One Hour One Life Forums

tocal

Member

Registered: 2020-04-23

Posts: 81

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

I like the idea of diminishing returns since a town wouldn't run out of a resource all of a sudden. If they despretly need some they can get it at a very low efficency

Exactly! It makes people feel the struggle of survival, instead of felling "oh, out of water, now what's the point." Basically, it allows hope for the future in a world of finite resources. And thanks for ignoring the epistemological debate in the background. #Spoonwoodthings

pein

Member

Registered: 2018-03-31

Posts: 4,335

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

We got one main resource: water.
Everything can be measured by it since it directly or indirectly converts to it.

Iron to water? you can calculate based on kerosene, thats 40 water or 5 iron, so 1iron=8water. Soil to water? Based on compost around 4 soil=1water.

Since you need it for food making, survival, its a monopoly that can't be changed, so everything else decreases in value when water becomes scarce.

the whole premise of 'everything runs out" is kind of bad, especially with the new introduction of fixed position iron.

Distance eventually becomes a problem, so the wild resources cant be reached in time.  Water and iron is limited, outpost making is limited, so you are just heading to your doom with decreasing food values.
The whole premise is backwards, you don't want to reach a goal, you just run from a punishment, delay your demise. And is a sure demise, not like increasingly hard gameplay, with some chance to avoid or turn back, its a final and sure end to you, your family.

This makes choices that you make less impactful. Your work is not measured at all. Generally, games have a pointing system, a currency, a way to win. Ohol only has a way to lose, its an unfair game with no good outcome long term. Jason called exploration "free" and lots of parts of the game are 99% gathering, 1% processing. While farming takes a bit of time, where work and time convert into value, even there the resource needs are way higher than the work itself. You cant survive to farm for food. Its even a bad conversion rate, since resources are so important, optimization is important, full of noob traps you can't measure if an activity is under other activity, but takes away the same resources, its a conflict, but that's hard to see in-game. Like you scrap together a bucket of water, which is a very low-efficiency job if you do It from the nearby ponds, if hey use it for bushes, instead of pies, it becomes even worse efficiency.

I think what defines a good game is rewards and punishments. If you do a positive action, you need to be rewarded, if you do a negative action, you will be punished. But you need a way to el them apart. Like using a healing potion when you are half health, you know its wasteful if it gives more than you need. But in OHOL case both wasting and preserving leads to the same outcome so its quite bad design, whatever you do your choices don't matter. There would need to be a shift in focus from resources to time and work. One way to do it would be some cycles that can repair the mistakes, where you invest time but you can make up for the mistakes. If this cant is accomplished, it means that time and work are worth little to nothing, while characters got upkeep so you are always in a general loss.

Instead of a limited resource-based economy, we would need a renewable resource-based economy with a lot of sinks that use up resources and convert them in a different way. That would require at least 3 resources to make it meaningful, since converting everything into one or converting between each other isn't too interesting. Makes the low-level resources less important and its a straight value scale where you don't have a need or an excess of them, and doesn't create different situations, as you see the "we have no water" effect in 90% of the games.

We got water sinks that aren't a survival necessity, for the most part, trees, paper, milkweed, skewers for letters. These are basic resources and mostly or convenience. But similarly, we got plaster, chemicals that use a lot of water, and increasing water costs make them a dead content.

It worked better before, even low-level activities had a decent payoff, water was abundant so making bushes or any farm had some value to it, but was nerfed over and over, breaking balance, compost has so low value is actually horrible, and water worked as a low-level resource, but at the same time it became a high-level resource so that's also bad for low-level activities, they affect the high levels.

Best system I saw was Surviving mars, where the basic resources ran out, but you could increase the removal of other resources with water, fuel required water and co2 to make methane and oxygen as fuel. Polymers required fuel and water, power. So basically 2 water to make plastic.
But plastics were used as upkeep for higher level buildings.

I guess mass-scale made it more interesting, you could survive on basic income with low pop or increase production, income, upkeep and tech level.
What ohol lacks for this, is a mass scale production but mass scale expense, sink coming with it, tech level is always the same in whole, no way to be more advanced and generally no reason.

Also, all the other activities are way too simple. Stone and wood is just chopped and dug and processed in seconds, the only problem is the transportation of them. But we also lack the massive, valuable structures that would serve as gate and reward.

We got some gates like an upgraded well can sustain a bit more milkweed farm and buckets allow a new way of transporting water. That allows cow pens and placing farms further away, painting and such. But the rest of the tech tree is neither required or linked any way with this.

I'm okay with diminishing returns as long as it doesn't use the same resource it produces, aka no iron to mine iron. You would need water to wash out the mine, and iron to produce stone and stone to increase water and wood to build out the mine. This way you would have times where one resource is more valuable than others and you got a choice to make. Later it could be all reverse cycle or random or mixed cycles.

---

https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=7986 livestock pens 4.0
https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=4411 maxi guide

Playing OHOL optimally is like cosplaying a cactus: stand still and don't waste the water.

pein

Member

Registered: 2018-03-31

Posts: 4,335

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

It may well hold that free will does not exist, and that our fates are sealed.

Whether you running away or toward something, you are affected by it. Whether you know or don't, everything has a logical explanation, even the instincts, pattern recognition can be instinctive or logical. The latter is way better because you don't feed yourself bullshit like fate.

---

https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=7986 livestock pens 4.0
https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=4411 maxi guide

Playing OHOL optimally is like cosplaying a cactus: stand still and don't waste the water.

tocal

Member

Registered: 2020-04-23

Posts: 81

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

@Pein I agree with most of what you said except for using a resource to get the same resource. I think that's fine... it just reduces the resultant value for that resource extraction activity. It also provides a trap (more conflict!) where you can kill your town by using the last bucket of water or something.

I agree that there should be different resource types but they shouldn't all boil down to absolute terms of one resource (water). Tech should have a different resource (Iron) and longevity should have a different resource (oil) and they should not be convertible between themselves at a constant rate. Think RTS games. In Star Craft, minerals are the resources for basic things, gas is the resource for tech things. Minerals are limited but easy to extract quickly, vespene gas is hard to extract but virtually limitless. End game battles were forced into tech mode because there were no more minerals. In AoE2, There is a market that allows conversion of one resource to another (food, wood, stone, gold), but that ratio changes the more the conversion happens in one direction. Wood can be constantly converted into food with farms. If there was only one conversion rate for all the resources, then there would only be one resource.

In OHOL, there is only one resource, water. You can convert oil to iron, but because there are constant conversion rates and the return value of iron from oil is less than that for water, there's no point in getting it. It's a noob trap and dead content. Oil does not produce anything on its own and is only used for getting more iron or water or time, so it's a non-resource. It's only use is to convert to other resources.

There needs to be not only diminishing returns on resource conversion rates, but also more content to allow resource sinks, just as you said. Maybe plastics could be made from oil, making it a real, useful resource. Maybe we can ferment corn into ethanol, allowing us to trade water back to oil. Maybe we can create automation robots to sink iron. Maybe we get wooden walls to sink wood. Windows, to sink glass. So many ways to sink resources with new content.

Spoonwood

Member

Registered: 2019-02-06

Posts: 4,369

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

It's not the case that if A is a cause, then it might not carry whatever effect A has.  From a cause, an effect necessarily follows, and thus causality is not inherently probabilistic.

Here you go again stating your argument and making your conclusion all in one statement with no evidence.  The logical argument should flow like this: thesis, evidence/proof, conclusion.

Nope.  There did exist a proof there in the form of reasoning from the hypothesis.

When something will fall due to gravity with nothing to counter gravity, it's not probably the case that something will fall.  That something will fall necessarily.

Gravity is a force that our scientists haven't fully teased out the secrets of. Gravity is a primitive force, a law of our universe. As gravity is constant, it doesn't fit into the formula of cause:reaction. Depending on your location, gravity is there in some respect or it isn't.

No.  You contradicted yourself.  Gravity is always there for anything which is larger than the scale of quantum mechanics.

Gravity also dilates time, which messes with the whole causality paradigm because causality assumes a constant forward motion of time.

No, that doesn't mess with the causality paradigm, because time still moves forward, just at a different rate.

When a knife will break someone skin's open and let blood out, it's not probably the case that the action of the knife will change the body so that blood will spill.  It's necessarily the case that a knife will cause blood to spill out.

This is a terrible example. I know where you're trying to go, but this just doesn't work. I've accidentally stabbed myself where no blood came out. needed stitches, but no blood left my body initially. Happens.

You needed stitches.  Sounds like blood still came out at some point in time.

Atoms is not just our nature.  Molecules exist and so do relations between molecules.

...

Nope.  Probability theory is useful in quantum mechanics, because it views things at the small level of a single electron.  From the perspective of aggregates of quantum particles, the probabilistic nature of reality does not follow.  And causal determinism is not refuted by quantum mechanics, which for the record, has many different interpretations.

Molecular behavior also behaves probabilistically.

