Thoughts on anet nerfing other stats on armour in the future

[willow.8209]

you sound a lot like my chemistry teacher (who was into physics too) who always explained how grades are arbitrary. it makes sense. Thanks for posting.

7 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

falling 30 stories is not gonna end well in either situation. 

unless you're actually a cat, then you have a good chance.

[Anekto.8391]

3 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

This idea of connection, is that idea that all there is is just this one system (the infinite super system), and that finite subsystems imbedded in it, can't "separate" from this bigger super system. The fact that we call these subsystems "different systems" is basically just human fallacy : when really the only true, real system that exists is the entire universe as a whole (this combinatorial space).

Thanks !

 

Yeah i agree it makes sense that there only is one system and that it is interconnected and basically where everything resides eventually. conceptually you need to have basically this box/universe or else you have to reason about why things should be able to interact at all if they are not yet in interaction.

 

I will try to give some time today to watch the videos you linked.

 

Very interesting topic!

[Anekto.8391]

7 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Yes, this is correct. the wording "Computational Irreducibility" is a fitting name for what it is, and separates it from other similiar concepts (like Chaos and sensitivity to initial condition in chaos theory) : You need something stronger than both determinism and super determinism to make a true prediction...specifically, you need all the information of this combinatorial space of a Turing Machine...which is infinite in size and complexity (This combinatorial space of a Turing Machine is the Ruliad object) 

Is there any randomness in the ruliad?

 

I watched the talk by wolfram now and afterwards the talk by will right both being quite interesting though will wrights being more easily relateable to my experiences and knowledge.

But i did not understand wolframs gripe with the concept of numbers so much. Sure he argues that combinatorics and computation and progressive combinatorics ( if that is the right word) can replace numbers ( i think he was not so fundamentally sure about it even or left fallsifiability an option) or the concept of numbers to to be a mechanismn that to prove or or show or maybe just simulate the process that can also be simulated with numbers.

As far as i was concerned is that numbers are only like an API to access the computational realm for humans and can be modified or replaced to reach the same realm. And it was like wolfram was going in some similar direction but tried to make some distinction i could not make out.

 

Anyway i was flipping flags and camps on red borderland while watching the talks and it did take quite some flipping to go through them !

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

3 hours ago, Anekto.8391 said:

Is there any randomness in the ruliad?

Yea. It contains everything : all conceivable things…but to be more precise randomness is more or less a feature of how we (as humans) perceive a complicated thing. The example he often uses is you have a box of molecules in a gas flying around: we would consider there aggregate bulk motion as random…but at the scale of the molecules, we wouldn’t say the motion of the molecules is random it is following a discrete dynamics, the molecules bumping off each other classically.

So where is the reducibility? it’s about how we are creating a narrative about what is happening in the box of molecules. The 4 classes of behavior (homogeneity, randomness, patterned, complex) are all just one underlying thing, and it’s us (those observerinf something) that make us believe we are seeing something different.

For example: Take these three greyscale images

one of them is a “random” arrangement of pixels. Another is a homogenous arrangement and another is a picture of the Mona Lisa 
 

Even though all three of these look drastically different to you and seem to have “different properties” it is just an illusion: you are just looking at a 24x24 pixel grid in different configurations. That’s all.

Once you strip away the illusion that those three images aren’t different but actually the same thing  being viewed differently by us, you can more readily appreciate computational equivalence: that these three systems are the same system : a 24x24 pixel grid. 

The Ruliad is of this character: there just exists one system… and the perception of observers imbedded in the system perceive it. Because there’s many different observers, we can perceive and create different narratives about the same underlying reality. 

Willow made a pretty interesting comment above that a cat would interpret a narrative I said earlier (the analogy about falling from a 30 foot building) that for the cat the difference between landing on their feet and landing on their belly actually matters to them. This is another good example for how different observers can come up with different narratives about the same world we live in and both theories manage to exist: where both are true, false and even contradict each other. 

The game and the balance topic has the same characteristics : we come up with different narratives about what a skill mechanics “mean” to ourselves…to someone else…or to something and they can all be contradictory yet still valid.

like the skill of “5000 damage 100 radius” is gonna sound great to someone who plays PVE, but sound awful to someone who plays WvW or Spvp…it might sound awful to someone at a beginner skill level, but sound great to someone at a higher skill level…

 you can go so much further with that when we consider that human players can be well…not just humans. We used the Turing machine model earlier to explore those different ways the game could be played and how different meta games could come up if us human players were different.

 in the Wolfram Model a lot about how it works (physics as it’s currently understood) comes about from perception, in particular, human perception. That the only thing that’s “real” is the ruliad object, and observers embedded in it are creating narratives about it.

 

3 hours ago, Anekto.8391 said:

But i did not understand wolframs gripe with the concept of numbers so much. Sure he argues that combinatorics and computation and progressive combinatorics ( if that is the right word) can replace numbers ( i think he was not so fundamentally sure about it even or left fallsifiability an option) or the concept of numbers to to be a mechanismn that to prove or or show or maybe just simulate the process that can also be simulated with numbers.

As far as i was concerned is that numbers are only like an API to access the computational realm for humans and can be modified or replaced to reach the same realm. And it was like wolfram was going in some similar direction but tried to make some distinction i could not make out.

The concept of numbers lecture is a visual presentation, so it helps to watch the first 15 minutes of it with the slides.

so to what he was saying on the topic of numbers : basically what he was saying is that numbers are a narrative that us humans create about the world…and that once we start talking about non trivial things, it becomes not obvious how we can use mathematics to describe them.

for instance he says quote:

”but if you imagine and you’re out in the jungle, you’ve got some dogs with you, and each dog has particular characteristics and most likely a particular name. So why should you ever think about them collectively as just dogs, something that is amenable to be counted…”

….So, if we want to get to this point, there’s a crucial earlier step. Which is that we have to have some definite concept of “things” or a notion of distinct objects.

So of course our everyday world is full of these: distinct people, distinct goats, distinct tables…but it’s a lot less clear if we start thinking about say clouds, gusts of wind…abstract ideas.

so question is what makes us able to identify some definite countable thing…”

He’s pointing out that the reason we don’t have any real solid reason for why we count things, that it might not be logical to count things at all…such as gusts of wind…how does one count or parametrize a gust of wind? Where does a gust begin or end? What are the boundaries there? In a very hard sense it is arbitrary…and this again rolls around into the discussion we’ve been having about game balance.

non trivial mechanics = “abstract ideas” those are the same thing here. For instance we have a mechanic like “immobilization” how do we parametrize with numbers this idea in any sort of meaningful way? To do balance we need to compare it to another mechanic, like say stability…which is also abstract…what are the boundaries and how do we count them?

Wolfram goes on to explain that systems are computationally irreducible and shows an image of what that looks like: basically one cannot create a numerical narrative about what is going on with a computationally irreducible system. 

stability and immobilization: they can only be truly described by the actual playing of the game. They are computationally irreducible.

That’s why we can’t have a narrative like this:

8s immobilization = 8s stability

and say “oh ya that’s true” or “ohh ya this is balanced”

Somehow mathematics fails here to equivalence  these two things. and the reason is because we failed to actually parametrize what these abstract mechanics are. The truth is that what they are is  complex : that we need a true model of the game and the players playing it to describe what it actually is: and this is impossible to construct (a true model of the game)

——
further he goes on to explain that when we do observe objects that we perceive as having regularity, we tend to give those objects names. We then build concepts based on those named objects…to then build new objects from those concepts and give them names. This feedback loop is the reason why we perceive a sensible world, because when observers create narratives it becomes easier to create more narratives and build new objects on them in perpetuity. 
 

So paradoxically: this process of finding “pockets of reducibility” builds the world we can exist in but we cannot truly describe this very same world in any way that is logical.

It’s a pretty huge mic drop for modern physics and it’s no surprise that the controversy levels would be high right now. Most scientists think this is the death of modern science but in his view and mine it is the opposite : it is just a paradigm shift away from reductionism (trying to parametrize the world in this logical way) towards an information theoretic, exploratory, subjective thing… that the act of making technology is an exploration of a landscape (exploration of rulial space as wolfram would say) finding more pockets, and also exploiting multi-computation, which we didn't talk about but just like how one can take advantage of computational reducibility to exploit technology, one can do a similiar but ultimately way more powerful exploitation of computational irreducibility. It's a conversation, for another time.

 

Edited Thursday at 02:26 PM by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

just a heads up i wrote this last post on a phone, and i didn't proof read it all that much, so hopefully its formatted proper.

[Anekto.8391]

9 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

8s immobilization = 8s stability

This also sounds like qualia versus quantity. How do you define the quality/feel of something versus the quantity of something.

Also trying to establish a equivalence would only be possibile if we were to convert the meaning of on side through a series of "functions" to the meaning of the other side. But that is then no equivalence i think but something else. But i think it is possibile to convert it. But the trick in this whole theory seems to be that we are in the ruliad and we are humans and we already have all this connection to the system so when we try to understand it we already assume that its a valid world. But if we try to make an explaination of existence we stumble on the ruliad and our own limitation to be one step ahead of ourselves?

10 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

So paradoxically: this process of finding “pockets of reducibility” builds the world we can exist in but we cannot truly describe this very same world in any way that is logical.

It seems then as you point out it all seems to revolve around the fact of the narrative we observers create then? That there is no objective truth but only truth related to our observation related to our concepts of those observations?

But the ruliad is supposed to be the objective truth or framework of existence? So existence is just a process? And right now here on earth, each person just assigns their own narrative to it? And they are all valid and might even all be contradictory at the same time?

 

And the incompleteness suggest that once we create an object of something that would be countable we would need a higher up object to bundle those objects together to give them a quantity? And that we have to discover again? And then we can count those again and repeat?

12 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

just a heads up i wrote this last post on a phone, and i didn't proof read it all that much, so hopefully its formatted proper.

You formatted it well ! And it makes sense!

[Anekto.8391]

42 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Even though all three of these look drastically different to you and seem to have “different properties” it is just an illusion: you are just looking at a 24x24 pixel grid in different configurations. That’s all.

So basically all of these three pictures only exist in my head. Because i differentiate between them in relation to each of them. But the underlying system you call it a 24x24 grid is the same i see. Do they have different configurations that are explainable by the ruliad or does the ruliad say: its the same system and how it relates is not described by the ruliad? But is only described by me?

 

There seems to be a something circular to it. I think my limited ability to perceive everything at once cuts out important parts of this understanding 🙂

Edited Thursday at 02:56 PM by Anekto.8391

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

1 hour ago, Anekto.8391 said:

But the ruliad is supposed to be the objective truth or framework of existence? So existence is just a process? And right now here on earth, each person just assigns their own narrative to it? And they are all valid and might even all be contradictory at the same time?

Yep! Correct. In his work, the only "objective truth" is this Ruliad object (which itself is the set of all possible logical systems, the set of all computable rules/functions). And everything we experience "samples" from this object (this word "sampling" and "slicing" are the words he uses to call this process). 

In this paper called "The Concept of the Ruliad", he writes this:

As I’ve discussed at more length elsewhere, the ruliad is in a sense a representation of all possible necessary truths—a formal object whose structure is an inevitable consequence of the very notion of formalization. So how does this relate to the idea that the ruliad also at an ultimate level represents our physical universe? What I’ve argued elsewhere is that it means that the ultimate structure of our universe is a formal necessity. In other words, it’s a matter of formal necessity that the universe must exist, and have an ultimate ruliad structure. The fact that we perceive the universe to operate in a certain way—with our standard laws of physics, for example—is then a consequence of the particular way observers like us perceive it, which in turn depends on things like where in rulial space we happen to find ourselves.

