1622 words about Fallout, time, plots and pseudoscience
Actually, subject
1. Fallout
After the publication of the restoration project, there naturally arose a desire to play your favorite game of action. The game unpleasantly disappointed. No, of course, she did not become worse, she became better and richer. Just the world has changed. I will try to clarify.
')
1.1. Games - books and games - experiences.
Probably, it is into these two categories that you can break all the many existing games.
The first are games aimed at a second signal system, that is, a more formal description of events: e2-e4 is enough to describe the move in chess, it is not necessary to show a heartbreaking picture of the pawn transition from one square to another within 10 minutes.
Games - experiences - this is the opposite of games - books. Here the game is conducted in indescribable formal terms. Of course, theoretically, you can record all the trajectories of movement in the same Half-Life. But this will be the story of the game, not its course. Abstractions of the level of the second signal system can arise for the player only after playing the game. And in general, the achievement of such abstractions is the goal here: to reach the green door, but how to do it?
1.2. Error in UI Fallout.
Like that. So what's wrong with Fallout? And the fact that being a typical game-book in which actions are important for a player at the level of the second signal system, she tries to look like a game for the first. The player shoots the head of the NPC, and he dies beautifully in a few seconds. At first it's interesting. But soon an abstraction is formed, which is reinforced by the repetition of the pattern of dying from a shot to the head - 'death from a shot to the head'. And the game continues and continues to play this video, and even in turn-based mode. The same mistake can be seen in the interface of the trader and conversations with the NPC. This is not what all the animation in the game, which aims at operating with events and facts, and not at the formation of these events and facts from repetitive monotonous non-factual material (like the onset of a large group of units in Command and Conquer).
And the movement on the map? Why turn a simple phrase into an experience: the protagonist walked for three days and three nights from point A to point B, periodically bumping into gangs and successfully escaping from them, because that is how an unpowered player leads - into a long and painful experience. And a constant click with the mouse to escape. A lot of wasted time. When working with actual information, you need to optimize the speed of working with it, and Fallout UI does something completely different.
If Fallout in its UI had followed its Tao, it is quite possible that it would be more successful at the box office. And so ... For a life full of events, and during the release of the game, its main potential consumers in the US and Europe, probably lived such a life, Fallout is an extremely impractical book to read. It is clear, of course, that the ideas were taken from the UFO - a successful game. But in the UFO the saturation of actual events that were not necessary to actively (click the mouse) to experience was much greater. And in tactical operations, everyone died much faster.
2. Time
2.1. Time and play.
But Fallout, nevertheless, is very interesting as an object for meditation. For example. On a global map, time goes at a different speed than on a local one. In a single-player game, the freedom to handle the concept of time can be very broad. You can even scroll back, there are various examples. But when it comes to multiplayer games, the picture changes dramatically. It is impossible for each player to maintain local time. It is impossible to make full-fledged support for time travel in a multiplayer world. Does the system’s openness relate to the physical idea of what time is? Physicists, by the way, have no idea what time is. And I very much doubt that they have some idea of what a movement is (of course, they have a derivative and an integral, but do they reflect the essence of the movement?). Perhaps, after economists, physicists should pay attention to multiplayer games.
2.2. Computational complexity and time.
At the same time, what's interesting is that the physical laws are completely fulfilled. For example, the more players play a game, the more difficult it is for them to maintain a uniform space-time. The more players there are, the more energy is needed for this.
3. Numbers.
3.1. Numbers, algorithms and space-time again.
You can develop this thought. But not necessarily on users. For example, the longer the numbers, the longer they multiply and add up. Even more. It can be said that if we want to spend less time, we must use more energy. Space, time, energy in unity. Nothing like? For those who do not know, I’ll point the finger to the good old Einstein UTO. And I will continue the analogy.
Here you can even see the connection with curved Riemannian spaces. Let me remind you that Riemannian space is a variety that in the neighborhood of each point is Euclidean, that is, flat. Can this be directly attributed to the fact that in small neighborhoods the speed of information processing is one, and as the volume of the neighborhood increases, this speed decreases? To answer this question you need to consider this question from a formal point of view.
