Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Ready Steady Yeti wrote:
Weatherton wrote:
Backwards long jumps work because there is no speed check on negative speed and blj is an effective way to build up increasingly and uncapped NEGATIVE speed.
Interesting, and that answers half of my question. But why is a.BLJ an effective way to build up increasingly and uncapped NEGATIVE speed?
Because you can steer backward on a longjump to slow yourself down. This subtracts from your forward speed.
I suppose the devs never thought that you'd be able to subtract enough speed from a longjump to even begin to go backwards, let alone so much so that it would become an extremely fast method of movement.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
arflech wrote:
If a certain type of monster drops common, uncommon, and rare gems in the respective ratio 3:2:1, and you slay the monsters until you have at least one of each type of gem, how many gems of each type will you have, on average?
This is an interesting problem.
Let P(nCmNoR) be the probability of getting n common drops, m uncommon drops, and o rare drops.
Let P(nD) be the probability of stopping after n drops.
So P(1C0N0R) = 1/2, P(0C1N0R) = 1/3, P(0C0N1R) = 1/6
In the general case:
P(nCkN0R) = (1/2)^n * (1/3)^k * (n+k)!/(n!k!)
P(nC0NkR) = (1/2)^n * (1/6)^k * (n+k)!/(n!k!)
P(0CnNkR) = (1/3)^n * (1/6)^k * (n+k)!/(n!k!)
This is found by considering the probability of a single case, multiplied by all possible permutations (taking into account the indistinguishable alternatives.)
If you stop after getting one of each gem, then the shortest trail is:
P(3D) = P(1C1N1R)
= P(C|0C1N1R U N|1C0N1R U R|1C1U0R)
= P(C|0C1N1R) + P(N|1C0N1R) + P(R|1C1U0R)
= 1/2 * P(0C1N1R) + 1/3 * P(1C0N1R) + 1/6 * P(1C1N0R)
= 1/2 * P(N|R U R|N) + 1/3 * P(C|R U R|C) + 1/6 * P(C|N U N|C)
= 1/2*(1/3*1/6 + 1/6*1/3) + 1/3 * (1/2*1/6 + 1/6*1/2) + 1/6*(1/2*1/3 + 1/3*1/2)
= 3*2*1/2*1/3*1/6
= 1/6
And the EV of rare gems given 3 drops is 1 trivially.
Let's consider the case of stopping after 4 drops to get a handle on something a little less trivial
P(4D) = P(2C1N1R) + P(1C2N1R) + P(1C1N2R)
Because we stop after getting one of each we can ignore a possibility in each case, this will be denoted by 0 times the probability, I'll only show it the first time.
P(2C1N1R) = P(N|2C0N1R) + P(R|2C1N0R) + 0*P(C|1C1N1R)
= 1/3*P(2C0N1R) + 1/6*P(2C1N0R)
= 1/3 * (1/2)^2*1/6 * 3!/(2!1!) + 1/6*(1/2)^2*1/3*3!/(2!1!)
= 6/2 * 2 * 1/3*1/6*1/4
= 1/3 * 1/4
= 1/12
P(1C2N1R) = P(C|0C2N1R) + P(R|1C2N0R)
= 1/2 * (1/3)^2 * 1/6*3!/(2!1!) + 1/6 * (1/3)^2 * 1/2 * 3!/(2!1!)
= 6/2 * 2 * 1/9 * 1/2 * 1/6
= 1/9 * 1/2
= 1/18
P(1C1N2R) = P(C|0C1N2R) + P(N|1C0N2R)
= 1/2 * (1/6)^2 * 1/3 * 3!/(2!1!) + 1/3 * (1/6)^2 * 1/2 * 3!/(2!1!)
= 6/2 * 2 * 1/2 * 1/3 * 1/36
= 1/2 * 1/3 * 1/6
= 1/36
P(4D) = 1/12 + 1/18 + 1/36
= 1/6
And the EV for rare gems in the case of 4D is:
EV(R|4D) = 1*1/12 + 1*1/18 + 2*1/36 * (1/6)^-1
= 7/6
Let's consider P(nD) and EV(R|nD).
