Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

tocal · 2020-05-21 18:33:21

I hate the way that resource scarcity is implemented because it's unintuitive. In the real world, as resources become more scarce, it becomes increasingly more costly to extract them. Oil, gold, water, fishing, hunting... all resource extracting follows this pattern.

In the game, Iron scarcity follows a stepwise function, but ceases to become more scarce as oil becomes the limiting factor. If you factor in the rate of new eve spawns and new iron mines, the downward stepwise function of iron scarcity has flattened out to become non-scarce. This makes no sense.

water scarcity is a stepwise function as well. It does become more difficult to get water, but it flattens out at a deisel engine. The linear scarcity of oil flattens it out.

~

The way it works in the game should mirror the way it works in real life. If I have an iron mine that I just tapped, I can mine it at a high chance to get iron (say 99%). Each iron I extract makes it increasingly difficult to mine more iron. Once my chance to get iron reaches about 10%, I should still be able to swing a pick axe at it, but the chance to get additional iron instead of nothing (or a stone) should not be worth the hungry work required to swing the pickaxe. If I now add a stanchion kit, I get a new multiplier that increases my chance of getting iron if my probability is below a certain number. Thus if I still have a high chance to get iron and I add a stanchion kit, I still have a high chance. If i have mined a lot without a stanchion kit and my probability is very low, a stanchion kit will increase the likelihood by a lot. This way resources don't become infinite based on the amount of oil, and they don't fall off a cliff if I've exhausted the low hanging fruit. It's not how it works in real life.

I think a town that has tons of resources should be able to throw food at a mine if they really want to. If they have 2% chance of getting iron from a mine, they should be able to throw food at the mine to get that iron if they so choose. You can always drill deeper, mine harder.

People like to gamble, and resource extraction like this would be a form of gambling, which will increase interest in the game.

All ores should come out of mines with very little lying on the ground. That would create mining towns whose main occupation is gambling for ores out of their mine. They could become a depot for stones, precious minerals, and yes, iron. This is how towns in real life spring up... around a purpose. a speciality. Maybe another town could be expert well drillers with the deepest well around. Yet another could be expert oil... not because they're white, but because true extraction requires intense resource focusing on a single task.

This would also limit the pressure put on oil to be the limiting factor in the game. Why? because even a well with an engine and oil would have diminishing returns, thus towns couldn't stay alive indefinitely without water imports (which should also be a part of the game... I want to build the Los Angeles aqueduct from fresh land to my metropolis).

The better the game models real life, the easier the game will be to maintain and to keep peoples' interest.

Jason, if you need help with implementing some of this, I can provide formulas and pseudo-code (I'm a Java guy, not cpp).

Spoonwood · 2020-05-21 18:40:40

I do agree that realism can be interesting.

However, realism is tricky to work out as to when it interests people and it doesn't. People simply aren't interested in every facet of reality. Not for the sake of interest it's self.

Finite opportunity interests people in some cases. It does not interest people in general. Finite opportunity may interest a person at time X, but in terms of sustaining interest and interest over many different times even for the same person, finite opportunity becomes annoying, and annoyance is negative dissociation, while interest is positive association. Staying at home is not something that has interested people in itself (there's only so much to do at home!), and people who don't have good risk assessment, or lack empathy for others, are unhappy about the current real world situation.

As an example, the game Oxygen Not Included had finite water for a while. It ultimately wasn't interesting, and they changed the game so that it had infinite water via geysers and vents.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2020-05-21 18:41:43)

tocal · 2020-05-21 18:49:44

If we changed the system to a random, 'gambling' diminishing return system, no resources would be literally finite. Also, I'm pretty sure everyone likes gambling.

A lot of resources are cyclical in real life. Take water for example. Places have rainy seasons, snowmelt, draughts and winter where all the water turns to ice. That would be a cool way of limiting resources with respect to time without actually making them limited. And that's also from mirroring real life!

For mining, a single mine with a town around it should follow this methodology. However, once that mine becomes low yield, people should abandon the mining town and find a new mine with a better ore yield. This is also exactly how it happens in real life.