3.2. Another interesting fact about algorithms and numbers
Modern physics is tied to numbers. And it is very strong tied to algorithms. Most mathematical models are tied to do some calculations to confirm the results experimentally. Therefore, algorithms are important. But it is known that the neural network with rational weights (rational numbers, like natural numbers, are infinite, has an algorithmic completeness, so do not flatter yourself about the finiteness of the model) of all 866 (it seems) neurons (cf. by Siegelmann). A neural network of this class is nothing else but a system evolving according to the law x (t + 1) = A * x (t), where x is the vector of neurons, and A is the weights matrix. That is, the algorithms are reduced to decelerations and additions in the field. Is there any noticeable connection with quantum mechanics, in which the main tool is linear operators, which can, in general, be considered the limiting cases of matrices? Is our virtual reality so virtual?
4. Plots of games and again a hint of time.
4.1. Anchor points.
In any game there are nodal points. That is, the facts of the level of the signal system through which the plots are stretched. No matter how freeout and nonlinear everyone is, Fallout would not be, but for the storyline, the course of the game pulls forward through specific points in the storyline. In this sense, the game is static, and nothing is more free than the same Half-Life, in which you can break through the crowds of zombies and combine hunters like a mouse is more convenient, but the plot at the level of actual and complex events will be shifted forward only after reaching certain coordinates in some space. (now playing: asian dub foundation - target practice). That is, we observe some local freedom within a fairly small space. Both global unfreedom and complete predestination. Nothing like? For those who do not understand, they can knock in quantum mechanics and general relativity.
Hmm ... The question arises, why is it so difficult to generate a graph of node points dynamically? Because the volume of space with any choice of the player grow exponentially? Because the spaces mentioned are inherently static, therefore, in order to foresee all player choices, should they swell at an exponential rate? Again, it may seem that the question rests on the non-formalization of the concept of time and change.
5. Threshold of entry into science
5.1. 20 - 30 years
Naturally, while most physicists believe that they know almost everything about space and time. It remains quite a bit to discover the truth. Can they be sure of the opposite? In its mass there is, of course. Because they have spent too much effort on absorbing existing scientific ideas. This is partly the cause of the crisis of modern theoretical science. A person of 20 or 30 years persistently tries to understand the tools and approaches with which his science operates, in order to overcome the barrier to entry into science. Naturally, he is impregnated with all this, and the dominant among scientists view of what is happening becomes even more dominant. (now playing: basement jaxx & linda lewis - close your eyes). And you need either a giant authority, or truly iron cohones, to go against it. Here, of course, it is easy for me to philosophize, I am not a physicist, but it is very easy for physics to argue freely, to be known as Charlotte. Charlotans to this hand, of course, also put.
But in addition to ossification, such a high level of entry into science has a downside. A man does not just sit down his pants. These 20-30 years are set aside for him to explore his area. Starting with arithmetic and ending (now playing: boom boob satellites - easy action) with theories explaining the results of experiments on Tevatron. The amount of information for mastering is simply monstrous. And when a person starts working, he will start adding his own results to this volume. At the same time, what is interesting, the modern system of rewarding scientists all over the world is designed in such a way that it encourages not the quality of the results, but their availability. Therefore, it is not profitable for scientists to spend time analyzing the work of others in order to remain in the profession they are forced to generate their results. So it turns out that the information avalanche just overwhelms the scientific community.
5.2. Rigging
Is it easy in these conditions to catch pseudoscience? Rigging? Not. And there have already been examples. Many stem cell data obtained in 1990–2004 were found to be falsified. And this despite the fact that these results were published in leading scientific journals.
And now think what will happen if the results of the LHC safety analysis are just as reasonable and as critically and meticulously tested as these stem cell results. And add here also the fact that all these results are based on the results of VERY expensive experiments. And not that VERY, but VERY VERY VERY VERY expensive experiments. Which, in fact, can not be repeated. And repeatability of results is the basis of a scientific approach. That is, even if the LHC is safe, will it be so scientifically valuable? VERY VERY VERY VERY expensive science runs the risk of slipping into unverifiable falsifications. And the probability of this increases with the fact that the data obtained for VERY VERY VERY VERY expensive experiments are not public knowledge.
5.3. (Un) healthy optimism
At the same time be optimistic and believe in the results of research to all scientists in general is beneficial. Because, first, that scientists need to get their own results, win grants for themselves. And, secondly, they boast of something to investors, who need to report to shareholders. Who want to hear the positive news and believe that (now playing: heawen knows - squeeze) the research into which they have invested will bear fruit. And if the practice of criticism and negative feedback flourishes, the investment climate in science will be very unpleasant. So much can be questioned in the modern picture of knowledge.
