1622 words about Fallout, time, stories and pseudoscience

    Actually, subject


    1. Fallout

    After the publication of the restoration project, a desire arose naturally to play the favorite game of destv. The game unpleasantly disappointed. No, of course, she did not become worse, she became better and richer. Just the world has changed. I’ll try to clarify.

    1.1. Games - books and games - experiences.

    Probably, it is in these two categories that you can break the whole set of existing games.

    The first are games aimed at the second signaling system, that is, at a more formal description of events: e2-e4 is enough to describe a move in chess, it is not necessary to show the heartbreaking picture of a pawn moving from one cell to another within 10 minutes.

    Games - experiences - this is the opposite of games - books. Here the game is played in formally indescribable terms. Of course, theoretically, you can record all the motion paths in the same Half-Life. But this will already be the story of the game, and not its course. Abstractions of the level of the second signaling system can occur for a player only after playing the game. And in general, the achievement of such abstractions is the goal here: to reach that green door, but how to do it?

    1.2. Error in UI Fallout.

    Like that. So why is Fallout bad? And the fact that being a typical game-book, in which actions are important for the player exactly at the level of the second signal system, it tries to look like a game for the first. The player shoots the NPC in the head, and he dies beautifully in a few seconds. This is interesting at first. But soon an abstraction forms, which is supported by the repeatability of the picture of dying from a shot in the head - "death from a shot in the head." And the game continues and continues to play this video, and even in turn-based mode. The same error can be seen in the trading interface and conversations with the NPC. There’s nothing for this whole animation in the game, which is aimed at handling events and facts,

    And the movement on the map? Why turn a simple phrase into an experience: the main character walked three days and three nights from point A to point B, periodically bumping into gangs and successfully escaping from them, because that’s how an unprotected player leads him into a long and painful experience. And a constant mouse click to escape. A lot of wasted time. When working with factual information, you need to optimize the speed of working with it, and UI Fallout does something completely different.

    If Fallout adhered to its Tao in its UI, it is possible that it would be more successful at the box office. And so ... For a life filled with events, and during the release of the game, its main potential consumers in the USA and Europe, probably lived such a life, Fallout is an extremely impractical book to read. It is clear, of course, that the ideas were taken from the UFO - a successful game. But in the UFO, the saturation with actual events that did not need to be actively experienced (by clicking the mouse) was much greater. And in tactical operations, everyone died much faster.

    2. Time

    2.1. Time and games.

    But Fallout, however, is very interesting as an object for meditation. For instance. On the global map, time runs at a different rate than on local ones. In a single-player game, the freedom to use the concept of time can be very wide. You can even scroll back, there are various examples. But when it comes to multiplayer games, the picture changes dramatically. It is not possible for each player to maintain local time. It is not possible to make full-fledged support for time travel in a multi-user world. Does the openness of the system relate to the physical idea of ​​what time is? Physicists, by the way, have no idea what time is. And I very much doubt that they have some idea of ​​what motion is (of course, they have a derivative and an integral, but do they reflect the essence of the motion?).

    2.2. Computational complexity and time.

    At the same time, that is amusing, physical laws are quite true for themselves. For example, the more players playing a game, the more difficult it is for them to maintain a uniform space-time. The more players there are, the more energy is needed for this.

    3. Numbers.

    3.1. Numbers, algorithms, and again space-time.

    You can develop this idea. But not necessarily on users. For example, the longer the numbers, the longer they multiply and add up. Even more. We can say that if we want to spend less time, we must use more energy. Space, time, energy in unity. Doesn’t resemble anything? For the ignorant, I’ll point a finger at the good old GR Einstein. And I will continue the analogy.

    Here you can see a connection even with curved Riemannian spaces. Let me remind you that a Riemannian space is such a variety that in the neighborhood of each point is Euclidean, that is, flat. Can this be directly connected with the fact that in small neighborhoods the processing speed is the same, and with an increase in the volume of the neighborhood, this speed decreases? To answer this question, it is necessary from a formal point of view to consider this question.

    3.2. Another interesting fact about algorithms and numbers

    Modern physics is tied to numbers. And she is very strongly tied to algorithms. Most mathematical models are tied to doing some calculations in order to confirm the results experimentally. Therefore, algorithms are important. But at the same time, it is known that a neural network with rational weights possesses algorithmic completeness (rational numbers, like natural ones, are infinite, so do not flatter yourself about the finiteness of the model) out of 866 (it seems) neurons (cf. of Siegelmann). A neural network of this class is nothing more than a system evolving according to the law x (t + 1) = A * x (t), where x is the vector of neurons and A is the weight matrix. That is, algorithms are reduced to abilities and additions in the field. Is there any noticeable connection with quantum mechanics, in which the main tool is linear operators, which can, in general, considered limit cases of matrices? Are our virtual realities really virtual?

    4. Plots of games and again a hint of time.

    4.1. Nodal points.

    There are nodal points in any game. That is, the facts of the level of the signal system through which the plots are stretched. No matter how free and non-linear everything Fallout would be, the plot of the game draws forward the passage through specific points in the plot. In this sense, the game is static, and no more free than the same Half-Life, in which you can break through the crowds of zombies and combine hunters in a convenient way for the mouse, but the plot at the level of actual and complex events will be moved forward only after reaching certain coordinates in some space. (now playing: asian dub foundation - target practice). That is, we observe some local freedom within a fairly small space. And global lack of freedom and complete predestination. Doesn’t resemble anything? For indiscriminate poke a finger in quantum mechanics and general relativity.

    Hmm ... The question is, why is it so difficult to generate a graph of nodal points dynamically? Because the volume of space for any choice of the player grow exponentially? Because the spaces mentioned are inherently static, therefore, in order to provide for all player selections, they must swell at an exponential rate? Again, it may seem that the question rests on the informality of the concept of time and change.

    5. The threshold of entry into science

    5.1. 20-30 years

    Naturally, while most physicists are confident that they know almost everything about space and time. It remains just a little to discover the truth. Can they be sure of the opposite? Most are not, of course. Because they put too much effort into absorbing existing scientific ideas. This is partly the cause of the crisis of modern theoretical science. A person of 20 or 30 years is stubbornly trying to understand the tools and approaches that his science operates in order to overcome the barrier of entry into science. Naturally, he is impregnated with all this, and the dominant among scientists view of what is happening becomes even more dominant. (now playing: basement jaxx & linda lewis - close your eyes). And you need either gigantic authority or truly iron cohones to go against it. I’m here, of course, it’s easy to philosophize, I’m not a physicist, but a physicist who is free to reason is very easy to pass for as a charlotte. Charlotans, of course, also put their hands to this.

    But besides ossification, such a high level of entry into science has a downside. A man doesn’t just sit out his pants. These 20-30 years have been set aside for him to study his field. Starting with arithmetic and ending (now playing: boom boob satellites - easy action) with theories that explain the results of experiments on Tevatron. The amount of information to master is simply monstrous. And when a person begins to work, then he will begin to add his results to this volume. At the same time, what is interesting, the modern system of rewarding scientists around the world is designed so that it is not the quality of the results that is encouraged, but their presence. Therefore, it is not profitable for scientists to spend time analyzing other people's works, in order to stay in the profession they are forced to generate their results. So it turns out that the information avalanche is simply overwhelming the scientific community.

    5.2. Falsifications

    Is it easy to catch pseudoscience under these conditions? Falsifications? Not. And there have already been examples. Many data on stem cells obtained in 1990-2004 were considered falsified. And this despite the fact that these results were published in leading scientific journals.

    Now think about what will happen if the results of the LHC safety analysis are justified and as critical and meticulously verified as these stem cell results. And add here also the fact that all these results are based on the results of VERY expensive experiments. And not that VERY, but VERY VERY VERY VERY expensive experiments. Which, in fact, cannot be repeated. And repeatability of results is the basis of a scientific approach. That is, even if the LHC is safe, will it be scientifically valuable? VERY VERY VERY VERY expensive science risks slipping into unverifiable falsifications. And the likelihood of this increases with the fact that the data obtained at VERY VERY VERY expensive experiments are not in the public domain.

    5.3. (Not) healthy optimism

    At the same time, it is generally beneficial for all scientists to be optimistic and believe in the results of research. Because, firstly, that scientists need to get their own results, win grants for themselves. And, secondly, it boasts of something to investors who need to report to shareholders. Those who want to hear positive news and believe that (now playing: heawen knows - squeeze) the research they invested in will bear fruit. And if the practice of criticism and negative feedback flourishes, the investment climate in science will be very unpleasant. So much can be questioned in the modern picture of knowledge.

    Something like this. Thanks for attention.

    Also popular now: