Philosophical Multicore

Sometimes controversial, sometimes fallacious, sometimes thought-provoking, and always fun.

Archive for August, 2008

New Word

Posted by Michael Dickens on August 29, 2008

I have created a new word: revelap.

Revelap
1. noun A conversation in which there no person cares about what any other person is saying, and insists on trying to talk.

2. noun Two or more people are carrying on more than one conversation in the same group.

3. verb When one person is talking about a different topic from another person. We are revelapping.

Posted in Language | Leave a Comment »

First-Person Shooter: balance

Posted by Michael Dickens on August 17, 2008

All first person shooters (FPS) have the same few types of guns. But really, there are not that many ways to make a gun. I think there are 3 basic categories, with a total of 7 aspects. In the time category, the aspect are reload time, projectile movement speed, and firing rate. In the damage category, there is overall damage output and explosiveness (does the damage spread?). In the accuracy category, there is accuracy and range. The way I see it, there are four basic weapons.

1. There’s a short to mid range, low to medium damage weapon. That’s either a pistol or an assault rifle. Usually an assault rifle has more damage and less accuracy.
2. There’s a short range, very powerful weapon. That’s a shotgun or a flamethrower. The difference between those two is time. Usually the flamethrower does more damage overall, but reloads slower and is also harder to use.
3. A medium range, powerful explosive weapon. That’s a rocket launcher or grenades. Grenades are generally less powerful.
4. A long range, slow firing weapon. That’s a sniper rifle.

Those four weapons cover the entire spectrum of weapons, and most games have those four. Of the three FPSs I’ve played (Gears of War, Marathon, Halo) they all had those four. They all have both a pistol and an assault rifle, but only in Halo is it a prominent weapon; in the other two, it’s a backup weapon that you shouldn’t be using most of the time. Marathon and Halo have a shotgun and a flamethrower, but in Marathon the shotgun is surprisingly accurate. Marathon lacks any very accurate weapons, but has some pretty accurate ones. All three have a rocket launcher and grenades, but they’re used differently. In Marathon, grenades are a secondary weapon to the assault rifle, and are fairly common. In Halo they are fairly rare, and can be thrown no matter what gun you’re holding. In Gears of War, grenades are very rare, but powerful, and are their own weapon.

Despite only needing the four, games tend to throw in a bunch of others. Sometimes they have special traits. In Halo, weapons that you get from the aliens are good against the aliens. One of the weapons, the plasma rifle, is just like the assault rifle; another, the plasma pistol, is pretty weak, but can fire a powerful bolt of plasma. It also has a needler, which shoots little needles that are a little bit guided. In addition, if a whole bunch of needles hit someone, they explode for extra damage. Of these weapons, only the plasma pistol really adds anything to the arsenal of weapons. In multiplayer, no one ever uses the needler or plasma rifle; the only time to use them is when battling aliens, because there is lots of ammo for them.

Posted in Gaming | Leave a Comment »

The Ultimate Infinity

Posted by Michael Dickens on August 13, 2008

Infinity is big. There are infinitely many integers. But there is another infinity that’s so large, it is greater than the first infinity. Let’s call this infinity:2. There is an even greater infinity that can’t be matched up to infinity:2. It’s infinity:3. Infinity:3 is larger than the set of numbers. There are more…um…things in infinity:3 than there are numbers in the whole of existence.

So you can keep doing this until you get to infinity:infinity. But then you can do it all again so you have infinity:infinity:infinity. You can keep cycling until you have infinity:infinity….infinity:infinity, with an infinite number of infinities. But the number of infinities in the chain is only infinity:1. What if there are infinity:infinity infinities in the chain, or infinity:infinity….infinity:infinity infinities in the chain? And how many infinities are there in THAT chain? So you end up getting a number that is so incredibly big, it’s not even infinity. It’s a whole entire realm of number that cannot be defined in any way by anything, ever. I will call this number thing “infinitismo”. Nothing is bigger than infinitismo.

What do you think of this concept? Do you understand it?

It is really cool. 🙂

Where’s a crazy smiley when you need one?

Edit 8/2/09: This concept already exists, and it is known as “omega”.

Posted in Math | 1 Comment »

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Posted by Michael Dickens on August 6, 2008

Technically, the egg.

I assume that “egg” means “chicken egg”. Here’s why the egg came first:

Once upon a time, chickens were a different species. A bird of that different species laid an egg which had mutated DNA. That egg was the first chicken as we know them today. It was an egg before it was a chicken.

If the question is taken in a more metaphorical sense, it’s harder to say. Chickens were once bacteria that didn’t lay eggs. At some point there was a type of living organism that laid some egg-like thing. So you could say that the chicken came first, because there were living things before there were eggs, or even egg-like things. The first living things reproduced by splitting, not birth. Many living things still do that today, you just can’t see them.

Grammatically, the chicken came first, because it was first in that sentence. Ha ha ha, I’m so funny.

Posted in Rationality | Leave a Comment »

"Atheism exposed"

Posted by Michael Dickens on August 3, 2008

I am bored, so I am going to ridicule this site: http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/

“Are there decent people among atheists, therefore? Are there atheists who are kind and honest and respectful of others? Most probably. Are they “always” kind, honest and respectful? Probably not. If they choose to cheat on their “self-chosen” ethics who will know? Who will they answer to, when they “deviate”? If they want to rationalize their unethical actions (and the mind is an expert at this, as Freud taught us) who will be there to present to them the opposite viewpoint?”

There are two major flaws. The first one is, sure, atheists are not always totally respectful, but neither are religious people. The second one is, who will provide religious people with the opposite viewpoint?

“Atheists can choose to be decent people and may succeed in doing so to a significant extent, but they have human nature fighting against that choice. ”

And being religious somehow allows you to fight against that choice? That is false.

“Atheists consistently propose that an Eternal Being who created the vast universe cannot be proven to exist. On the other hand, the universe’s beginning cannot be denied. Thus a study of origins must stop at the beginning of the universe. Of course what comprises the universe is energy. Thus the origin of all is energy. This “vast” force manifests itself in the atom which is able to join with other atoms to create molecules, which in turn join together to create visible matter, that in turn (according to atheists) gradually evolved into simple life forms and over eons stunning life forms such as the butterfly, the dolphin, the eagle and then, I must say, the supreme manifestation of this blind energy: woman, with its stunningly sophisticated reproductive system meant to give life and a feeding system meant to maintain life. Out of woman, mindless energy brings forth beautiful babies that grow into adult humans with amazing “minds” able to reason, create and accomplish ever-more stunning feats. And all of this is the result of a force that can transform itself in all of the above, but has no mind, no intent, no universal plan. Ironically, this mindless energy can create mind, but it has none.

Thus the origin, the source of it all, is a titanic, creative force that has everything except “mind.” This is the god of atheists: a “mindless” God.”

I don’t hear atheists saying that woman is the supreme manifestation of evolution. And I guess you could say that this “creative force” could be called God, but it’s completely different from religious God.

“Many modern Nobel Prize winning “scientists” believe in God.”

There’s a difference between believing in God and believing all this Adam and Eve, God created the universe in 7 days crap. I think people instinctually believe in a sort of supernatural power that does something. I observe that many scientists see God in a way that doesn’t really scientifically affect the universe at all.

The site I am getting these quotes from is clearly biased towards Christians. It does not talk about any other religion’s belief in God. It also offers the absurd idea that atheists are responsible for most murders. This is not possible. Not only are there far less atheists than believers, many religions attempt to kill everyone of every other religion.

“IS RICHARD DAWKINS SATAN POSSESSED?”

Ha! You foolish people make me laugh.

This part is so funny, you have to see the whole thing. It describes behaviors as if that’s what all atheists are like.

“The President of a major American atheistic association was interviewed on a local TV station in my city. I was baffled by the man’s self-assuredness, his forcefulness and, most of all, his arrogance. The man concluded the interview with a perplexing statement: “No intelligent mind would ever believe in God.””

Yeah, because basing decisions on logic and calling that smart is very perplexing. Smart people don’t use logic, everybody knows that!

“Well-designed and well-funded web sites offer large quantities of material against religion, and Christianity in particular. ”

I see a lot more anti-atheist sites than anti-Christian sites.

“Without doubt, these sites have already succeeded in converting many young and impressionable believing minds into doubt and some into fanatical atheism. ”

I disagree. I’d say the same thing about Christianity.

“University professors with an atheistic or agnostic bent have further added to this trend by manipulating the minds of many young believing students with their pernicious arguments.”

“Pernicious” in this case means “logically sound, unlike arguments for the existence of God”.

And there’s always the 10 Commandments.

P.S. God is not bad. Religion is not entirely bad, either. But religion springs forth a lot of hate towards nonbelievers. A morally sound person will not become morally sound if they are religious, nor will they become less morally sound. A not morally sound person becomes less morally sound if they are religious. They can easily make justifications: “It’s God’s will.” They also want to convert everyone to their religion. Plus religion is frequently illogical; that’s annoying. 😉

Posted in Creationism, Science | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: