FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
No bio...
User ID: 675
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
4mo ago
I think you or one of the other participants asked if I could disbelieve in a chair I was sitting on, but I said no. I do believe that I can change my axioms at will, because I've done it several times. It requires introspection about why one has chosen the axiom, and what other beliefs it's connected to, but the process is relatively simple once you get the right perspective.
I am pretty sure people can work themselves to the point of denying basic elements of observable reality; people have been known to handle snakes, drink poison, and self-immolate in apparent calm. The problem is that while all reason is motivated, there is no pressing motive for things like disbelieving in a chair. If there were, people probably could do it.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
4mo ago
I have not ever convinced myself of the nonexistence of a chair I was sitting on.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
4mo ago
Take two theories about our actual universe:
A) The universe loops infinitely based on physical principles we have no access to.
B) The universe is a simulation, running in a universe we have no access to.
My argument is that none of us can break out paper and pencil and meaningfully convert the ideas behind these two statements into a formula, and then use mathematics to objectively prove that one theory is more likely to be true than the other, whether by Kolmogorov complexity, or minimum message length, or Shannon entropy, or Bayesian Occam's Razor, or any other method one might name. It seems obvious to me that no amount of analysis can extract signal from no signal.
In short, I'm arguing that when there is no evidence, there is no meaningful distinction between priors.
It is not just that they are lower complexity, it's that for a given amount of evidence, Bayesian reasoning privileges simpler answers.
Yes. But when the "given" amount of evidence is "Zero" for multiple answers, BOR has no method to distinguish between them.
Is [unknown number of digits excluded]12084038 bigger or smaller than [unknown number of digits excluded]0? The answer is mu, because we don't have the necessary data to do the math. You have claimed that we can do math with no data whatsoever. In the first place, this claim seems clearly wrong, but in the second place, it seems very interesting that someone as intelligent as you would make it.
There is no available evidence about what caused the Big Bang at all, and there is no rigorous definition of "simpler" by which any speculations we may have might be measured.
We agree that effects have causes within our system. We agree (I think) that there is an effect whose causes are unobservable from within our system, at least given our current understanding. Since effects have causes, and since we cannot observe a cause for this effect from within our system, the cause must come from outside our system. Since we cannot see outside our system, we have zero evidence about the nature of that cause. Since we have zero evidence, tools like BOR and Kolmogorov Complexity cannot be used to select theories in a rigorous fashion.
Abrahamic God, the Standard Model etc all claim to explain the world as we observe it. The former is absolutely rubbish at predicting future events,
Abrahamic God and the Standard Model are not necessarily competing explanations for the world we observe.
...and to the extent that you are under the impression that God is responsible for ensuring the operation of the Standard Model (or a complete description of physics), it is necessarily more complex.
It is indeed necessarily more complex than the Standard Model. In exactly the same way, "True Physics" being responsible for ensuring the operation of the Standard Model is necessarily more complex than the standard model.
Given that we have to add something, and given that we have zero data from the hard sciences on what that something is, we likewise have no concrete evidence of which explanation is more or less complex than another.
In this context, Kolmogorov complexity is one way of representing the notion that certain ideas or hypotheses that seem intuitively "simple" are not actually so in any more rigorous sense.
Certainly. But you are the one claiming that some unobservable hypotheses or ideas are simpler than others, and it seems you cannot actually use Kolmogorov Complexity to prove it in the way you claimed you could.
I reiterate that I am not attempting to convince you to believe in the Christian God. I am trying to demonstrate an observable, verifiable, testable fact: that all beliefs are chosen. It seems to me that you are appealing to Kolmogorov Complexity and Bayesian Occam's Razor because you want to claim that your commitment to materialism is not a choice, but rather a deterministic outcome of accumulated evidence. But it seems obvious to me that neither KC nor BOR can possibly work the way you are trying to use them, and in fact neither is the source of your conviction.
