, the final boss (who is quite possibly the hardest boss in the game) will hit you with something called Karmic Retribution. Basically, whenever you take damage, part of your life bar will turn pink, and that pink will gradually drain away in real time (even on your turn when you're in the menu).

(It's worth noting that, on this route, you're not fighting against evil; rather, you *are* the evil one in this route.)

Actually, that links to a 404 page, so the explanations would be along these lines:
* There was never a file uploaded to that URL under that name.
* There was a file there, but it was deleted.
* There is a file there, but, rather than it being an image, is the one with the 404 error message that I see.

(The third explanation is the least likely, and I could probably check by going there with lynx to see if it actually returns a 404 error code.)

Or perhaps Object Oriented Programming is not what works well with the way I think. I really do think that OOP is way overused and that it may only be a good fit for a minority of the cases for which it's used.

With some of my more recent programming, I found it much nicer to work in GLSL (a low-ish level language that runs on GPUs) than to write the OpenGL code that sends the code to the GPU and tells it to execute.

I never said absolute truth. ;)

Yes, there are assumptions behind all facts. Best practice demands that we state the assumptions (first) so that we can address any shortcomings in them. (Kant also wrote about knowledge that is a product of its assumptions, which he called analytic.)

As for your example, take the assumption that the fifth (parallel) postulate first codified by Euclid is true. It may not be true, but every time it has ever been tested it has been found to be true. So until we can find one counter example (and only one is necessary) then we can say that this is an objective truth, since the subject has no bearing on it. (The Vienna Circle would be pleased; this is fundamentally what Logical Positivism is all about.)

This is also a good time to mention David Hume, who first noted that induction (scilicit, making a general rule from a single observed instance) is logically unsafe. But it is only by providing a falsification that we can dismiss the stated instance-as-general rule (or, at least, limit it). This is why the contribution of the late Dr Karl Popper is so important; a million examples of something does not prove it universally true, but the failure to find one example that defies the rule certainly does. PK Dick

Which is a great excuse for you to mention those criticisms, rather than allude to them. What has been refuted?

Locke eloquently explained the real, material advantage for an individual (self-aware, self-sufficient, and rational) to join a society, with the minimum loss of personal autonomy and maximum protection of her accumulated assets, to form a commonwealth. Yes?

It is the basis of the social contract, which was a whole new concept in governance; since time immemorial the strong have ruled because they can and the weak has submitted because they must. Nobody cared what the citizens thought.

The social contract is an agreement between the authority and the governed that spells out each member’s roles and responsibilities.
Not really. Notice you have talked about the source of the information but neglected to address the information itself?

Rather than try to exclude the information because of some rule you just introduced (apprehended bias) —— without actually proving any bias, I note —— why not discuss the meta-analytical impact? Just because the Soviets invented a system for disinformation doesn’t mean others don’t use the same rhetorical tactics (consciously or otherwise).

I wasn’t trying to suggest that only the Soviets conducted disinformation. (That’s misinformed. :)

Analyze the toolkit. Have you not seen these tactics in use? Do you think they should be categorized differently? My aim here is to help readers spot logical traps.

NATO has a very good idea how Soviet disinformation worked, since they fought it. Saying that NATO must be biased doesn’t add anything. (As you said in the sentence prior, everybody has a bias, so if we discount everything everybody says because of bias then we won’t have much of a conversation, will we?)

A good (Cold War thaw) heuristic is to assume the proposition and try to disprove it.
Доверяй, но проверяй [Trust, but verify]

Except this isn’t a conspiracy theory since it was their published agenda. :)

It has been in the public domain for almost a century. Are you suggesting that they are so ineffectual that the success of their own plans cannot be due to their efforts? That the successful culmination of their plans was due to accident or third-party efforts?

Notice again the reframing: Excluding data (facts) is a very serious deed. It will skew interpretations. Because something is not widely known does not constitute a refutation.

Rather than label some information “bad” in order to prevent “harm” to those innocents who might be exposed, if something is wrong, simply refute it. If it only applies under certain circumstances, what are those limits?
Christianity has no trouble with secular power (“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” from the synoptic gospels) and the Pope was also a secular king for much of the Middle Ages. (No conflict of interest there, then. /sarcasm)

Ideally, temporal and spiritual authority should operate perpendicular to each, so as to create separate hierarchies that can cross-check the behaviours of those within the responsibility matrix. Absolute monarchy is more efficient, but also more fragile (a single point of failure, be it moral or authoritarian). Lord Acton said power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Girard noted that Christianity, being unique in its use of scapegoat mimesis (because Jesus was innocent) has the (unintended?) consequence of devolving responsibility back to each individual of the faith. Thus liberal democracy is possible.
That particular outcome doesn’t invalidate the theory. The political ballast obviously shifted to exclude the “main” group, whoever that is. (I’m not sure what you’re saying.)

As the French revolution progressed, the polarity of later zealots increased; those who initially sought to depose the King but not execute him (e.g., the Montagnards) were, in turn, determined to be “enemies of the people” and thus summarily executed for treason, even though they had been loud advocates of the removal of the crown as head of state (which is treason).

It is true that the Shadowrun games use Karma as a proxy for experience. After a successful mission your character will receive karma for success, and each rank in a attribute and related skill (like strength and close combat or quickness and ranged combat) requires its value in karma. So, to attain a rank of 5 in close combat, the character needs 5 in strength and must pay five karma to raise her close combat skill from a rank of four to five. (I believe the tabletop game has more complexity as well.)

No, history has just proven that moderate capitalism is better than extreme socialism.

Conversely, moderate socialism is better than extreme capitalism.

Some free enterprise brings entrepreneurship and creativity. All free enterprise brings chaos.

I certainly don't want things like energy or food to be the sole province of unregulated free agents.

Heck, we have somewhat affordable internet only because the government imposes restrictions (where they have to sell bandwidth to smaller competitors at low cost) on what would otherwise be telecom oligarchies (technically monopolies in certain regions). Our cheap affordable hydroelectric energy is state owned and it has worked quite well. I could go on.

I embrace evil in games. I love being the bad guys.

I see it's garbage pickup day in the forums, again.

=-=-=

Ontopic:

The talk of games with karma systems makes me want to play some of them(or replay them). I often like such mechanics in games.