No, it doesn't.  If it did, all hypotheses concerning molecule would have gotten falsified.

  Atomic, molecular, animals, all follow probabilistic curves. Atomic electrons are located in a probability cloud.

No, they are not.  There is no probability inherent in things, that's a model.

  Atomic nuclei decompose with a probabilistic half life.

That's for particular atoms.  At the molecular level it's a frequency of decay.

Chemicals react in a probabilistic nature. You can try to mix two reagents at a perfect ratio, but those molecules will react at a bell curve of points in time and you will never be guaranteed to react all reagents.

The bell curve itself is not a probability.  It's a function of all probabilities which acts deterministically.

  There will always be some slag. Viruses infect cells in a probabilistic nature; the higher the number of viral attackers, the greater the probability of the host being infected. Cells divide and become senescent in a probabilistic manner. Our whole reality, at all levels, can be accurately described in terms of probabilities, and it cannot be accurately described in terms of absolute certainties.

Your reality include your past.  There is no probability that yesterday you wrote the above words.  It's a certainty.  So, no, reality at all levels cannot get described probabilistically and accurately.

Edit:  Also, probability theory has different interpretations.  One interpretation of probability theory is that of frequency.  From the frequentist perspective, probabilistic theory in the aggregate are deterministic, because an event necessarily will happen with a certain frequency.

You are getting it. Frequency is consistent with a probabilistic view of causality.

No, it's not consistent with a probabilistic view of causality.  A frequency of X occurring which is non-zero, implies that X will happen with certainty.

The 'frequency' of something happening is just another way of phrasing 'how many times it would happen if we did it x times". If we did it 1,000,000 times and it had a given outcome 999,999 of those times, then we can treat it as if that given outcome is causally certain.

Then we are not treating it as probabilistic.

That's what a mathematical limit is... it doesn't actually ever become absolute but we can treat it as such.

No, that's not a mathematical limit.  You need real numbers for limits, and you only talked about a case with rational numbers.

This is like 0.99999endlessly repeating = 1.

No, it's not like that, because 0.99999999... = 1 only holds for the real number system.  0.9999... gets truncated for rational numbers, and thus 0.999..., no matter where the last 9 is, is NOT equal to 1 in the rational numbers.

How causality works is not a matter of what is practical or what we should do with respect to our knowledge.

We must take our perspective into account when trying to describe something in the 'real' world. We cannot escape our perspective. To think one can view an objective world, to spy 'absolute truth' in the world is not possible because it will always be from a biased perspective.

No, some absolute truths can be known.  Some historical events come as the clearest examples.  It's an absolute truth that the Earth revolved around the Sun in the past year. 

To understand this will help us approach this objectivity, to pretend it isn't there is to be further away from objectivity.

No, denial of absolute truths leads away from objectivity, because reality is absolute in some respects.  For example, the past does not change.

We can observe truth easily in the realm of ideas, but in the realm of the material world, that sight of truth can only be a limit that approaches the truth but never reaches it absolutely.

No.  It's an absolute truth that you wrote that sentence.  And you're fooling yourself if you think it anything less than an absolute truth.

Truth is a journey, a limit that approaches absolute truth, but never reaches it.

You wrote that sentence.  I just reached absolute truth.  So, no the journey of seeking truth sometimes does reach absolute truth.  And the Earth revolves about the Sun (I like that example, because it doesn't imply that getting to absolute truth will be easy).

And thank you for backing up your arguments with examples

This contradicts what you said in the start of your reply.

---

Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.

tocal

Member

Registered: 2020-04-23

Posts: 81

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

Spoonwood, you are trying to reply to everything I say as if that refutes what I stated. Having the last word on something does not make you more or less correct. Quality comes before quantity in logical discourse. For many of the statements you replied to, you did not understand what I was saying or did not read closely enough to understand my meaning and thus replied to your own idea of what I said, not what I said. For some of your replies, you are affirming that you don't know what you are talking about. That hurts your argument, not supports it.

arguing with me that .9repeating endlessly does not equal 1 was a super basic trap that you fell for.
https://www.purplemath.com/modules/howcan1.htm

You claim that electrons do not exist in a probability cloud, that that is just a model. Again, with no proof. Please research electron probability cloud, probability density, electron cloud... all these things are easily researched online.

You claim that A frequency of X occurring which is non-zero, implies that X will happen with certainty. That is absolutely incorrect. A frequency of 1/10 of x occurring is non zero, but the chance of that happening is not certain. The chance of that happening is 10%.

From a cause, an effect necessarily follows, and thus causality is not inherently probabilistic
...
Nope.  There did exist a proof there in the form of reasoning from the hypothesis.

Where is the reasoning? You stated your thesis, then immediately stated your conclusion (the words following 'thus'). The thesis isn't even related directly to the conclusion you draw. Please try harder and do your intellectual due diligence. Please don't just vomit 'NO YOU'. I'm not arguing with a child, am I?

No, that doesn't mess with the causality paradigm, because time still moves forward, just at a different rate.

This could be true, but we're talking small scale here (earth gravity), so you can't generalize that out to all gravity. Who's to say that gravity at a black hole doesn't mess with the causality paradigm?

You needed stitches.  Sounds like blood still came out at some point in time.

It came out when I got to the ER, when they squeezed the wound to try to make blood come out. Never said it didn't, just that it didn't come out initially. The causal link between being stabbed and blood coming out was like 45 minutes? That's like a whole OHOL life. I think I hit the 1/1000 event. Your example was still terrible and provable wrong through a personal anecdote.

Your reality include your past.  There is no probability that yesterday you wrote the above words.  It's a certainty.  So, no, reality at all levels cannot get described probabilistically and accurately.

We are talking about probabilistic causality. Things that happened in the past already happened. We're talking about an action and its probable outcomes forward in time. Your argument is missing the point of time.

No, it doesn't.  If it did, all hypotheses concerning molecule would have gotten falsified.

tocal wrote:
Atomic electrons are located in a probability cloud.

No, they are not.  There is no probability inherent in things, that's a model.

tocal wrote:
  Atomic nuclei decompose with a probabilistic half life.

That's for particular atoms.  At the molecular level it's a frequency of decay.

tocal wrote:
Chemicals react in a probabilistic nature. You can try to mix two reagents at a perfect ratio, but those molecules will react at a bell curve of points in time and you will never be guaranteed to react all reagents.

The bell curve itself is not a probability.  It's a function of all probabilities which acts deterministically.

No, it's not consistent with a probabilistic view of causality.  A frequency of X occurring which is non-zero, implies that X will happen with certainty.

tocal wrote:
The 'frequency' of something happening is just another way of phrasing 'how many times it would happen if we did it x times". If we did it 1,000,000 times and it had a given outcome 999,999 of those times, then we can treat it as if that given outcome is causally certain.

Then we are not treating it as probabilistic.

tocal wrote:
That's what a mathematical limit is... it doesn't actually ever become absolute but we can treat it as such.

No, that's not a mathematical limit.  You need real numbers for limits, and you only talked about a case with rational numbers.

Please read up on the topics you are debating before you continue. You are making yourself seem uninformed. Read up on electron clouds, probability densities, orbitals for atoms. Look up molecular decay.

Look up the definition of frequency. I already defined it for you and related it to how in this context it's synonymous with the probability of something happening, yet you keep on treating them as if they're entirely different topics. I would wager you are following a sophomoric thought process where you think that because you stated the word frequency first, somehow it's ok for you to accept this definition of probabilistic causality because it came from you and you self identify as always right. If that's the type of mental gymnastics you must perform to keep the cognitive dissonance at bay then I'm probably wasting my time here. You are trying to refute my arguments by saying 'no, that's frequency, not probabilistic causality' when the way you're using frequency IS probabilistic causality.

You fell into a bunch of logical traps I inadvertently set for you. I mean, they're not supposed to be traps because nobody with any sense would go after them. It seems I can force you into taking incorrect positions simply by stating provable positions and knowing that you feel compelled to take the opposite stance. Even when you take the same stance, you seem compelled to frame it as if it were a contrarian stance by introducing a logical falsehood like 'the frequency of something happening if we tried it N number of times is not the same thing as the probability of something happening.' The logical fallacy of A != still A, but we're calling it Aprime.

It's ok to not be right all the time. If you self identify as always right then you will be frozen, unable to grow. But I hope someone that is not us who reads this is not confused by lack of sophistication in your reasoning.

If you reply back Spoonwood, please raise yourself above 'no you', please don't take positions that are easily proven false, and please think before you type.

Spoonwood

Member

Registered: 2019-02-06

Posts: 4,369

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

arguing with me that .9repeating endlessly does not equal 1 was a super basic trap that you fell for.
https://www.purplemath.com/modules/howcan1.htm

Your link doesn't discuss the difference between the real number system and the rational number system.  Also, .9 repeating endlessly is a real number, not a rational number.  It doesn't even attempt to try to address what the notation .9... means for the rational number system.  .9... isn't even an accurate notation for a rational number, since it doesn't involve a pair of integers as a ratio.  The same goes .3..., in that it's not a precise notation.  So, it never addressed my claim that .999... does not equal 1 in the rational numbers (maybe that's not correct).

Your link says this: "If two numbers are different, then you can fit another number between them, such as their average. But what number could you possibly fit between 0.999... and 1.000...?"

Well, the answer might be a hyperreal infinitesimal.

Your article also points out that it assumes the axiom of choice.  Well, in some forms of constructive mathematics, one doesn't get the axiom of choice.

I also went over to math.stackexchange after reading your previous comment and this came up: https://math.stackexchange.com/question … nd-1-0-999 The answer by Noah Schweber says that .999... is a shorthand for an infinite sum involving the entire natural numbers, which is an infinite set.  But, ultrafinists deny the existence of all infinite sets, including the natural numbers.  That means that if an ultrafinitist uses .999... as a notation, well, they aren't using the same number as '1', because .999... = 1 requires that the natural numbers be infinite.  Also, his answer points out that .999... doesn't equal 1 in the hyperreal numbers.

You claim that electrons do not exist in a probability cloud, that that is just a model. Again, with no proof. Please research electron probability cloud, probability density, electron cloud... all these things are easily researched online.

I didn't say that probability clouds were not models.  I said that such clouds were not where electrons exist.  In other words, electrons don't exist in mathematical models.

You claim that A frequency of X occurring which is non-zero, implies that X will happen with certainty. That is absolutely incorrect. A frequency of 1/10 of x occurring is non zero, but the chance of that happening is not certain.

You haven't considered the tense or time index of either statement.  No, I'm not talking about whether an experiment will produce a particular result.  If the expected frequency of occurance is 1/10, then yes the chance of that happening is not certain, as the experiment has not gotten done.  That's an a priori probability.  But, if we have an observed frequency of an event taking place which is not 0, then it has happened for certain (or we're delusional in which case we haven't made an observation).  That's an a posteriori certainty.

Where is the reasoning? You stated your thesis, then immediately stated your conclusion (the words following 'thus'). The thesis isn't even related directly to the conclusion you draw.

You didn't cite what I said in full and thus missed the reasoning:

It's not the case that if A is a cause, then it might not carry whatever effect A has.  From a cause, an effect necessarily follows, and thus causality is not inherently probabilistic.

Really, it seems that "It's not the case that if A is a cause, then it might not carry whatever effect A has" and "from a cause, an effect necessarily follows" are logically equivalent.

This could be true, but we're talking small scale here (earth gravity), so you can't generalize that out to all gravity. Who's to say that gravity at a black hole doesn't mess with the causality paradigm?

Causality is assumed for experimental physical science to proceed in the first place.  It's a presupposition.

It came out when I got to the ER, when they squeezed the wound to try to make blood come out. Never said it didn't, just that it didn't come out initially. The causal link between being stabbed and blood coming out was like 45 minutes? That's like a whole OHOL life. I think I hit the 1/1000 event. Your example was still terrible and provable wrong through a personal anecdote.

No, I didn't say that the blood would come out immediately.  I just said that it would come out.  Thus, what you've stated thus confirms my hypothesis, because it wasn't specific at a particular time in the future, just that it would happen in the future.

We are talking about probabilistic causality.

There is no such thing as probabilistic causality.  That's a contradiction in terms, because the nature of causality comes as such that from a cause an effect necessarily follows, and something which is probabilistic is not necessary.

Things that happened in the past already happened. We're talking about an action and its probable outcomes forward in time. Your argument is missing the point of time.

Causality is NOT understood ever forward in time.  Effects of a cause can only get predicted forward in time.  Causality gets understood in the present or backward in time.

If you were able to prove my statements false as easily you claim you would not have tried to portray my behavior in a certain way.  You haven't stuck to what I asserted.

---

Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.

Crumpaloo

Member

Registered: 2018-12-16

Posts: 371

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

Geez, are all the content updates hidden behind these giant walls of text?

---

1,280 pips just by Making Pork Tacos, Possible 2,500 pips just by hunting turkeys, and yet, somehow, yall still eating berries, bruh.

Spoonwood

Member

Registered: 2019-02-06

Posts: 4,369

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

Geez, are all the content updates hidden behind these giant walls of text?

No, Jason isn't talking here.

---

Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.

DestinyCall

Member

Registered: 2018-12-08

Posts: 4,563

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

The probability of a content update has a non-zero size but  the last offset is not bigger than the base offset, therefore the file is corrupted and cannot compile.