You called for an expert, and it seems to me that the expert flatly contradicted your claims. Does the reversal of expected evidence change your position any? If not, what evidence does your conviction derive from?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
4mo ago
We're debating epistemology, and @self_made_human is arguing that some unfalsifiable theories about the origin of the universe are superior to others because they are "lower complexity" in the information-theory sense, which he proposed measuring through Kolmogorov complexity. My position is that there is no way to rigorously measure the Kolmogorov complexity of the Christian God, or of the Karmic Wheel, or of a universe that loops infinitely via unknown physics even in principle; you cannot measure things you cannot adequately describe, and mechanisms that are unobservable and unfalsifiable cannot be adequately described by definition.
Simplicity, in the information theoretic sense, since you're dispensing with all the complexity involved with God.
Infinite universal cycles, simulation, and God are all equally non-materialistic, and it seems to me that information theory doesn't apply to non-materialistic explanations. In what sense would it? In what sense is God more complex than a universe looping according to non-observable physics without beginning or end? Is there math that can be shown proving one less complex than the other? You mention Kolmogorov complexity, but I'm skeptical. Wikipedia provides:
the Kolmogorov complexity of an object, such as a piece of text, is the length of a shortest computer program (in a predetermined programming language) that produces the object as output.
...I don't think you can write a computer program that produces either "God" or "A looping Universe" or "The computer the universe is being simulated on" as output in any meaningful sense, so I don't think you can meaningfully calculate the Kolmogorov complexity of any one of these, nor compare their complexity to determine which is the "least complex". All three concepts are, by definition, outside the bounds of observable reality, which means that whatever statements you make about them are unfalsifiable. I see no reason to presume that you can meaningfully do math on unfalsifiables.
Explaining "all but one" beats the alternatives.
It doesn't, actually, if the alternatives do not conflict with materialism when materialism gives answers that seem reasonable. Christians did not reject the concepts of math or gravity or the rocket equations. The whole claim of Materialism is that it was better because it left no need for anything further. It turns out that it does in fact need further things, and in addition appears to require discarding quite a large amount of solid evidence. Those realities pretty seriously undermine its claims to primacy through simplicity, occam's razor, etc, or that people are forced to it by a hard-nosed commitment to only draw forced conclusions.
There are no forced conclusions are forced. All reason is irreducibly axiomatic. We all believe as we will. We each make our bets and take our chances.
Besides, why isn't the Big Bang covered by "materialism"?
Because the math says it happened, but the math also says it can't happen. That is just another way of saying "we don't have a good explanation for this phenomenon."
Our intuitive notions of causality went out the window the moment quantum mechanics, with all it's superposition, entanglement and reference-frame/observer dependent definitions of cause and effect arrived.
Our "intuitive notions of causality" are the foundation of Materialism. Abandon those, and what remains? If you get to appeal to miracles, why shouldn't I?
The math does a better job.
The math doesn't do a job at all. It isn't supporting your conclusion. Your commitment to Materialism is axiomatic, not ultimately dependent on the outcome of a formula.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
5mo ago
Christians have not gotten rid of the Old Testament God, and Christianity built the stability, peace and plenty that made a grift like the Enlightenment possible.
I am familiar with the argument, but its just redefining omnipotence. A truly omnipotent being could resolve whatever conceptual validity issues there are by changing the universe.
I really don't think that's a definition of "omnipotence" that most Christians, past or present, would actually agree with, and if forced to use that definition, I think most would concede that the God they posit is not in fact omnipotent in this sense. I'd be very interested in examples of Christians arguing otherwise, if you've seen any.
In your book, you could make up be down for example, pretty easily.
I could very easily include the string "in this world, up is down". I couldn't describe the necessary causes and effects of such a change, because logically-invalid linguistic constructions have no necessary causes and effects. Any effects I then attribute to "up is down" in the story are not the cause or result of up being down, they're the result of my direct, arbitrary will.
Notably, the Christian idea that humans have a free will separate from that of God, common to most branches of the faith, logically depends on God not actually having this sort of relationship to our world; ditto for many other parts of Christian theology and philosophy. As I understand it, the Christian conception of God contains a lot of examples of him being shaped by the necessities and interdependencies of what is taken to be baseline, unalterable reality. All of these would flatly contradict the concept of omnipotence as you define the term, which is fair enough, but it is in fact just redefining omnipotence, and my impression is that their definition came first by a number of centuries.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
6mo ago
...If I'm understanding you correctly, this was what I was getting at with "a given hull surface". The current cruiser has a square cross-section, so you could do a set of superfiring turrets on each of the four sides, but only the back turret of each set would actually be fully reversible.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
6mo ago
If I create a simulation of a human society on a computer, am I an omniscient God relative to the simulated humans?
I think you're on the right track, separating access to data from retention of data. if the "simulation" is a single integer between one and three, I'd say you have both. If it's extremely complex, humans can have total access, but almost no retention. My understanding of the term "omniscience" is that it's referring to both perfect access and perfect retention.
Does a rock that God is "incapable" of lifting because the mere existence of that specific rock is so beneath Him that He can't be bothered to distinguish it fit?
This would seem to be a question about the hypothetical God's capacities, saying that he's not omniscient, and possibly degrading his omnipotence by his incapacity to aim or direct his absolute power. But saying that this would make him unable to lift a rock seems like linguistic confusion; the simplest way of describing this scenario is that he can lift the rock, what he can't do is find it, or notice it, or however we describe it being irretrievably outside his attention.
If you make a simulation simple enough, then it seems to me that you really can have complete omniscience and complete omnipotence over it in a very real sense, while still being unable to instantiate certain forms of illogical constructs. You cannot invent a story in your head that you can't change, because "story" necessarily implies "changable". You can't make a story where down is up in a meaningful sense; you can make a story that contains the string "down is up", but you can't rigorously describe the subsequent cause and effect, because invalid verbal constructions have no causes or effects.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
6mo ago
...seems like a disagreement over the definition of "omnipotent". If omnipotent means "can do anything", I'd argue that "simultaniously existing and not existing" isn't a "thing". It's like the old question of whether God could make a rock he can't lift; the proper answer is mu, because "a rock he can't lift" is a category error. If I'm writing a book, relative to the characters it seems to me that I'm pretty clearly omnipotent, but I still can't make up be down or a = !a, because there's no conceptual validity to such linguistic constructions. I think most Christians, at least of the ones who understand the question and grasp the abstractions, would agree.
Finite God (in that God is merely hugely powerful but not truly omnipotent) is one of the more popular solutions to the problem of Theodicy.
Is the idea that a truly omnipotent God be able to, say, both exist and not exist, or redefine good and evil arbitrarily, while a God that could not do these things would be limited, hence not be omnipotent? ?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
6mo ago
Is Justice not a good enough answer? In the sense that when wrong is done, restitution must be made? If you accept it as a coherent argument that God's omnipotence doesn't allow him to make people love him of their own free will, it seems like you might also accept that God's omnipotence doesn't allow him to nullify the basic concept of justice either.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
6mo ago
I've just pushed up flat-color textures for the frigate and its two primary turrets. Let me know if they're working. I'm going to try to get the rest of the capital ships unwrapped and textured in a similar fashion this week, if that works for you.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
8mo ago
Thanks much for this! It's neat seeing how different people approach the problems involved!
Railguns should be exceptionally good at causing specific component damage but cause low hull/structural damage, missiles cause large-scale hull/structural damage, while beam weapons cause less than either but also cause heat damage.
I'd agree with the railguns; they're crit-seekers, at least at the low-to-mid end when the projectiles are too small to fit a nuke warhead. I'm leaning toward beams just being balanced, in that they just sort of melt ships generally. The best defense against beams to my mind is speed, since faster ships have an easier time avoiding their engagement envelope while pelting them with projectiles. So that incentivizes the ship-builders to put heavy beams on faster ships, since they'll need to close the distance as rapidly as possible... or else just use a much bigger beam, and compensate by having it run on expendable coolant or something similar. Or possibly both; booster fuel could be dual-purpose coolant. A frigate that runs its beam for five seconds and then has to refill on coolant could be just fine, if that five seconds is enough to core other frigates or severely damage a destroyer.
Re: Armor, shields and point defense, the way I'm thinking about it is drawn more from what I know about modern naval combat, and the idea is that no defense is particularly good. The best defense is not to get shot at. Failing that, the defenses are there to make the best of a bad situation, and they all come with significant drawbacks. Armor's too heavy, and I just made a big post about various options for making shields less First-Order-Optimal and more of a specialized, situational defense.
Point defense are the most extreme, they don't get depleted at all (even if you include an ammo system, point defense ammo should use up so little space as to be effectively endless).
I'd disagree. PD cannons, whether chemical or railgun, have a basic problem: they use small guns with lower velocities and shorter effective ranges to engage projectiles closing at very high speed. Pushing the engagement distance out as far as possible is very beneficial, but the further out you go, the more you need to compensate for lack of effective accuracy against a moving target with sheer volume of fire. This means your PD guns are probably better off firing very inefficiently in pursuit of marginal increases in effectiveness, because there's no point preserving ammo if the ship gets cut in half by a torpedo. I'd say PD guns should absolutely be limited by ammo, heat, capacitors, whatever other mechanics seem appropriate; fire efficiency is not really something they can afford.
A dedicated pursuit ship with extreme forward speed, forward-facing weaponry and armor but helpless if intercepted at an angle can be quite interesting for example. In general directionality and weapon cones add lots of variety and potential for outplaying.
Yeah, this is the sort of thing I'm really hoping we can execute in terms of encounter logic and, I suppose, enemy AI. I'm definately trying to think of directionality and intended attack profile for the ships I'm making. The gun cruiser I'm currently working on has beam periscopes in the nose of the ship, so it can cover something like a 340-degree arc, able to target pretty much anywhere but directly behind it, while the railgun batteries are set up to fire straight ahead only.
Imo the same should go for shields; There is no reason for Armor to build up heat, and pd should build up less than beam weapons/shields.
Shields generating heat would be a fantastic drawback, wish I'd thought of that for the writeup!
Excellent writeup sir, thanks for taking the time!
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
8mo ago
Well, how many Christians' concern with worldly life crosses the line (and by a lot). It seems the case of overwhelming majority of them.
Perhaps, or perhaps not. Certainly caring more about earthly affairs is an error I'm prone to, which I must constantly try to resist, and a lot of people calling themselves Christians don't seem to be on the right side of the line. On the other hand, I'm not confident that either of us can rigorously identify where the line between "making a good-faith effort" and "only pretending to try" is, and I'm certainly not confident that most non-Christians even understand what Christians are aiming for.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
8mo ago
It is equally not obvious why a thinking Christian theist should care about any earthly affairs and do not concentrate only on saving souls from eternal fire.
Christians do not have the power to save souls from eternal hellfire. Each person chooses whether or not they want to accept salvation, and by far the best influence you can have on their decision is to be genuinely involved in their lives. If they are concerned with earthly affairs, being involved in their lives is going to require you to be at least a little concerned with earthly affairs as well. Being a Christian does involve putting a hard cap on how concerned one is with earthly affairs, though.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
8mo ago
Do you and @ArjinFerman need to apply to be admins, or is there a way to do that on my end?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
8mo ago
never played with a wiki before. I'm willing to give it a try. Got a preference?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
8mo ago
Thanks! :D I've just posted up a bunch more in the August thread, so check 'em out and tell me what you think!
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
9mo ago
Well, I got a post I'm working on about ship weapons and game mechanics ideas, so I'll ping ya for that when I get it posted!
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
9mo ago
heh, sorry. I'm asking to try to understand the argument better, not out of skepticism over whether they exist. Obviously links would be best, but I'm not Gatsaru either; I'd be happy with just your rough impressions.
The argument is that the act itself, the moment of decision, is cheap. The expensive part is living with the consequences as they grind away, moment by moment, for years without respite.
More options
Context Copy link