Importantly, we only need consider the cases where there is 1C or 1N or 1R. Because if there are more than one of each then it's an unreachable state.
P(nD) = P(1CnD U 1NnD U 1RnD)
Importantly, these are not mutually disjoint, so we need to make sure we account for that:
P(nD) = P(1CnD) + P(1NnD) + P(1RnD) - P(1C1NnD) - P(1C1RnD) - P(1N1RnD) + P(1C1N1RnD)
The final term will always be 0 unless n = 3, whose case we handled separately.
P(nD) = P(1CnD) + P(1NnD) + P(1RnD) - P(1C1NnD) - P(1C1RnD) - P(1N1RnD)
And we can make the first three mutually disjoint again by not considering the 1,1,(n-2) cases within the first three terms, we just need to correct later by adding the 1,1,(n-2) cases. For instance we can define:
P(1C'nD) = P(1C(n-3)N2R) + P(1C(n-4)N3R) + ... + P(1C2N(n-3)R)
= sum{k=2, n-3}(P(1C(n-1-k)NkR))
And we have:
P(nD) = P(1C'nD) + P(1N'nD) + P(1R'nD) + P(1C1NnD) + P(1C1RnD) + P(1N1RnD)
Let's consider P(1C(n-1-k)NkR) for k >=2, n >= 5
P(1C(n-1-k)NkR) = P(C|0C(n-1-k)NkR)
= 1/2 * (1/3)^(n-1-k) * (1/6)^k * (n-1)!/((n-1-k)!k!)
So via WA:
P(1C'nD) = sum{k=2, n-3}(P(1C(n-1-k)NkR))
= 2^(-2-n) 3^(-n) (12-3 2^n+4 3^n-3 (8+2^n) n)
P(1N'nD) = sum{k=2, n-3}(P((n-1-k)C1NkR))
= 2^(-n-1) 3^(-n-2) (-4 (3^n+27) n-8 3^n+9 4^n+72)
P(1R'nD) = sum{k=2, n-3}(P((n-1-k)CkN1R))
= 1/5 6^(-n-2) (-5 (27 2^n+8 3^n) n+45 2^n-20 3^n+36 5^n)
Now for the edge cases:
P(1C1NnD) = P(C|0C1N(n-2)R) + P(N|1C0N(n-2)R)
= 1/2 * 1/3 * (1/6)^(n-2) * (n-1)!/((n-2)!1!) + 1/3 * 1/2 * (1/6)^(n-2) * (n-1)!/((n-2)!1!)
= 1/3 * (1/6)^(n-2) * (n-1)
P(1C1RnD) = 1/6 * (1/3)^(n-2) * (n-1)
P(1N1RnD) = (1/2)^(n-2) * (n-1)
I'll stop here, because it's getting a bit too hairy for me, and I didn't properly separate the different possibilities for rares etc, so this mathematical machinery won't help directly.
Instead I wrote a program to get an empirical answer:
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Patashu wrote:
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
Patashu wrote:
How do you generate the formulas that create these curves for each value of n? (For normalization purposes, let's say that the domain is x >= 0, x <= 1 and the integral of the curve should be equal to 1.)
The domain restriction is a bit vexing. Normal distributions are necessarily infinite. Is this a strict requirement?
Right, the normal distribution is infinite - but every successive distribution made from combining 1, 2, 3, etc. uniform distributions is not.
Basically, imagine creating the distribution that's the result of multiplying two uniform distributions together. It'll look like a triangle shape. Then multiply that with another uniform distribution - it'll look somewhat like the normal distribution, but more basic. If you do this infinitely many times, you get the normal distribution. But I'm curious about what all the previous steps look like.
(Thanks for the answer to question 2!)
Multiplication isn't the function you're looking for. I'm reasonably certain (if I'm recalling my probability class) that you're looking for convolution. The good news about convolution is that when you convolute two uniform distributions the area under the triangle you get is still 1.
As you convolute the unit impulse function with itself again and again you get a curve that approaches a normal distribution. The domain isn't 0 to 1 though.
The definition of convolution is available at the wiki page, but stating it here:
f(t)*g(t) = integrate f(u)g(t-u) du, -inf, inf
If we take our uniform distribution to be 1 from -1/2 to 1/2 (for simplicity) and zero elsewhere (the so called unit impulse function). Then we get the unit triangle function, (which is defined as y = x+1, -1 < x <= 0, y = 1-x, 0 < x <= 1 and 0 elsewhere).
We can then repeatedly convolute the unit impulse function with our result to get our desired nth function. It rapidly becomes extremely piecewise.
n = 3: piecewise | 1/4 (3-4 x^2) | -1/2<x<1/2
1/8 (-4 x^2-4 x+3) | x = -1/2
1/8 (-4 x^2+4 x+3) | x = 1/2
1/8 (4 x^2-12 x+9) | 1/2<x<3/2
1/8 (4 x^2+12 x+9) | -3/2<x<-1/2
n = 4: piecewise | 1/6 (-3 x^3-6 x^2+4) | -1<x<0
1/6 (-x^3-6 x^2-6 x) | x = -1
1/6 (-x^3+6 x^2-12 x+8) | 1<x<2
1/3 (x^3-3 x+2) | x = 0
1/6 (x^3-6 x^2+6 x) | x = 1
1/6 (x^3+6 x^2+12 x+8) | -2<x<-1
1/6 (3 x^3-6 x^2+4) | 0<x<1
and so on.
I don't have a proof prepared for why this converges to the normal distribution. However, I'm reasonably certain that it does, and I doubt that a proof of this fact would be particularly difficult or novel, provided you approached it correctly.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Patashu wrote:
How do you generate the formulas that create these curves for each value of n? (For normalization purposes, let's say that the domain is x >= 0, x <= 1 and the integral of the curve should be equal to 1.)
The domain restriction is a bit vexing. Normal distributions are necessarily infinite. Is this a strict requirement?
Patashu wrote:
Are there any functions that equal themselves after being differentiated or integrated 2, 3, 5, 6, etc times? If so, construct them. If not, prove it's impossible.
Absolutely. All you need to do is take a differential equation of the form:
d^ny/dx^n = y
And solve it.
For n=2 this results in the function family of c_1*e^x + c_2*e^-x
For n=3 this results in the function family of c_1*e^x + c_2*e^-x/2*sin(sqrt(3)/2*x) + c_3*e^-x/2*cos(sqrt(3)/2*x)
For n=4 this results in the function family of c_1 e^x+c_2 e^(-x)+c_3 sin(x)+c_4 cos(x)
For n=5 this results in the function family of c_1 e^x+c_2 e^(-1/4 (1+sqrt(5)) x) sin(sqrt(5/8-sqrt(5)/8) x)+c_3 e^(1/4 (sqrt(5)-1) x) sin(sqrt(5/8+sqrt(5)/8) x)+c_4 e^(1/4 (sqrt(5)-1) x) cos(sqrt(5/8+sqrt(5)/8) x)+c_5 e^(-1/4 (1+sqrt(5)) x) cos(sqrt(5/8-sqrt(5)/8) x)
And in the general case one can see a relationship with these function families and the nth roots of unity. But I'll leave it to you to work out the formalism and proof of this process if you're interested.
1^(1/2) = {1,-1}
1^(1/3) = {1, -1/2 + sqrt(3)/2 i, -1/2 - sqrt(3)/2 i}
1^(1/4) = {1, -1, i, -i}
etc.
We also know that it's possible to differentiate/integrate something a non-integer number of times. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_calculus ) So are there any functions that equal themselves after being differentiated/integrated a non-integer number of times?
Because the functions seem to relate to the roots of unity somehow, I strongly suspect that the solutions to this problem are also related to the roots of unity.