Something like this. Thanks for attention.
1. Fallout
After the publication of the restoration project, there naturally arose a desire to play your favorite game of action. The game unpleasantly disappointed. No, of course, she did not become worse, she became better and richer. Just the world has changed. I will try to clarify.
')
1.1. Games - books and games - experiences.
Probably, it is into these two categories that you can break all the many existing games.
The first are games aimed at a second signal system, that is, a more formal description of events: e2-e4 is enough to describe the move in chess, it is not necessary to show a heartbreaking picture of the pawn transition from one square to another within 10 minutes.
Games - experiences - this is the opposite of games - books. Here the game is conducted in indescribable formal terms. Of course, theoretically, you can record all the trajectories of movement in the same Half-Life. But this will be the story of the game, not its course. Abstractions of the level of the second signal system can arise for the player only after playing the game. And in general, the achievement of such abstractions is the goal here: to reach the green door, but how to do it?
1.2. Error in UI Fallout.
Like that. So what's wrong with Fallout? And the fact that being a typical game-book in which actions are important for a player at the level of the second signal system, she tries to look like a game for the first. The player shoots the head of the NPC, and he dies beautifully in a few seconds. At first it's interesting. But soon an abstraction is formed, which is reinforced by the repetition of the pattern of dying from a shot to the head - 'death from a shot to the head'. And the game continues and continues to play this video, and even in turn-based mode. The same mistake can be seen in the interface of the trader and conversations with the NPC. This is not what all the animation in the game, which aims at operating with events and facts, and not at the formation of these events and facts from repetitive monotonous non-factual material (like the onset of a large group of units in Command and Conquer).
And the movement on the map? Why turn a simple phrase into an experience: the protagonist walked for three days and three nights from point A to point B, periodically bumping into gangs and successfully escaping from them, because that is how an unpowered player leads - into a long and painful experience. And a constant click with the mouse to escape. A lot of wasted time. When working with actual information, you need to optimize the speed of working with it, and Fallout UI does something completely different.
If Fallout in its UI had followed its Tao, it is quite possible that it would be more successful at the box office. And so ... For a life full of events, and during the release of the game, its main potential consumers in the US and Europe, probably lived such a life, Fallout is an extremely impractical book to read. It is clear, of course, that the ideas were taken from the UFO - a successful game. But in the UFO the saturation of actual events that were not necessary to actively (click the mouse) to experience was much greater. And in tactical operations, everyone died much faster.
2. Time
2.1. Time and play.
But Fallout, nevertheless, is very interesting as an object for meditation. For example. On a global map, time goes at a different speed than on a local one. In a single-player game, the freedom to handle the concept of time can be very broad. You can even scroll back, there are various examples. But when it comes to multiplayer games, the picture changes dramatically. It is impossible for each player to maintain local time. It is impossible to make full-fledged support for time travel in a multiplayer world. Does the system’s openness relate to the physical idea of what time is? Physicists, by the way, have no idea what time is. And I very much doubt that they have some idea of what a movement is (of course, they have a derivative and an integral, but do they reflect the essence of the movement?). Perhaps, after economists, physicists should pay attention to multiplayer games.
2.2. Computational complexity and time.
At the same time, what's interesting is that the physical laws are completely fulfilled. For example, the more players play a game, the more difficult it is for them to maintain a uniform space-time. The more players there are, the more energy is needed for this.
3. Numbers.
3.1. Numbers, algorithms and space-time again.
You can develop this thought. But not necessarily on users. For example, the longer the numbers, the longer they multiply and add up. Even more. It can be said that if we want to spend less time, we must use more energy. Space, time, energy in unity. Nothing like? For those who do not know, I’ll point the finger to the good old Einstein UTO. And I will continue the analogy.
Here you can even see the connection with curved Riemannian spaces. Let me remind you that Riemannian space is a variety that in the neighborhood of each point is Euclidean, that is, flat. Can this be directly attributed to the fact that in small neighborhoods the speed of information processing is one, and as the volume of the neighborhood increases, this speed decreases? To answer this question you need to consider this question from a formal point of view.
