1
Lix Multiplayer Dates / Lix Multiplayer June 13 or 14
« on: Today at 12:55:42 am »
how about a game on either Saturday or Sunday of that week? usual time?
- June 05, 2020, 08:14:00 am
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
General Discussion / Re: WillLem's Blog
« on: May 24, 2020, 02:28:57 pm »
I wrote this before Willem posted and I don't feel like reading his post and/or modifying mine right now 
First of all just to be clear:
-I'm not trying to argue in any way that math isn't useful or doesn't describe the "world" well.
-I'm not exactly a religious person. (though sarcastic comments I've made during Lix and what-not may have confused people). While I do have interests in religion; religious people wouldn't call me religious. [this is a topic for a different conversation]
I don't believe in God; that's partly why I also don't like Simulation theory. Like I said earlier it has similar problems. The biggest one for me is ultimately it just raises more questions than answers:
-Who creates God/the simulation?
-when/where/why/how was God/this simulation made?
-ultimately what does this mean for my life here and now? If anything at all. And if nothing: then why even care?
-But more directly I think the main thing I dislike about the theory is it just seems like too big of a leap/assumption about too many unknowns about the universe. Like if we are ants inside a colony and we're trying to guess about how this glass container works and what exists outside of it; we're basing it all on the stuff we're doing inside our sand colony here and now. Clearly; that's not even remotely like what's going on outside... in more ways than one.
Don't get me wrong: it is fun to think about. That's why I recommended that book. And I agree with your (ccexplore's) points made. But at the end of the day if I was asked if I believe that a monotheistic religion or simulation theory are likely good explanations of our universe: I would answer no, not at all.
quote from ccexplore:
[Here's the thing though. Somehow math seems surprisingly good at describing the physics of our world....]
First of all I'm not arguing against this point. I agree to a point. However I feel like everyone who makes this argument misses a key point:
Math must describe the world; there's no other possibility. If it didn't explain the physics of our world; it wouldn't exist; and we wouldn't be having this conversation. If I propose something to you like 1+1=3; this doesn't work; doesn't lead to any new or interesting insights; doesn't lead to any new math or anything useful what-so-ever. Therefore you'd throw it out and say this is "wrong" or "pointless". So IMO; it's no shock or oddity that "math *somehow* explains our world to an amazing degree of "accuracy". We are deciding what *all* of these things mean; WE are saying this is how the world operates. So why are we so amazed that it works?
It's what I always think when people say things like "it's a miracle that we are here; that the universe exists and is so perfect for human life."
First of all; I wouldn't exactly call it perfect for human life when things like 'natural disasters' (which are just things about the way the earth operates normally and has to; or earth would be very different; in some cases in not so great ways) kill millions of people over the centuries.
But secondly the larger issue: why wouldn't it be a "miracle" we exist? Because if we didn't exist we wouldn't be able to say "it sucks we don't exist, what a shame we aren't alive to enjoy the fruits of a universe that isn't here for us... sad.
So my question to everyone raises this issue is what would life be like if math didn't work so well? Or if you think things came about "by chance" and they weren't orderly? Do you think life would be chaotic or something?
Personally I think there are an infinite number of ways life could be like for us; endless trillions upon trillions of possibilities of different, maths, languages, cultures etc. But if we had a similar thought process to what we're talking about here; then no matter what different possibility the other matters are; we'd be arguing the exact same thing. That math/science etc somehow "amazingly" describes our world.
Yes actually; that is kind of my point. "Real" is a concept that we humans create in our minds; it's part of the rule structure of our mind/society. It's required for our society to work the way it does today. But ultimately there's no reality and no illusion.
"The world is just the way that it is. It is neither good nor bad, right nor wrong." -Ajahn Sumedho
First of all just to be clear:
-I'm not trying to argue in any way that math isn't useful or doesn't describe the "world" well.
-I'm not exactly a religious person. (though sarcastic comments I've made during Lix and what-not may have confused people). While I do have interests in religion; religious people wouldn't call me religious. [this is a topic for a different conversation]
I don't believe in God; that's partly why I also don't like Simulation theory. Like I said earlier it has similar problems. The biggest one for me is ultimately it just raises more questions than answers:
-Who creates God/the simulation?
-when/where/why/how was God/this simulation made?
-ultimately what does this mean for my life here and now? If anything at all. And if nothing: then why even care?
-But more directly I think the main thing I dislike about the theory is it just seems like too big of a leap/assumption about too many unknowns about the universe. Like if we are ants inside a colony and we're trying to guess about how this glass container works and what exists outside of it; we're basing it all on the stuff we're doing inside our sand colony here and now. Clearly; that's not even remotely like what's going on outside... in more ways than one.
Don't get me wrong: it is fun to think about. That's why I recommended that book. And I agree with your (ccexplore's) points made. But at the end of the day if I was asked if I believe that a monotheistic religion or simulation theory are likely good explanations of our universe: I would answer no, not at all.
quote from ccexplore:
[Here's the thing though. Somehow math seems surprisingly good at describing the physics of our world....]
First of all I'm not arguing against this point. I agree to a point. However I feel like everyone who makes this argument misses a key point:
Math must describe the world; there's no other possibility. If it didn't explain the physics of our world; it wouldn't exist; and we wouldn't be having this conversation. If I propose something to you like 1+1=3; this doesn't work; doesn't lead to any new or interesting insights; doesn't lead to any new math or anything useful what-so-ever. Therefore you'd throw it out and say this is "wrong" or "pointless". So IMO; it's no shock or oddity that "math *somehow* explains our world to an amazing degree of "accuracy". We are deciding what *all* of these things mean; WE are saying this is how the world operates. So why are we so amazed that it works?
It's what I always think when people say things like "it's a miracle that we are here; that the universe exists and is so perfect for human life."
First of all; I wouldn't exactly call it perfect for human life when things like 'natural disasters' (which are just things about the way the earth operates normally and has to; or earth would be very different; in some cases in not so great ways) kill millions of people over the centuries.
But secondly the larger issue: why wouldn't it be a "miracle" we exist? Because if we didn't exist we wouldn't be able to say "it sucks we don't exist, what a shame we aren't alive to enjoy the fruits of a universe that isn't here for us... sad.
So my question to everyone raises this issue is what would life be like if math didn't work so well? Or if you think things came about "by chance" and they weren't orderly? Do you think life would be chaotic or something?
Personally I think there are an infinite number of ways life could be like for us; endless trillions upon trillions of possibilities of different, maths, languages, cultures etc. But if we had a similar thought process to what we're talking about here; then no matter what different possibility the other matters are; we'd be arguing the exact same thing. That math/science etc somehow "amazingly" describes our world.
It kind of makes the question of whether the abstract thing is "real" or not almost a little irrelevant?
Yes actually; that is kind of my point. "Real" is a concept that we humans create in our minds; it's part of the rule structure of our mind/society. It's required for our society to work the way it does today. But ultimately there's no reality and no illusion.
"The world is just the way that it is. It is neither good nor bad, right nor wrong." -Ajahn Sumedho
3
General Discussion / Re: WillLem's Blog
« on: May 22, 2020, 01:26:59 am »
The way I see it math isn't exactly a language or description. It's part of the way our mind works. It's how we see the world. This is how we classify and define the world. Doing this leads to further ways of classifying and defining. Which leads to our imagining a different world (ideas) which leads to altering the outside world to change it (creating things). When creating a wooden table for example; you don't create the thing out of nothing. You alter existing materials to become the shape of the table. When calculating the trajectory of a spaceship; You didn't create the trajectory (that's an abstract thing anyway). You had an idea; then enacted it onto the world, altered the movement of the spaceship and results were had; which were most certainty not 100% like your idea; but similar (if successful). That's how success is generally defined (well one way).
----------
The only limits to math might be our own imagination
---------
well this is certainty getting on quite a subjective soap box and I'm sure someone like Arty could speak better on this but I would think there's a big difference between the concepts of God and coder. Coders use a pre-existing or self make set of rules to create a system and are then bound by that system/must play within the rules of that system. "God"(s) are not bound by any system or anything at all. They can change the rules; Maybe (this is a recent thought I've had) they aren't even limited by an imagination (if that even makes any sense... not sure that it does).
That's what really limits us; if you didn't/can't think of it; it's not going to happen. Even if it's something really simple. If it doesn't occur to you; you can't do it, except by stumbling upon it by accident.
quote from WillLem;
[Seriously though, this is a very interesting idea and would indeed account for the difference between the existence of manufactured systems (languages, numbers, programming code, etc) and the existence of "real" objects (lemmings, humans, ice cream, etc).]
Still though I have trouble understanding the meaning of this when pushed to the limit: What truly is the difference between these things (real and inside our head) when our head is part of this reality in the first place? When you have a thought it is an image, voice or feeling that is a mixture or regurgitation of previously collected stimulus. The images in your head are "real" in that they are there, they exist.
This is part of my rejection of simulation theory. In order to support that you have to have a clear distinction between reality and simulation which imo; there isn't such a thing. That distinction itself is man-made and subjective. Maybe this is a circular argument I'm making idk; the more I think about it the less it makes sense.
[But then - which came first, Pi or the Circle?]
the answer is which ever first occurred to the first human (or perhaps non-human....) that thought of it. Which means essentially; circle. In the 'real world' there is no such thing as pi and there is no such thing as circles.
The concept of objects too again, like all other, is illusory. We can break up the universe into multiple 'things' and separate it and label it in any way that we want; but ultimately the universe is just one 'thing'; everything including you.
Joe Rogan said when congressman Anthony Wiener had his **** pic scandal that's when he started taking simulation theory seriously
Oh btw; if you like this sort of thing try the book "Super Mind" by John Micheal Godier.
----------
The only limits to math might be our own imagination
---------
well this is certainty getting on quite a subjective soap box and I'm sure someone like Arty could speak better on this but I would think there's a big difference between the concepts of God and coder. Coders use a pre-existing or self make set of rules to create a system and are then bound by that system/must play within the rules of that system. "God"(s) are not bound by any system or anything at all. They can change the rules; Maybe (this is a recent thought I've had) they aren't even limited by an imagination (if that even makes any sense... not sure that it does).
That's what really limits us; if you didn't/can't think of it; it's not going to happen. Even if it's something really simple. If it doesn't occur to you; you can't do it, except by stumbling upon it by accident.
quote from WillLem;
[Seriously though, this is a very interesting idea and would indeed account for the difference between the existence of manufactured systems (languages, numbers, programming code, etc) and the existence of "real" objects (lemmings, humans, ice cream, etc).]
Still though I have trouble understanding the meaning of this when pushed to the limit: What truly is the difference between these things (real and inside our head) when our head is part of this reality in the first place? When you have a thought it is an image, voice or feeling that is a mixture or regurgitation of previously collected stimulus. The images in your head are "real" in that they are there, they exist.
This is part of my rejection of simulation theory. In order to support that you have to have a clear distinction between reality and simulation which imo; there isn't such a thing. That distinction itself is man-made and subjective. Maybe this is a circular argument I'm making idk; the more I think about it the less it makes sense.
[But then - which came first, Pi or the Circle?]
the answer is which ever first occurred to the first human (or perhaps non-human....) that thought of it. Which means essentially; circle. In the 'real world' there is no such thing as pi and there is no such thing as circles.
The concept of objects too again, like all other, is illusory. We can break up the universe into multiple 'things' and separate it and label it in any way that we want; but ultimately the universe is just one 'thing'; everything including you.
Joe Rogan said when congressman Anthony Wiener had his **** pic scandal that's when he started taking simulation theory seriously
Oh btw; if you like this sort of thing try the book "Super Mind" by John Micheal Godier.
4
General Discussion / Re: WillLem's Blog
« on: May 21, 2020, 01:00:35 am »
Yeah what I'm actually trying to argue whether the perfect geometric circle is "real" or not. Just didn't think how to word it properly.
The 'actual' pi is as you describe of a "perfect" circle. IMHO perfection is another concept of the mind and as such isn't real in any ultimate sense.
Tell me if this makes any sense at all;
If you draw a circle on a piece of paper; even if you use tools and or calculations to get it as perfectly round as possible it's always going to be off; thousands if not millions of atoms in the lead or the paper etc can't be perfect (and then we could go down the the quantum level but that just opens up a whole other can of worms...). Therefore when calculating pi you get 3.1415... something but it's not real pi, right? The formal way pi is calcuatlated is really complicated; it uses math; no 'real' world objects (That is; not measuring something in the world). Doesn't this sort of dictate that pi itself is abstract in that sense? = not real.
Actually I do think that all objects (the "real" world) in some sense isn't real because reality itself is just another concept. What's reality? As opposed to what? What's in our mind? Is our mind not part of reality?
This may sound very strange but it's an idea I've had for quite a few years now but it was very much solidified/given more weight when I started meditating by actual experience. I can't explain it anymore than that however, without sounding crazy (as if I don't already)
I was never a huge fan of simulation theory. For one; it has the same problem the God problem has: you just ask who created/maintains the simulation of the simulator? Then you get a recursion. IMO there isn't as yet strict evidence the universe/life is super recursive like this. At least in size; life gets very very different the larger/smaller you get. In space life seems similar enough in distant galaxies but we're only scratching the surface of that exploration. And we're looking back in time (which is subject of another blog I want to write).
Secondly the theory assumes that life (in our sense of the word) arises when these simulations are made. That seems like a slippery slope.
As to the example of Lemmings;
Lemmings do exactly what the programmer tells them to do. When bugs occur it was because there was either a mistake in the code or the code combined in a way that was not foreseen producing an unexpected result.
but isn't it true that in our real world there are always exceptions. That is; our theories of the universes (including math) are only approximations; rules which make sense in the free and imaginative mind; have the ability to compute amazing results in reality; but cannot ultimately define it 100%.
I'm just arguing the same thing over again and it doesn't lead anywhere... I don't want to believe in Simulation theory very strongly and I'm not sure why. Maybe it's close relation to belief in God?
The 'actual' pi is as you describe of a "perfect" circle. IMHO perfection is another concept of the mind and as such isn't real in any ultimate sense.
Tell me if this makes any sense at all;
If you draw a circle on a piece of paper; even if you use tools and or calculations to get it as perfectly round as possible it's always going to be off; thousands if not millions of atoms in the lead or the paper etc can't be perfect (and then we could go down the the quantum level but that just opens up a whole other can of worms...). Therefore when calculating pi you get 3.1415... something but it's not real pi, right? The formal way pi is calcuatlated is really complicated; it uses math; no 'real' world objects (That is; not measuring something in the world). Doesn't this sort of dictate that pi itself is abstract in that sense? = not real.
Actually I do think that all objects (the "real" world) in some sense isn't real because reality itself is just another concept. What's reality? As opposed to what? What's in our mind? Is our mind not part of reality?
This may sound very strange but it's an idea I've had for quite a few years now but it was very much solidified/given more weight when I started meditating by actual experience. I can't explain it anymore than that however, without sounding crazy (as if I don't already)
I was never a huge fan of simulation theory. For one; it has the same problem the God problem has: you just ask who created/maintains the simulation of the simulator? Then you get a recursion. IMO there isn't as yet strict evidence the universe/life is super recursive like this. At least in size; life gets very very different the larger/smaller you get. In space life seems similar enough in distant galaxies but we're only scratching the surface of that exploration. And we're looking back in time (which is subject of another blog I want to write).
As to the example of Lemmings;
Lemmings do exactly what the programmer tells them to do. When bugs occur it was because there was either a mistake in the code or the code combined in a way that was not foreseen producing an unexpected result.
but isn't it true that in our real world there are always exceptions. That is; our theories of the universes (including math) are only approximations; rules which make sense in the free and imaginative mind; have the ability to compute amazing results in reality; but cannot ultimately define it 100%.
I'm just arguing the same thing over again and it doesn't lead anywhere... I don't want to believe in Simulation theory very strongly and I'm not sure why. Maybe it's close relation to belief in God?
5
General Discussion / Re: WillLem's Blog
« on: May 20, 2020, 01:39:44 am »
I don't have time to read through all this so I apologize if this was already covered but I don't think it was;
On Math:
Do you think numbers exist? Or to put it under another way which of the "three schools of thought" do you prefer? According to numberphile that is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EGDCh75SpQ This video explains the three theories better than I can.
Platonism; Numbers are real; all mathematical claims are true; they exist; they're abstract objects.
Nominalism; Numbers are not "real" objects; they just describe things that exist. Math is only true claims about the world.
Factionalism; Numbers do not exist.
I'm torn between nominalism and factionalism. I'm not sure as it may depend on the definition which could get a bit squirrelly.
The first two fall short especially when pushed to limits. E.g. start talking about the more abstract and complex parts of math like infinity or imaginary numbers.
If numbers are real; that is some kind of objects that exist in the world; where are they, what are they?
If numbers are merely a language to describe reality what is the reality that is being described with a number like pi? It's just an approximation
Deep down I believe mathematical claims are 'true' merely because we say they are and we decide what truth is in the first place. We created this complex theory in our mind and it ends at our mind. I believe all concepts are 'fictitious' in that sense or illusory. And I don't mean we 'create' it in the same sense that you might create a song or work of art. It is created when you look at a mathematical problem. There is only one thing that can happen; one way it can work because you have the brain that you have that works in this way. Math is an aspect of our mind; a language, a code that describes the world or makes up the world. Perhaps it is universal. Or it might turn out that other intelligent life operates with a totally different set of mental tools instead....
--------------------
On Earth might be expanding;
Honestly I don't find these arguments very compelling sorry. I've never heard this but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
-I thought this was why the Pangaea theory was formed? And I thought Pangaea is/was proven by plant/animal fossils being similar in certain places like Africa and South America etc.
-I don't really see what's strange about continents and oceans being massive. Earth imo is basically a 'water world'. It's 78 (or around that?) percent ocean.
They basically know (imo) how planets form and how/why they grow. In our case there was the 'period of large bombardment' when the solar system was young and there was debris (asteroids large and small) everywhere flying around. Larger objects have more gravity so they attract the most stuff and grow over time.
Nowadays (the past million(s) of years) there's relatively a tiny amount of asteroids and debris flying around, not nearly enough (that I'm aware) to make planets grow.
Are you familiar with project Kepler space telescope? Over the past ~10 years Kepler has discovered (with the help of the so-called citizen scientist project) over 1,000 exo-planets. These are planets (mostly gas-giants but many are more like Earth's size) around other stars. Kepler has only looked at a tiny portion of sky so far. Scientists now estimate there may be more than twice as many planets as stars in the observable sky (which means a huge huge amount).
What's interesting to me is they've discovered many "super earths". These are earth like planets but larger and often around smaller cooler, older stars. And what they've found so far suggests these might be more abundant than planets more like earth AND they might have calmer more uniform temperature and weather and geothermal activity. And these stars live much longer than our sun will as well (as long as trillions of years...) Meaning life would have longer to get a start; and easier time surviving and longer to live and evolve.
In hubris we always say "Earth is perfect for life" But it may turn out we our unlucky and there are in fact BETTER places for life elsewhere.
Conversely with fewer upheavals and difficulties these planets may have a HARDER time producing life; as maybe evolution needs those challenges to adapt and produce more complex life.
anyhoo It's a very exciting time for science!
What are you're thoughts on alien life?
On Math:
Do you think numbers exist? Or to put it under another way which of the "three schools of thought" do you prefer? According to numberphile that is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EGDCh75SpQ This video explains the three theories better than I can.
Platonism; Numbers are real; all mathematical claims are true; they exist; they're abstract objects.
Nominalism; Numbers are not "real" objects; they just describe things that exist. Math is only true claims about the world.
Factionalism; Numbers do not exist.
I'm torn between nominalism and factionalism. I'm not sure as it may depend on the definition which could get a bit squirrelly.
The first two fall short especially when pushed to limits. E.g. start talking about the more abstract and complex parts of math like infinity or imaginary numbers.
If numbers are real; that is some kind of objects that exist in the world; where are they, what are they?
If numbers are merely a language to describe reality what is the reality that is being described with a number like pi? It's just an approximation
Deep down I believe mathematical claims are 'true' merely because we say they are and we decide what truth is in the first place. We created this complex theory in our mind and it ends at our mind. I believe all concepts are 'fictitious' in that sense or illusory. And I don't mean we 'create' it in the same sense that you might create a song or work of art. It is created when you look at a mathematical problem. There is only one thing that can happen; one way it can work because you have the brain that you have that works in this way. Math is an aspect of our mind; a language, a code that describes the world or makes up the world. Perhaps it is universal. Or it might turn out that other intelligent life operates with a totally different set of mental tools instead....
--------------------
On Earth might be expanding;
Honestly I don't find these arguments very compelling sorry. I've never heard this but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
-I thought this was why the Pangaea theory was formed? And I thought Pangaea is/was proven by plant/animal fossils being similar in certain places like Africa and South America etc.
-I don't really see what's strange about continents and oceans being massive. Earth imo is basically a 'water world'. It's 78 (or around that?) percent ocean.
They basically know (imo) how planets form and how/why they grow. In our case there was the 'period of large bombardment' when the solar system was young and there was debris (asteroids large and small) everywhere flying around. Larger objects have more gravity so they attract the most stuff and grow over time.
Nowadays (the past million(s) of years) there's relatively a tiny amount of asteroids and debris flying around, not nearly enough (that I'm aware) to make planets grow.
Are you familiar with project Kepler space telescope? Over the past ~10 years Kepler has discovered (with the help of the so-called citizen scientist project) over 1,000 exo-planets. These are planets (mostly gas-giants but many are more like Earth's size) around other stars. Kepler has only looked at a tiny portion of sky so far. Scientists now estimate there may be more than twice as many planets as stars in the observable sky (which means a huge huge amount).
What's interesting to me is they've discovered many "super earths". These are earth like planets but larger and often around smaller cooler, older stars. And what they've found so far suggests these might be more abundant than planets more like earth AND they might have calmer more uniform temperature and weather and geothermal activity. And these stars live much longer than our sun will as well (as long as trillions of years...) Meaning life would have longer to get a start; and easier time surviving and longer to live and evolve.
In hubris we always say "Earth is perfect for life" But it may turn out we our unlucky and there are in fact BETTER places for life elsewhere.
Conversely with fewer upheavals and difficulties these planets may have a HARDER time producing life; as maybe evolution needs those challenges to adapt and produce more complex life.
anyhoo It's a very exciting time for science!
What are you're thoughts on alien life?
6
Lix Multiplayer Dates / Re: Lix Multiplayer: Saturday, May 9th, 16:00 UTC
« on: May 11, 2020, 09:24:44 pm »It's good to know, thank you Flopsy!
I don't think I'm going to talk that much because the last time I had a discussion with an English speaker, he didn't understand me at all (I don't know if it's my English that is atrocious or if it's my strong French accent).
I could hear you speaking and I understood most of what you said I think.
7
Lemmings Main / Re: Mike Dailly Podcast - Creator of Lemmings Reflects on Lemmings
« on: April 30, 2020, 11:19:27 pm »
awesome 
8
Engine Bugs / Suggestions / Re: [DISC][PLAYER] The final new skill
« on: March 23, 2020, 02:44:11 pm »
the skills I could most easily live without are probable swimmer and stacker. (maybe even also walker)
I also like the idea of a spear thrower or some such skill.
I also like the idea of a spear thrower or some such skill.
9
Closed / Re: [Discussion][Player] Runner Skill potential and behavior
« on: March 22, 2020, 11:24:17 pm »
I'd like to experiment with a runner also performing all or most other skills faster too. It sounds like it could be very interesting. Otherwise runner, while definitely is useful; not the most useful or interesting skill imo (If we had to choose one out of a lot)
10
Live Event Scheduling / Re: Ultimate Chicken Horse Multiplayer
« on: March 22, 2020, 03:13:29 pm »
Arty and Ron said they're interested. Since a while back I beleive Simon fixed the issue that was causing mumble not to work for me so I should be good to go to use mumble this time; but idk how much I'll be talking since my voice is still messed up.
11
Engine Bugs / Suggestions / Re: [DISC][PLAYER] The final new skill
« on: March 21, 2020, 11:42:04 pm »
My favorites are slider and runner if it's implemented like this:
Turbo lemming? Walker becomes runner. Most other skills will be performed two times as fast.
12
Live Event Scheduling / Re: Ultimate Chicken Horse Multiplayer
« on: March 21, 2020, 11:39:29 pm »
I'll gladly do earlier. My ideal time on Sunday is around 18:00 UTC like usual
13
Live Event Scheduling / Re: Ultimate Chicken Horse Multiplayer
« on: March 20, 2020, 09:44:10 pm »
how about this Sunday that time? (that is around 4:00 PM Eastern US time and later)
there's a new update too so should be interesting
I might be available tomorrow as well, not sure yet.
As of this post I won't be working next week or in the foreseeable future but that is subject to change (my job's trying to get a "waiver" on the quarantine to keep working for better or worse). So if people want to play on a weekday I might be able to do that as well
there's a new update too so should be interesting
I might be available tomorrow as well, not sure yet.
As of this post I won't be working next week or in the foreseeable future but that is subject to change (my job's trying to get a "waiver" on the quarantine to keep working for better or worse). So if people want to play on a weekday I might be able to do that as well
14
NeoLemmix Levels / [NL] The Lemmings Strike Again! (Mobilems 3)
« on: March 05, 2020, 01:51:05 am »
Come one! Come all! ........ The Long and Awaited .........
It's the brand new (not really new) expertly crafted (lol not at all) level pack from me, mobius.
For use with Latest NeoLemmix. Link is in attachment.
If you've played Mobilems 1 or 2, some of these levels will be familiar. Some are old; some are new, most are modified/updated versions of old levels. Makes use of some of NeoLemmix's latest features (such as the shimmier!)
Just put the whole folder into your levels folder.
-Extract the music folder and put those files in your music folder
The solutions folder contains replays for every level if you get stuck or want to check if your solution is a backroute!
----------------------
Thanks to Nessy for recent testing. Too many people helped make this pack a reality since years ago to mention; thanks to all. Many of the levels have been played/tested and backrouted by numerous people for over 5 years now.
----------------------------
This pack doesn't use any graphic sets that should not be available here/downloadable by NL.
If you have any problems getting the pack to work correctly please let me know.
Feel free to discuss the pack here or on the discord server. My name is mobius (a.k.a. CallMeBronco) there.
fancy screenshots below
It's the brand new (not really new) expertly crafted (lol not at all) level pack from me, mobius.
For use with Latest NeoLemmix. Link is in attachment.
If you've played Mobilems 1 or 2, some of these levels will be familiar. Some are old; some are new, most are modified/updated versions of old levels. Makes use of some of NeoLemmix's latest features (such as the shimmier!)
Just put the whole folder into your levels folder.
-Extract the music folder and put those files in your music folder
The solutions folder contains replays for every level if you get stuck or want to check if your solution is a backroute!
----------------------
Thanks to Nessy for recent testing. Too many people helped make this pack a reality since years ago to mention; thanks to all. Many of the levels have been played/tested and backrouted by numerous people for over 5 years now.
----------------------------
This pack doesn't use any graphic sets that should not be available here/downloadable by NL.
If you have any problems getting the pack to work correctly please let me know.
Feel free to discuss the pack here or on the discord server. My name is mobius (a.k.a. CallMeBronco) there.
fancy screenshots below
15
General Discussion / Re: Mobi's blog
« on: March 01, 2020, 06:45:17 pm »
On the topic of infinity;
Cantor's Diagonal Argument which I've finally understood
There are different kinds of infinity. And as paradoxical as it sounds some are bigger than others.
There is countable infinity. These are all numbers that can be listed;
whole numbers; 1,2,3... integers; 0, 1, -1, 2, -2.... even fractions and decimals; 1/1, 1/2, 1/3...
even though some of these lists may seem larger than others (e.g. the list of integers at first appears like it must be twice as large as whole numbers remember that both are infinite in size; thus in that sense at least; they're the same.
but all real numbers cannot actually be listed like this. Real numbers include "everything" (considered by mathematicians today) integers, fractions, irrational numbers, transcendental numbers (pi and e...) And there is proof of this:
Begin by listing numbers arbitrarily;
0.12137195...
0.22114366...
0.31100212...
0.00176143...
Now we're going to make a number by taking numbers from this above list by taking a diagonal line through the list.
0.12137195...
0.22114366...
0.31100212...
0.00176143...
0.1217...
Now according to the rules of this concept the above number should actually appear in the list somewhere even if we haven't written it down yet. Remember this list is infinite.
But now we're going to make a new number by making up a rule and applying it to the number we made diagonally;
for every 1 we change it to a 2 and anything else is changed to a 1. So our new number would be;
0.2121...
Now the crazy part to consider is that this above number does not appear on the list. Think about it; it cannot, you can compare it to every number (even though this theoretical list is infinite). It's not the first number because it's different in the first digit, nor the second number because it's different in that digit and so on. We've purposefully changed every digit of this diagonally created number and thus have changed exactly one digit in every single number in the list.
Therefore you cannot list this number in this way so it is classified as a whole other type of infinity.
Cantor's Diagonal Argument which I've finally understood
There are different kinds of infinity. And as paradoxical as it sounds some are bigger than others.
There is countable infinity. These are all numbers that can be listed;
whole numbers; 1,2,3... integers; 0, 1, -1, 2, -2.... even fractions and decimals; 1/1, 1/2, 1/3...
even though some of these lists may seem larger than others (e.g. the list of integers at first appears like it must be twice as large as whole numbers remember that both are infinite in size; thus in that sense at least; they're the same.
but all real numbers cannot actually be listed like this. Real numbers include "everything" (considered by mathematicians today) integers, fractions, irrational numbers, transcendental numbers (pi and e...) And there is proof of this:
Begin by listing numbers arbitrarily;
0.12137195...
0.22114366...
0.31100212...
0.00176143...
Now we're going to make a number by taking numbers from this above list by taking a diagonal line through the list.
0.12137195...
0.22114366...
0.31100212...
0.00176143...
0.1217...
Now according to the rules of this concept the above number should actually appear in the list somewhere even if we haven't written it down yet. Remember this list is infinite.
But now we're going to make a new number by making up a rule and applying it to the number we made diagonally;
for every 1 we change it to a 2 and anything else is changed to a 1. So our new number would be;
0.2121...
Now the crazy part to consider is that this above number does not appear on the list. Think about it; it cannot, you can compare it to every number (even though this theoretical list is infinite). It's not the first number because it's different in the first digit, nor the second number because it's different in that digit and so on. We've purposefully changed every digit of this diagonally created number and thus have changed exactly one digit in every single number in the list.
Therefore you cannot list this number in this way so it is classified as a whole other type of infinity.