Due to this, I'd expect to find that d^(3/2)/dx^(3/2) y = y would generate the same function family as d^3/dx^3 y = y. Because the roots of unity are the same between 1^(1/3) and 1^(2/3). However I haven't tested this.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Invariel wrote:
OmnipotentEntity, you're missing one really important step in your generation function, I think: for it to be truly and properly uniform, (and thus normal) in base 10, you have to remove all existing sub-sequences at each stage of generation.
Otherwise:
0.24680135791214161820...
which is generated by taking all of the even numbers and then all of the odd numbers, for example, has overlap in 91, which will appear later in the series. Also, 912 will appear in the three-digit series, 9121 will appear in the four-digit series, and so on.
So, in the double-digit step, you have to remove 24, 46, 68, 80, 13, 35, 57, 79.
In the triple-digit step, you have to remove all visible subsequences, and so on.
No, that's not actually required, because normality requires asymptotic uniformity, not absolute uniformity at every subsequence (which is actually impossible).
Take the Champernown Constant. It's extremely short on zeroes while starting out, because it doesn't attempt to pad with leading zeroes. However, asymptotically it doesn't matter, because most integers are gobsmackingly huge and contain insane numbers of digits, so the edge effects where they meet are negligible. (I did use leading zeroes, but only to guarantee lengths and simplify the algorithm.)
In fact the shuffling steps are completely superfluous and don't contribute at all to the normality of the number. I only added these steps in order to demonstrate that it's possible to generate huge numbers of these objects. But in fact, this is not even the most general method of generating numbers with this property, because it's not even strictly required that the odd steps always be positive, only that they're asymptotically positive.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Constructing a normal number with an unbounded s(n).
Take the 10 digits: 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
Partition them into two equally sized sets, one with a sum greater than the other, it doesn't matter how one possibility is: 3,5,6,8,9 and 0,1,2,4,7
Shuffle and interleave the sets, this section will have a total positive sum, one possibility is:
0.5180349762
Next, take all pairs of digits: 00, 01, 02, 03, ... 99
Shuffle them and append, order doesn't matter, this section will have a total sum of 0:
Next, take all triples of digits: 000, 001, 002, 003, ... 999
Partition them into two equally sized sets, such that the total sum of the units and hundreds less the tens of one set is greater than the units and hundreds less then tens of the other, shuffle, interleave, and append, this section will have a total positive sum.
Repeat, even sized sets get shuffled and appended, odd sized sets get partitioned, shuffled, interleaved and appended. s(n) is unbounded. And the set seems normal, at least in base 10, by the same logic as the Champernown Constant.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Warp wrote:
As said, whether you accept those methods and the conventions that they use as "valid" is up to your mathematical-philosophical preferences, I suppose.
I think the major issue is that if you accept that performing math on divergent series is valid, then you can eventually construct a contradiction. We try to avoid contradictions, because from a contradiction anything may be proven.
An example:
Consider a positive integer n
Construct the divergent series 1+2+3+4+...
The divergent series has a value strictly greater than our integer n, let's call this value k.
However, if the manipulations described are valid, then it also has a value of -1/12 which is strictly smaller than n.
Therefore, we have k > n and k < n. And if k < n then k <= n. So have k > n as our proposition p. We have p and ~p.
Consider some proposition q. p or q is true. Because p is true. However ~p is also true. ~~p or q is true. But ~~p is false. Therefore q is true. And Santa Claus exists.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Just a heads up, it looks like this movie file was recently re-encoded and re-uploaded to YouTube. However, the encoding subtitles with author information is incorrect. It lists nitsuja as the author, rather than Phil. The rerecord count and time is also incorrect.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
InfamousKnight wrote:
arandomgameTASer wrote:
InfamousKnight wrote:
I have added ONE restriction to this run: No escape. You're not allowed to escape any random battles. You can avoid world map encounters, but not run from them if you encounter any.
????????????
If you're confused about the world map encounter thing, lemme explain:
Field maps are different from world map encounters. You actually have to encounter field map encounters. Whereas world map encounters can simply be "removed" by turning directions and camera angle. So world map encouinters are not inevitable like field map encounters. I think it would be cumbersome to disregard world map encounters.
Am I understood?
This sounds like a good way to get a run rejected due to weird restrictions.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
If 21/n is rational then 21/n = a/b where a and b are coprime integers.
Then 2 = an/bn With an and bn still coprime integers.
2bn = an which implies that bn and an share all factors with each aside from a factor of two. However an and bn are supposed to be coprime. Coprimes cannot share factors except for 1. Thus we've reached a contradiction, and 21/n must be irrational for all integer n > 1.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
feos wrote:
Warp wrote:
Tolerating irrationality, superstition, hoaxes and conspiracy theories simply to not hurt feelings is not something I strive for, sorry.
Am I right that you consider existence of giants absolutely not possible ever no matter what?
I consider the existence of giants to be not possible if said giants fit the two following criteria:
1. The giants must be significantly larger than humans.
2. The giants must be humanoid.
These two criteria are mutually incompatible based on what we know from biology and anthropology.
Please understand that humans are already really quite large for animals.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
I used to work in Data Recovery. If it's *just* a software issue (filesystem corruption) then you shouldn't have RMA'd the drive. Because a format would have "fixed" the issue (making the drive usable again.)
Recuva is pretty much the only free Linux filesystem specific recovery tool available. You should image the drive to a new one before working on it.
R-studio is powerful and really nice.
Photorec is a signature only recovery. Meaning it's a last resort sort of option. I doubt that it will be able to recovery your video files (due to filesystem fragmentation) or your movie files (due to unsupported signatures).
Most linux filesystems (for instance ext4) have superblock backups that can be used with mount options. And are more friendly about filesystem recovery through fsck, but if you are going to attempt this, again, image the drive first.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Warp wrote:
The Bible itself doesn't really talk about free will. This whole concept of "free will" as an all-encompassing explanation for every single objection seems to be mostly extra-biblical apologetics.
(I'm sure that, given the vast amount of text in the Bible, if you search enough, you will find some passage that can be remotely interpreted as talking about "free will". But there is no passage that directly says what the apologists are saying. Ie excusing everything with "free will". Saying that "God did (or didn't do) this because free will.")
To add on to this, there are times where it seems that God explicitly violates free will within the Bible. For instance, the best known is hardening the Pharaoh's heart, because it's so explicit.
However, depending on how broadly you define free will and violations thereof, God violates free will unbelievably often.
So an interesting question is why is free will viewed as something that God considers inviolable?
It clearly doesn't have an explicit Biblical basis, because many sects of Christianity, for example Calvinists, do not believe in free will. If anyone is interested in researching this for me, that would save me some time.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Pokota wrote:
So are you suggesting that members of God's species are susceptible to choking deaths, suffer from Scoliosis, have a recurrent laryngeal nerve that loops around his heart inefficiently, suffer and die in childbirth to a terrifying degree and develop cancer?
And moreover, that he directed evolution in such a manner to come up with us specifically to have all of these maladies to share with him?
There's an important distinction to be made between death and needless, painful death.
Moreover, I don't believe that you've answered a point that I made about the same human ingenuity being used to correct these genetic maladies also being used to cure death.
Finally, that seems odd, why would God be mortal and susceptible to disease? Why would he force us to be the same were he benevolent?
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Pokota wrote:
Because there are two implicit assumptions you're making that you need to recognize you're making before my argument can make any degree of sense:
1) That a God consistent with what is commonly portrayed by Christianity must be Omnipotent AND Omniscient AND Omnibenevolent (you're hung up on the last one when it's demonstrable that the absence of the first can be the reason; arguments from my religion will follow)
2) That a God consistent with what is commonly portrayed by Christianity must be a singular, peerless entity. If He is a singular, peerless entity, then it only follows that there is no comprehensible reason for Him to bind Himself to certain rules.
The first assumption was not implicit, considering I explicitly stated it. The reason why I explicitly stated it is so that if you had a problem with it you could explicitly correct me.
The second assumption is not one that is relevant to my argument, and was, in fact, not an assumption I made.
If you ask me, that sounds like God follows certain rules. Remind me again, can you be Omnipotent if you're bound by certain rules, regardless of who binds you to them?