3.2. Another interesting fact about algorithms and numbers
Modern physics is tied to numbers. And it is very strong tied to algorithms. Most mathematical models are tied to do some calculations to confirm the results experimentally. Therefore, algorithms are important. But it is known that the neural network with rational weights (rational numbers, like natural numbers, are infinite, has an algorithmic completeness, so do not flatter yourself about the finiteness of the model) of all 866 (it seems) neurons (cf. by Siegelmann). A neural network of this class is nothing else but a system evolving according to the law x (t + 1) = A * x (t), where x is the vector of neurons, and A is the weights matrix. That is, the algorithms are reduced to decelerations and additions in the field. Is there any noticeable connection with quantum mechanics, in which the main tool is linear operators, which can, in general, be considered the limiting cases of matrices? Is our virtual reality so virtual?
4. Plots of games and again a hint of time.
4.1. Anchor points.
In any game there are nodal points. That is, the facts of the level of the signal system through which the plots are stretched. No matter how freeout and nonlinear everyone is, Fallout would not be, but for the storyline, the course of the game pulls forward through specific points in the storyline. In this sense, the game is static, and nothing is more free than the same Half-Life, in which you can break through the crowds of zombies and combine hunters like a mouse is more convenient, but the plot at the level of actual and complex events will be shifted forward only after reaching certain coordinates in some space. (now playing: asian dub foundation - target practice). That is, we observe some local freedom within a fairly small space. Both global unfreedom and complete predestination. Nothing like? For those who do not understand, they can knock in quantum mechanics and general relativity.
Hmm ... The question arises, why is it so difficult to generate a graph of node points dynamically? Because the volume of space with any choice of the player grow exponentially? Because the spaces mentioned are inherently static, therefore, in order to foresee all player choices, should they swell at an exponential rate? Again, it may seem that the question rests on the non-formalization of the concept of time and change.
5. Threshold of entry into science
5.1. 20 - 30 years
Naturally, while most physicists believe that they know almost everything about space and time. It remains quite a bit to discover the truth. Can they be sure of the opposite? In its mass there is, of course. Because they have spent too much effort on absorbing existing scientific ideas. This is partly the cause of the crisis of modern theoretical science. A person of 20 or 30 years persistently tries to understand the tools and approaches with which his science operates, in order to overcome the barrier to entry into science. Naturally, he is impregnated with all this, and the dominant among scientists view of what is happening becomes even more dominant. (now playing: basement jaxx & linda lewis - close your eyes). And you need either a giant authority, or truly iron cohones, to go against it. Here, of course, it is easy for me to philosophize, I am not a physicist, but it is very easy for physics to argue freely, to be known as Charlotte. Charlotans to this hand, of course, also put.
But in addition to ossification, such a high level of entry into science has a downside. A man does not just sit down his pants. These 20-30 years are set aside for him to explore his area. Starting with arithmetic and ending (now playing: boom boob satellites - easy action) with theories explaining the results of experiments on Tevatron. The amount of information for mastering is simply monstrous. And when a person starts working, he will start adding his own results to this volume. At the same time, what is interesting, the modern system of rewarding scientists all over the world is designed in such a way that it encourages not the quality of the results, but their availability. Therefore, it is not profitable for scientists to spend time analyzing the work of others in order to remain in the profession they are forced to generate their results. So it turns out that the information avalanche just overwhelms the scientific community.
5.2. Rigging
Is it easy in these conditions to catch pseudoscience? Rigging? Not. And there have already been examples. Many stem cell data obtained in 1990–2004 were found to be falsified. And this despite the fact that these results were published in leading scientific journals.
And now think what will happen if the results of the LHC safety analysis are just as reasonable and as critically and meticulously tested as these stem cell results. And add here also the fact that all these results are based on the results of VERY expensive experiments. And not that VERY, but VERY VERY VERY VERY expensive experiments. Which, in fact, can not be repeated. And repeatability of results is the basis of a scientific approach. That is, even if the LHC is safe, will it be so scientifically valuable? VERY VERY VERY VERY expensive science runs the risk of slipping into unverifiable falsifications. And the probability of this increases with the fact that the data obtained for VERY VERY VERY VERY expensive experiments are not public knowledge.
5.3. (Un) healthy optimism
At the same time be optimistic and believe in the results of research to all scientists in general is beneficial. Because, first, that scientists need to get their own results, win grants for themselves. And, secondly, they boast of something to investors, who need to report to shareholders. Who want to hear the positive news and believe that (now playing: heawen knows - squeeze) the research into which they have invested will bear fruit. And if the practice of criticism and negative feedback flourishes, the investment climate in science will be very unpleasant. So much can be questioned in the modern picture of knowledge.
Something like this. Thanks for attention.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/26758/
All Articles