Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

Pyrian

Member
  • Posts

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Pyrian

    Sin 2 :)

    Of course. But, if that's so (and I have no reason to think otherwise) that renders creation an artifact of this universe alone. If it's not true, than other universes can "create", perhaps even creating this one, but the original paradox is just as valid for them as it is for this one in the simple case. My brain has no difficulty whatsoever in grasping a place with no time. Yours, however, is repeatedly proving to be incapable of the concept. To elaborate, a place with no time has no change, no creation, and no destruction; complete stasis. This isn't a profound observation, it follows directly from definition. You could get around this by positing a "something" that is non-static and non-time. Thing is, this doesn't change the paradox in any way - this "something" still requires itself as a prerequisite for its own creation. Err... No. I'm simply saying that time itself - the framework as a whole, rather than portions thereof - cannot be (or have been) created, since creation is itself a function of time. Put another way, the creation of time requires time. You're not getting it. Creation requires time. Period. By definition, of all things. You're literally arguing with the definition of a word. Anyway, to address your point, the only way an entity can "create" without an external time is by having its own internal time, since creation requires time. Thus, a "time-bearing" entity that exists without having been created which then "went on" (in an entirely internal sense) to create an external universe is, of course, completely in accordance with everything I've said, and therefore isn't an objection to it at all. In fact, we could go on and posit that this mysterious entity creates the universe internally to itself (thus not requiring multiple times). From there we can suggest that this entity IS the universe, whereupon we arrive at my original point. In short, you're trying to use circular logic. Morphing time doesn't change the terms - they're too simple. You can rearrange the meaning, function, or rules of time in any way you please - but action/change/creation must be able to occur for action/change/creation to be able to occur. That's all I'm positing, BTW. My argument is A=A. That's what you're arguing against, and it makes you look pretty silly, frankly. Conception and creation are temporal concepts. There's no way around that - if you remove time from creation, it's no longer creation at all, it's something else. Happening is a temporal concept, by definition, and I am 100% comfortable in asserting that nothing happens without time. That's not profound; that's what time means. You might as well try to prove that black equals white and get run over at the next zebra crossing.
  2. Pyrian

    Sin 2 :)

    Right. And that model precludes its own "creation", since the act of creation is itself an internal "illusion" of the model. (You can, as oDDity pointed out, posit an external substitute, but that doesn't really help anything since it immediately suffers the same problem.) Remember that "why" is largely a causal question itself. Having proven to my own satisfaction that there is at least one thing that simply is and has no (and can have no) additional explanation, I am satisfied that things simply are. Yeah, the Big Bang is frankly a much simpler explanation than positing the self-creation of a sentient being. Sentient beings are far too complex for that sort of thing, IMO. I find humanity so entirely inclined towards being asinine that in the absence of religion I'd probably make one up just to keep my society from shredding itself uselessly. I've always felt an odd kinship to Jesus, Buddha, etc. in this regard. I think they were people who saw things the way I do, and tried to do something about it.
  3. Pyrian

    Sin 2 :)

    That makes no difference in the argument, only where it's applied. It just layers another dimension of time onto it, since to create from another 'verse there'd have to be a time or time equivalent in that 'verse (remember: creation is temporal), which in turn would have to either exist independently or been created in turn, resulting in the identical paradox. I find that sort of layering to be silly so I don't generally engage in it. The only real alternative is utter stasis, of course, which precludes the possibility of creation. Any alternative which somehow does not preclude creation suffers from the same existential issue and might as well be called a "type of time" rather than being truly substantively different (even if the implementation details are significantly changed).
  4. Pyrian

    Sin 2 :)

    I'm actually of the opinion that there cannot be a "penultimate" creator: Time exists. Creation is a temporal act. Creation can only occur within the framework of time existing. Therefore, the framework of time itself cannot have been subject to being created. Since something exists without having been created, then it cannot be true that everything was created. Anyway, the argument depends on a particular variety of understandings of time and might not be correct, I suppose, if time is fundamentally misunderstood in a big way. (But if time is fundamentally misunderstood in a big way, then the meaning of "creation" itself is also fundamentally misunderstood, so...)
  5. Hey, cool, that's almost exactly what I do (though I'm more on the development side now).
  6. That depends a lot on whether the other denizens of the darkness need light to detect an intruder - scent, bat-sonar, undead with darkvision are all appropriate for such an environment, indeed, more appropriate than Benny stumbling about blind.
  7. So, wait, am I the ONLY person here who uses their browser in a window instead of full screen? My screen res varies from 1024x768 to 1600x1200 (depending on whether I'm home or at work), but I don't maximise my browser, and I don't want to, either.
  8. Could we make it less wide?
  9. I downloaded it from Steam and never had a problem.
  10. Thief has epic space battles? :lol: J/k.
  11. They may reside in the same memory, but are still individually rendered. Mind, saving memory is still quite useful...
  12. Their target market isn't people, it's companies, and companies are far less likely to take the risk of pirating, and generally better equipped to handle legitimate costs of production (heck, the cubicle might've cost more than that, nevermind the office space, or the computer it's running on, a computer purchased for the primary purpose of running that and related apps).
  13. They do that every year; have been for a long time. The programs are clever, but invariably simply variants on the old "Eliza" trick. Fooling a handful of people isn't profound.
  14. Obscurus, your last set of responses to me made it painfully clear that you're arguing for the sake of arguing and not actually responding to the points being brought up - many of your responses were complete non-sequitors, and all of them ignored the central arguments. This is a waste of time.
  15. Doesn't compute. You can't have it all ways, fella. I love autosaves. They add convenience. Pay attention. I'm objecting to limits on the meta-game, not added features. That's great, but has so little to do with the topic at hand that I don't think it's particularly relevant. Making saving less convenient does nothing for my health, and means I get to have less fun playing the game. Excuse me if I'm not excited. I walk a lot, but I still like having a car. Nonsense. Those people aren't going to be bothered to play your idea of a game at all. The people you're punishing are the people who just want to play with as little trouble from the interface as possible. The people you're punishing are the people who want to play the game without having to think about saves. Planning a game design around nothing going wrong isn't realistic. There's always something (how many people were claimed by the trap-door under the Pagan's area in Auldale? "Hmm, looks dark, I'll jump down and take a look... Ooops, water..."). I am having fun, and I'm wondering what your problem is and why you and oDDity are so determined to interfere with other people's fun? That's exactly what you've constantly said you want to do - change the out-of-game interface to make the game more challenging to make largely imaginary people change their behavior to the way you want them to behave (which won't often work, BTW, never does). No. Saving is an out-of-game-world function. That's not profound. Dunno why you don't get it. All out-of-game-world functions and interfaces should be as convenient as possible. That should be obvious. You don't show much evidence of it. There are a few quicksave/quickload addicts, but I don't think they're anywhere near the majority. And on top of that, they're not going to change their tune because you restrict their fix - they'll simply find a way around or play a different game. You're not going to get any "converts" that way at all.
×
×
  • Create New...