So now you have a "Maximally potent" God. Irrespective, you still haven't established how it's possible that lack of cancer interferes with free will. Moreover, it seems absurd on its face to claim so.
There is nothing more fundamental in God’s revelations than the basic premise that we are of the race of Gods. We are of his species. God looks like us. We look like him. He has two arms, two legs, a head—indeed, Jesus said, “If ye have seen me, ye have seen the Father.” Obviously, God’s sons and daughters would be of his species, would resemble him.
So are you suggesting that members of God's species are susceptible to choking deaths, suffer from Scoliosis, have a recurrent laryngeal nerve that loops around his heart inefficiently, suffer and die in childbirth to a terrifying degree, develop cancer, and so on?
And moreover, that he directed evolution in such a manner to come up with us specifically to have all of these maladies to share with him?
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Pokota wrote:
Because I was following the rules of the site. Because I wanted to. However, I did not create the rules. This is where the analogy breaks down.
Let me ask you this. If you were the only person to ever create TASes, would you still follow rules that govern authenticity?
Dunno, maybe, maybe not. Authenticity was a large concern in the early days because of accusations of cheating, had Morimoto's SMB3 video not gone viral, perhaps it wouldn't be a bit concern.
Irrespective, I don't see what you're driving at.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Pokota wrote:
Not Omnipotent because I had to follow the rules of the game.
That is the important part, thank you for providing. Recall something I posited earlier. God will not override one's capacity to choose for themselves. Not cannot, but will not. If God is binding himself by even one condition, it follows that God is not Omnipotent within the scope of creation.
Thank you for helping me understand that more clearly. This, however, raises a further question - "Why limit?" The answer, again, can be found by asking you about your TAS. Why did you have to follow the rules of the game?
Because I was following the rules of the site. Because I wanted to. However, I did not create the rules. This is where the analogy breaks down.
God, presumably, created the rules of the universe. He could choose any set whatsoever. Are you claiming that the universe we currently reside in is the best possible universe that would not violate free will? If it is not, then how can you claim Omnibenevolence?
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Pokota wrote:
Glad that got cleared up.
So - now to bring things back to the TAS analogy in the hopes that this clears up something I've started thinking lately (who it clears things up for remains to be seen). You specifically have done a TAS of Lagoon for the SNES. Would you say that, within the scope of that TAS, you were Omniscient and Omnipotent?
No. Neither Omniscient nor Omnipotent.
Not Omniscient because I did not fully understand the inner workings of the game.
Not Omnipotent because I had to follow the rules of the game.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Pokota wrote:
You are precisely right - in the absence of the inexplicable, we have no reason to investigate.
Let me ask you this: will there ever be a point where there are no inexplicable things to investigate?
We have a minor misunderstanding, that wasn't my point.
My point was, we gain nothing from investigating cancer if cancer does not exist. At least nothing that we couldn't get from an unfocused study of the genome.
There is no downside to cancer never existing, just like there is no downside to us never having had a condition where, at random without warning, human heads explode.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Pokota wrote:
However, puzzles aren't cancer. They're not crippling painful diseases. No parent would intentionally give their children leukemia in order to allow them room to "direct and improve things" on their own.
While this is a valid argument (and one that I have no solid response to at this time), would you have preferred that we not learn how to treat cancer ourselves and instead rely on a capricious inexplicable force?
Would you have preferred that we learn how to treat randomly exploding heads instead of relying on a capricious inexplicable force (that causes our heads not to randomly explode)?
That is to say, if cancer was not a concern we wouldn't even consider that we'd "lost an opportunity" to learn. And frankly, cancer in specific doesn't teach us anything that we wouldn't have learned on our own while investigating our genome.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
Pokota wrote:
If I understand you correctly, you're approaching things from the point of view that "Because the design of the creation is flawed, there's no omniscient directing force." Is that an accurate simplification?
More or less. It's a straight deductive argument.
1. A God is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnibenevolent
2. Humans are flawed in severe ways that cause needless suffering.
3. Failure to correct this either demonstrates a lack of foresight, power, or kindness.
4. This is a contradiction of premise 1.
Pokota wrote:
I think I'm arguing the following simplification in its place. "An omniscient directing force has given us room to direct and improve things ourselves, by designing a flawed creation." It's still a weak argument in that I'm relying on (il)logical leaps that I've demonstrated previously, but this is a statement that fits with my world view, and this is a statement that I am comfortable standing with.
If you believe that God is also Omnibenevolent and Omnipotent, then that's not good ground to be standing on.
Purposefully designing a benignly flawed creation is fine. Puzzles and tinkertoys are tools that parents employ to cause their children to think and reason about the world around them.
However, puzzles aren't cancer. They're not crippling painful diseases. No parent would intentionally give their children leukemia in order to allow them room to "direct and improve things" on their own.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
We may yet do all of that. Recall a statement I made earlier - the beauty and blessing of Homo sapiens is that we are capable of changing ourselves outside the natural mechanism of evolution.
The examples you gave however, are not fixing the problems, they're working around them. Fixing them would require extreme genetic modification, which raises serious ethical questions, but also questions on what it means to be human.
Pokota wrote:
I want to. Right now, I say I would too. Herein lies the contradiction of omnibenevolence, and I actually have answers from within my own faith that answer this question - though many would argue that the answers are meaningless because they avoid the issue.
Recall that I am LDS. In our canon can be found this:
Moses 1:37-39 wrote:
And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine. And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words. For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
But just as you cannot teach a person to perform differential calculus without first ensuring that they have a firm grasp of the underlying principles of algebra, Heavenly Father cannot give eternal life without first ensuring we will not abuse it.* We have to prove that we are willing to obey eternal laws and principles, and Heavenly Father directly intervening during our trials and tribulations would invalidate that.
Death is part and parcel of living, and is per LDS teachings necessary for exaltation/eternal life.Jesus Christ, firstborn of Heavenly Father in the spirit and only begotten of the flesh, had to die before he could be glorified (though arguably Christ had other work to do that necessitated him to be dead to do). Bear in mind, that LDS doctrine equates Jesus Christ with Jehovah of the Old Testament, and that Heavenly Father is his own separate entity with the same goals (a good way to demonstrate the relationship between the members of the Godhead is to point to any TAS submission with plural authors - separate entities working in conjunction towards a common goal). This by itself, however, reintroduces the contradiction of omnibenevolence and requires further argument.
God will not override one's capacity to choose for themselves. Again, I have to point to LDS canon to support this argument, so I shall. Moses 4:1-4 wrote:
And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor. But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever. Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down; And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.
At first glance, it's contradictory that Satan would save everybody while Christ would allow some to fall through the cracks. However, look at what Satan's words were again. At no point does he claim that all will be proven obedient, or that all would be prepared for eternal life. Under Satan's plan, an omnimaleficent diety would inevitably rise up into the eternities because there would be no proving, no trials, no nothing. If you think a non-interfering God is bad, try one that's actively destroying his own creation - or worse, destroying other creations.
*Footnote: Immortality and Eternal Life are not the same per LDS beliefs. I'll edit in or post the supporting scriptures when I find them again. Immortality is simply not dying again, and everyone (save for an infinitely small percentage of people born) is entitled to that through resurrection. Eternal Life is what we're trying to prove worthiness for.
This doesn't address my point, or if it does, I don't see how.
Reducing the suffering due to poorly designed genetics would not cause us not to experience life, nor experience death, nor violate our free will.
However, the very human advances in genetics and medicine which would be required to fix us could also in the same stroke cause us to not truly experience death.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2624
ars4326 wrote:
I appreciate your sincere responses in this thread, Pokota. Unlike certain others, I'm not going to belittle you or make veiled condescending remarks toward you.
If you wanted to thank Pokota, you could have used PM. Therefore, you simply wanted to be passive aggressive to everyone who disagrees with you. Instead, if you have a specific problem with a user, take it to PM or talk to moderation. This is offtopic here.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