Spoonwood · 2020-05-21 18:55:57

tocal wrote:

If we changed the system to a random, 'gambling' diminishing return system, no resources would be literally finite. Also, I'm pretty sure everyone likes gambling.

I don't gamble with my money, and I don't like gambling in any general sense.

tocal wrote:

A lot of resources are cyclical in real life. Take water for example. Places have rainy seasons, snowmelt, draughts and winter where all the water turns to ice. That would be a cool way of limiting resources with respect to time without actually making them limited. And that's also from mirroring real life!

Yes. But, even without seasons infinite resources can be interesting, as Oxygen Not Included demonstrates. Finite resources is also possible in a space with infinite resources, since players can self-impose limitations and some will if that's ultimately what interests them. Infinite resources isn't possible in a space with finite resources. Thus, infinite resources provides more opportunity for players.

tocal · 2020-05-21 19:08:12

Spoonwood wrote:

I don't gamble with my money, and I don't like gambling in any general sense.

Nothing in life is certain. You can reduce your chance of negative outcomes, but you can't eliminate them. Plus, if you never take risks, you are severely limiting yourself.

Everything is a type of gambling (action has a probability of an expected outcome set), but gambling in the proper sense is probably taking an action where the aggregate probability of success is lower than the chance of failure. Still, some things require gambling to get, thus their scarcity and value.

If you don't like gambling in your games, you can always pay a premium to those who do like gambling and obtain the scarce items from them. Not everyone has to be a cook, but everyone does have to eat.

Spoonwood · 2020-05-21 19:19:17

tocal wrote:

Nothing in life is certain. You can reduce your chance of negative outcomes, but you can't eliminate them. Plus, if you never take risks, you are severely limiting yourself.

Risk taking is not gambling. Not all risks are the same also. Sometimes the probability of failure is less than 50% when taking a risk.

No, not everything is a type of probabilistic behavior. Some things are non-probabilistic. Proofs in logic and mathematics exist. The notions of possibility and necessity also don't fall under the scope of probability.

tocal · 2020-05-21 19:32:06

Spoonwood wrote:

tocal wrote:
Nothing in life is certain. You can reduce your chance of negative outcomes, but you can't eliminate them. Plus, if you never take risks, you are severely limiting yourself.
Risk taking is not gambling. Not all risks are the same also. Sometimes the probability of failure is less than 50% when taking a risk.
No, not everything is a type of probabilistic behavior. Some things are non-probabilistic. Proofs in logic and mathematics exist. The notions of possibility and necessity also don't fall under the scope of probability.

Real life is probabilistic in nature. Mathematics is not real life. Mathematics is the language of reality, but it's realm is the realm of ideas, logic, etc. Ideas are not probabilistic in nature.

I think I said that gambling as the idea of it is probably less than 50% expected success for outcome. The point I'm trying to make is that gambling is on the continuum of all actions one takes in the real world. It's just those actions with less than 50% expected success rate. One can not like it, but it can't be avoided because the world is probabilistic in nature.

Spoonwood · 2020-05-21 19:35:31

tocal wrote:

Real life is probabilistic in nature.

I don't think so. At least, not in every aspect. I think it's certain that you and I will die in real life, and there's nothing probabilistic about it.

Ideas are part of real life.

Sometimes gambling can get avoided. Perhaps it can't at all times, but since it sometimes can get avoided, it's not the case that all actions involve gambling. It's not the case that everything is gambling.

tocal · 2020-05-21 19:38:35

Spoonwood wrote:

tocal wrote:
Real life is probabilistic in nature.
I don't think so. At least, not in every aspect. I think it's certain that you and I will die in real life, and there's nothing probabilistic about it.
Ideas are part of real life.
Sometimes gambling can get avoided. Perhaps it can't at all times, but since it sometimes can get avoided, it's not the case that all actions involve gambling. It's not the case that everything is gambling.

You and I will die, but when we die is probabilistic in nature.

Ideas interact with 'reality', but are not a part of it. I think the main differentiator is entropy. Reality experiences entropy and will eventually experience heat death. Ideas don't seem to tend to disorder, but rather the other way around, to order.

DestinyCall · 2020-05-21 19:41:43

Spoonwood wrote:

tocal wrote:
Real life is probabilistic in nature.
I don't think so. At least, not in every aspect. I think it's certain that you and I will die in real life, and there's nothing probabilistic about it.
Ideas are part of real life.
Sometimes gambling can get avoided. Perhaps it can't at all times, but since it sometimes can get avoided, it's not the case that all actions involve gambling. It's not the case that everything is gambling.

Why did you just assume that Tocal meant ALL aspects of real life are probabilistic?

Spoonwood · 2020-05-21 19:54:50

Destinycall wrote:

Why did you just assume that Tocal meant ALL aspects of real life are probabilistic?

Because tocal said above:

tocal wrote:

Everything is a type of gambling (action has a probability of an expected outcome set), but gambling in the proper sense is probably taking an action where the aggregate probability of success is lower than the chance of failure.

DestinyCall · 2020-05-21 20:05:39

Spoonwood wrote:

Destinycall wrote:
Why did you just assume that Tocal meant ALL aspects of real life are probabilistic?
Because tocal said above:
tocal wrote:
Everything is a type of gambling (action has a probability of an expected outcome set), but gambling in the proper sense is probably taking an action where the aggregate probability of success is lower than the chance of failure.

Then why did you say this?

[

Spoonwood wrote:

Ideas are part of real life.

Tocal is talking about how actions can have different expected outcomes due to probability in real life You seem to be talking about something else.

Spoonwood · 2020-05-21 21:07:11

DestinyCall wrote:

Then why did you say this?

I said that ideas are part of real life, because it's true that they are part of real life.

DestinyCall · 2020-05-21 22:36:52

But that is not relevant, because tocal was not referring to every aspect of real life in his comment. The post you quoted clearly shows that he was referring to a subset of "everything", not all things and concepts.

Crumpaloo · 2020-05-21 22:58:45

I agree, you see games like dnd who have a large portion around their game based around RNG elements, which for a unrealistic game makes it pretty realistic, cause like in real life, anything that can go wrong will go wrong given time.

However, if you increase the skill, the worst you can do say on a dexterity roll is increased, so while you may roll a 1 instead of a nat 20, its still way better because your external skill ups the numbers.

This is where Toolslots should come in, if you spend enough time doing a certain job you should have a smaller chance of failure, mainly being for the tools you use for your job. A blacksmith should have a lower chance of breaking their hammer, a shepherd should have a lower chance of breaking their shears, and a farmer should have a lower chance of breaking their hoe.

Last edited by Crumpaloo (2020-05-21 23:07:13)

tocal · 2020-05-22 00:39:20

Crumpaloo wrote:

I agree, you see games like dnd who have a large portion around their game based around RNG elements, which for a unrealistic game makes it pretty realistic, cause like in real life, anything that can go wrong will go wrong given time.
However, if you increase the skill, the worst you can do say on a dexterity roll is increased, so while you may roll a 1 instead of a nat 20, its still way better because your external skill ups the numbers.
This is where Toolslots should come in, if you spend enough time doing a certain job you should have a smaller chance of failure, mainly being for the tools you use for your job. A blacksmith should have a lower chance of breaking their hammer, a shepherd should have a lower chance of breaking their shears, and a farmer should have a lower chance of breaking their hoe.

I think I fully agree with this. If I may expound on the last point you made though... Basically, instead of the game telling you you're good at a job because you used a tool slot, the game tells you you're good at a job because you are always (or nearly always) successful at that job. Thus, it's a more natural feedback loop for the player, it's intuitive, and it doesn't require any arcane knowledge about the game to understand it.

Crumpaloo · 2020-05-22 01:03:22

tocal wrote:

Crumpaloo wrote:
I agree, you see games like dnd who have a large portion around their game based around RNG elements, which for a unrealistic game makes it pretty realistic, cause like in real life, anything that can go wrong will go wrong given time.
However, if you increase the skill, the worst you can do say on a dexterity roll is increased, so while you may roll a 1 instead of a nat 20, its still way better because your external skill ups the numbers.
This is where Toolslots should come in, if you spend enough time doing a certain job you should have a smaller chance of failure, mainly being for the tools you use for your job. A blacksmith should have a lower chance of breaking their hammer, a shepherd should have a lower chance of breaking their shears, and a farmer should have a lower chance of breaking their hoe.
I think I fully agree with this. If I may expound on the last point you made though... Basically, instead of the game telling you you're good at a job because you used a tool slot, the game tells you you're good at a job because you are always (or nearly always) successful at that job. Thus, it's a more natural feedback loop for the player, it's intuitive, and it doesn't require any arcane knowledge about the game to understand it.

Exactly, and reinforce the idea of mastery by adding more benifits the longer you stay with the craft, maybe even give you a badge specific to your craft at a certain point so everyone including the new players can be like "oh the hoe broke, but that guy over there with the smiting badge could probably make me one, let me go ask him"

tocal · 2020-05-22 01:06:31

Spoonwood wrote:

Destinycall wrote:
Why did you just assume that Tocal meant ALL aspects of real life are probabilistic?
Because tocal said above:
tocal wrote:
Everything is a type of gambling (action has a probability of an expected outcome set), but gambling in the proper sense is probably taking an action where the aggregate probability of success is lower than the chance of failure.

Spoonwood, you are making me get real specific in my speech here. I don't mind falling down a philosophical rabbit hole but I feel like it shouldn't be necessary.

I was referring to causality. Let's say we live in the 'real' world, which I'll describe as 3 dimensional space and unidirectional time (spacetime). An agent can do something and expect a certain array of outcomes at different probabilities. An agent is anything with will that can change the nature of space, in other words, the matter in 3 dimensional space will be at one state at the starting moment in time, at a subsequent moment in time that 3 dimensional space will be different. If that agent tries to predict the outcome of their actions, they must model the array of possible outcomes. This analysis must be probabilistic because no outcome is certain, but outcomes can be near certain. Even if a fourth dimensional being come and tells us that some actions are certain where only one possible outcome is possible, us three dimensional beings must still predict outcomes using probabilities. We can never gain that certainty of a four dimensional being that can see all possible outcomes so to us certainties may as well not exist.

Ideas are not made up of matter, are not subject to entropy, and are not subject to causality. Over time, ideas get more complex and are explored, but they do not experience causality, thus are not probabilistic in nature. While ideas 'exist', they do not exist in the 'real' world, but more a parallel one with different rules.

When I said "Everything is a type of gambling..." I was referring to spacetime (the material world with causality). I don't think that includes 'ideas' for the reasons I stated above. I think actions and causality were inferred because in the same sentence I explained what I meant. I think a reasonable reader would have understood this to be the meaning, and even a critical reader would have seen that I covered my bases with the use of the dangerous statement "Everything..." by being specific about the everything I was talking about.

I think this boils down to someone nitpicking my speech, looking for holes, finding the signal for a common logical fallacy (who uses the word 'everything' in a logical argument?!), calling it out, but not thinking it through fully themselves.

No hard feelings but I would accept an acknowledgement that you were being captious.

tocal · 2020-05-22 01:10:18

Crumpaloo wrote:

tocal wrote:
Crumpaloo wrote:
I agree, you see games like dnd who have a large portion around their game based around RNG elements, which for a unrealistic game makes it pretty realistic, cause like in real life, anything that can go wrong will go wrong given time.
However, if you increase the skill, the worst you can do say on a dexterity roll is increased, so while you may roll a 1 instead of a nat 20, its still way better because your external skill ups the numbers.
This is where Toolslots should come in, if you spend enough time doing a certain job you should have a smaller chance of failure, mainly being for the tools you use for your job. A blacksmith should have a lower chance of breaking their hammer, a shepherd should have a lower chance of breaking their shears, and a farmer should have a lower chance of breaking their hoe.
I think I fully agree with this. If I may expound on the last point you made though... Basically, instead of the game telling you you're good at a job because you used a tool slot, the game tells you you're good at a job because you are always (or nearly always) successful at that job. Thus, it's a more natural feedback loop for the player, it's intuitive, and it doesn't require any arcane knowledge about the game to understand it.
Exactly, and reinforce the idea of mastery by adding more benifits the longer you stay with the craft, maybe even give you a badge specific to your craft at a certain point so everyone including the new players can be like "oh the hoe broke, but that guy over there with the smiting badge could probably make me one, let me go ask him"

I like this! This is more like real life. People form guilds, have certifications, pass accreditation tests to practice a particular profession. Some sort of badge showing how good you are at a job/tool would be super helpful to figure out who can help you with a particular problem and resolve a lot of the communication limitations in the game. It also gives players a reason to excel in a profession in the game. Maybe if a master craftsman makes something, the tool glows or something and has greater durability or something as an added bonus.

Spoonwood · 2020-05-22 01:25:17

tocal wrote:

When I said "Everything is a type of gambling..." I was referring to spacetime (the material world with causality).

Causality is not a probabilistic phenomenon. We may only know a cause with a certain degree of confidence, and thus our knowledge is probabilistic. However, causality itself is not probabilistic, since from a given determinate cause, an effect *necessarily* follows.

tocal wrote:

No hard feelings but I would accept an acknowledgement that you were being captious.

I think you overestimate how many phenomenon are probabilistic, sine causality pervades through the world and is not probabilistic in nature.

DestinyCall · 2020-05-22 02:00:09

tocal wrote:

No hard feelings but I would accept an acknowledgement that you were being captious.

You have identified Spoonwood's natural state. Of course, from his perspective, we humans must seem so very illogical and imprecise, using word like "everything" and "always" without specifying all possible exceptions or edge cases.

tocal · 2020-05-22 03:21:26

Spoonwood wrote:

tocal wrote:
When I said "Everything is a type of gambling..." I was referring to spacetime (the material world with causality).
Causality is not a probabilistic phenomenon. We may only know a cause with a certain degree of confidence, and thus our knowledge is probabilistic. However, causality itself is not probabilistic, since from a given determinate cause, an effect *necessarily* follows.
tocal wrote:
No hard feelings but I would accept an acknowledgement that you were being captious.
I think you overestimate how many phenomenon are probabilistic, sine causality pervades through the world and is not probabilistic in nature.

I'll cede that our knowledge is not absolute; the more we know the closer we can get to truth, but we can never grasp it absolutely. However, I never argued against that point and it does not have bearing on my argument that causality is inherently probabilistic and even if it's not, we should treat it as such.

You are stating an argument with no proof or examples. Instead of finding fault in my reasoning, you are simply stating an opposite position and not backing it up or crafting a line of reasoning that might bring someone of the opposite opinion to that of your own. I ask that instead of simply stating a contrarian opinion, you reason through your position, give resources or examples to support your thesis, or back away from a stance of absolute certainty.

Tell me how you know causality itself is not probabilistic? Did you know that the very nature of the matter we are made of (atoms) is probabilistic in nature? If we are made of probability clouds, would it not follow that at higher scales of organization (people) our actions would follow such a probabilistic path? Do you think the timeline is akin to a number line, our fates are sealed, there is no free will? If you believe in free will and choice, then wouldn't it follow that causality is probabilistic in nature?

Even if your argument is correct, it does not address the second part of my thesis, that even if some causality has absolute/for sure outcomes, we need to treat that causation as if it were probabilistic in nature due to our inability to have a perspective to know for an absolute fact whether or not an outcome is certain (although you claim to have this 4th dimensional power).

You are basically taking an unprovable position and ignoring the counter position that might actually help you make better decisions and thus have better outcomes in life. You seem to be fairly fixed in your beliefs and stances and are unwilling to follow a reasoned path, and instead just want to broadcast those beliefs over and over again as if that will make it more true. Am I wrong in this assessment? If so, then this discussion can continue. But please prove it to me first with a supported/reasoned argument, not just a restatement of your dogmatic beliefs. If I am not wrong and I am arguing with an obstinate, I will spend my time debating the nature of reality with someone with a more open and logical mind.

Spoonwood · 2020-05-22 04:30:01

tocal wrote:

However, I never argued against that point and it does not have bearing on my argument that causality is inherently probabilistic and even if it's not, we should treat it as such.

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.

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.

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.

tocal wrote:

Did you know that the very nature of the matter we are made of (atoms) is probabilistic in nature?

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

tocal wrote:

If we are made of probability clouds, would it not follow that at higher scales of organization (people) our actions would follow such a probabilistic path?

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.

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.

tocal wrote:

Do you think the timeline is akin to a number line, our fates are sealed, there is no free will?

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

tocal wrote:

You are basically taking an unprovable position and ignoring the counter position that might actually help you make better decisions and thus have better outcomes in life.

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

Last edited by Spoonwood (2020-05-22 04:36:40)

StrongForce · 2020-05-22 08:25:43

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

tocal · 2020-05-22 16:58:38

Spoonwood wrote:

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. Not thesis straight to conclusion. It's like your basing your conclusion on your thesis.

Spoonwood wrote:

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

Spoonwood wrote:

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.

Spoonwood wrote:

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. Atomic, molecular, animals, all follow probabilistic curves. Atomic electrons are located in a probability cloud. Atomic nuclei decompose with a probabilistic half life. 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. 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.

Spoonwood wrote:

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. 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. That's what a mathematical limit is... it doesn't actually ever become absolute but we can treat it as such. This is like 0.99999endlessly repeating = 1. it's not almost equal to 1, it IS one. In the aggregate when considering all causality though, it is better to view causality as entirely probabilistic and those events with a causal outcome with a limit that approaches certainty as a subset of all probabilistic events. This is, as opposed to viewing all causality as certain and those that are probabilistic in nature as an exception to an absolutist universe. One view point will give you a higher chance of coming up with accurate predictions than if one used the other perspective. This is because one view point more accurately models the real world.

Spoonwood wrote:

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

Our knowledge should inform our behavior. Is something more true if it more accurately helps us interact with the world? I would argue yes, as long as we accept that we cannot be truly objective and fully view 'truth'. If a new knowledge comes along that more accurately helps us interact with the world, then that is the new best truth. Truth is a journey, a limit that approaches absolute truth, but never reaches it. Truth isn't a mountain upon which to make a last stand.

Spoonwood wrote:

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

This could be, but I'm pretty sure we can't know this for sure, so it's moot to worry about it. The 'truth' that helps people have the best outcome however is for them to believe that they do have agency. This is a great example of how 'what is true' can be influenced by what is in the best interests of the viewer's outcomes.

And thank you for backing up your arguments with examples

One Hour One Life Forums

#1 2020-05-21 18:33:21

Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

#2 2020-05-21 18:40:40

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

#3 2020-05-21 18:49:44

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

#4 2020-05-21 18:55:57

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

#5 2020-05-21 19:08:12

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

#6 2020-05-21 19:19:17

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

#7 2020-05-21 19:32:06

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

#8 2020-05-21 19:35:31

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

#9 2020-05-21 19:38:35

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

#10 2020-05-21 19:41:43

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

#11 2020-05-21 19:54:50

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

#12 2020-05-21 20:05:39

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

#13 2020-05-21 21:07:11

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

#14 2020-05-21 22:36:52

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

#15 2020-05-21 22:58:45

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

#16 2020-05-22 00:39:20

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

#17 2020-05-22 01:03:22

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

#18 2020-05-22 01:06:31

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

#19 2020-05-22 01:10:18

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

#20 2020-05-22 01:25:17

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

#21 2020-05-22 02:00:09

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

#22 2020-05-22 03:21:26

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

#23 2020-05-22 04:30:01

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

#24 2020-05-22 08:25:43

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

#25 2020-05-22 16:58:38

Re: Resource Scarcity Realism (ln scale)

Board footer