He also writes this:

In our Physics Project we usually talk of the universe “evolving through time” (albeit with many entangled threads of history). But if the ruliad and its structure is a matter of formal necessity, doesn’t that mean that the whole ruliad effectively “already exists”—“outside of time”? Well, in some sense it does. But ultimately that would only be relevant to us if we could “look at the ruliad from the outside”.

And as observers like us within the ruliad, we necessarily have a different perception. Because our consciousness—with its computational boundedness—only gets to sample a certain sequence of pieces of the ruliad. If it were not for computational irreducibility, we might get to “jump around” in time. But computational irreducibility, together with our own computational boundedness, implies that our perception must necessarily just experience the passage of time through an irreducible process of computation.

To translate what that means, he's basically saying that the Ruliad is this objective, unique formal object, independent of space and time...it just "exists" and this sorta loops back to what you said at the beginning of this conversation about your original beliefs : That everything in this object just abstractly and eternally "exist" so it's synonymous with your current worldview. Space, time and all this other stuff we've been talking in the balance discussion about are perceptions "samplings and slicings" of this object.

Because the objectively true object, is this infinite summation of all possible logic, there's no way to fully describe it as a "computationally bounded observer" like ourselves. We can only slice and sample a small part. Essentially we are forced into this role. no...forced is too light of a word : It is an inevitability that we are in this role.

59 minutes ago, Anekto.8391 said:

So basically all of these three pictures only exist in my head. Because i differentiate between them in relation to each of them. But the underlying system you call it a 24x24 grid is the same i see. Do they have different configurations that are explainable by the ruliad or does the ruliad say: its the same system and how it relates is not described by the ruliad? But is only described by me?

 

There seems to be a something circular to it. I think my limited ability to perceive everything at once cuts out important parts of this understanding 🙂

Good questions.

Question: "It's the same system and how it relates is not described by the Ruliad?"

Is pretty much correct here : The observers who are looking at these three images are what describe how its relating to us. The Ruliad itself contains all the possible configurations, and therefor doesn't make any distinctions.

But it's not this easy to think about it at that level : The Ruliad contains everything, including all the observers inventing descriptions... So it both does and doesn't do the describing. You have to really zoom out into the abyss of abstraction to get that this object contains every object that exists, which includes me you, the pictures we're looking at and the languages we are using to describe them to each other.

Here's another quote from wolfram in that same article that describes the difficulty in explaining it: 

 

One of the conceptual difficulties in thinking about how we perceive the ruliad is that it’s a story of “self-observation”. Essentially by the very definition of the ruliad, we ourselves are part of it. We never get to “see the whole ruliad from the outside”. We only get to “experience it from the inside”.

In some ways it’s a bit like our efforts to construct the ruliad. In the end, the ruliad involves infinite rules, infinite initial conditions, and infinite time. But any way of assembling the ruliad from pieces effectively involves making particular choices about how we take those infinite limits. And that’s pretty much like the fact that as entities embedded within the ruliad, we have to make particular choices about how to sample it.

One of the remarkable aspects of the ruliad is that it’s in some sense the unique ultimately inevitable and necessary formal object. If one sets up some particular computational system or mathematical theory, there are choices to be made. But in the ruliad there are no choices. Because everything is there. And in a sense every aspect of the structure of the ruliad is just something formally necessary. It requires no outside input; it is just a formal consequence of the meaning of terms, like the abstract fact 1 +1 = 2

 

 

You're not alone: the circularity you're experiencing right now is trying to comprehend the scope, importance and ontology of this object, and everyone even myself struggled to understand this thing, which took several months before I finally got it. It took time reading lots of papers and watching a lot of lectures, but eventually it will snap in place as you continue to think about it in the way that Wolfram describes.

Edited Thursday at 03:53 PM by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Anekto.8391]

12 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

You're not alone: the circularity you're experiencing right now is trying to comprehend the scope, importance and ontology of this object, and everyone even myself struggled to understand this thing, which took several months before I finally got it. It took time reading lots of papers and watching a lot of lectures, but eventually it will snap in place as you continue to think about it in the way that Wolfram describes.

Maybe my last question is then. How does the concept of free will go along with us as existence in the complete space of all possibilities? There should be one side free will as concept as we propose it or as i propose and understand it exists but it can also not exist.

Can decisions even be important then? Are there decisions? Probably there are and there are not.

 

Is the last remark that we can try desribe our experience but in the end no matter what we decide to be the slice of truth relevant to the moment we live. We just have to exist.

 

There is basically no escape because we are it? If everything can be true or has the possibility to be true then theres also no right and wrong. Or right becomes wrong and otherwise. Maybe i should stop guessing implications and you tell me what i should think about it !

Edited Thursday at 04:00 PM by Anekto.8391

[Anekto.8391]

Mabye one thing i have heard a lot that relates to it. The ruliad as the set of all sets?

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

13 hours ago, Anekto.8391 said:

Mabye one thing i have heard a lot that relates to it. The ruliad as the set of all sets?

Yea, that's a valid statement you can make. In Homotopy Type theory, it's the sum of all infinity groupoids (infinity,1 category). There's a lot of very nerdy math details there that I don't bother to learn about, but if you are interested in those details, you can read more about them here.

13 hours ago, Anekto.8391 said:

How does the concept of free will go along with us as existence in the complete space of all possibilities? There should be one side free will as concept as we propose it or as i propose and understand it exists but it can also not exist. Can decisions even be important then? Are there decisions?

Computational Irreducibility ensures that free will is real, that we can never predict what any system is going to do because to do so requires a construction that solves the halting problem, which is not possible.

As a consequence, we lose the ability to make absolute prediction and the ability to parametrize and describe a system objectively.

13 hours ago, Anekto.8391 said:

Is the last remark that we can try describe our experience but in the end no matter what we decide to be the slice of truth relevant to the moment we live. We just have to exist. There is basically no escape because we are it? If everything can be true or has the possibility to be true then theres also no right and wrong. Or right becomes wrong and otherwise. Maybe i should stop guessing implications and you tell me what i should think about it !

Yep pretty much this. We just "exist" and in some sense, we define what is real to us. I wrote a draft of this comment earlier but it got deleted...I wrote a lot of cool stuff in that draft, that i can no longer remember so i'm going to just state the following:

There are a lot of implications of the W-Model, and i highlight in bold the most important takeaways from each :

• A) If all systems in the universe are considered equivalent to Turing universal machines, it implies that systems can be programmed like computers, capable of computing any function...and by proxy of this syllogism, capable of behaving like any other system.
• B) If you imagine a system like a turing machine, then in some sense that system has the answer to any question you want to ask of it, and the question is how do you "retrieve" the answer. Asking questions is no longer "Is this possible" it becomes "how do you do it."
• C) Considering that the universe is this Ruliad object where everything just eternally exists, it puts into question whether things like "energy" is a meaningful concept...The Ruliad is like an ocean of potential, so when we sample it in some sense we are "extracting " a sort of free energy from it. This construct basically tells us that energy is an illusion similiar to space and time...
• D) Following what we just stated in A, B and C, if the Ruliad is the space of all possible rules...we can think about the movie the matrix as a useful analog : what made Neo so powerful in that movie was not that he learned he was in a system of rules...he became powerful when he realized that he could create and change the system of rules as if they didn't exist at all, with his mind. That to access the power of what the universe does, seems more of a question about how we confront our own perceptions.

These four things here are just the tip of the iceberg...where the W-Model implies that there really is unfathomable, limitless power underlying reality that is harnessable, and the only barrier to it, is ourselves. Once we take that we can program reality, then everything becomes a question of "how" to do it, not "if." The model also implies that in order to make progress, we need to step away from the "prediction" and "objective reality" paradigm of science, and instead move towards a subjective, exploration of rulespace paradigm. I'm gonna now quote from this article of his, that expresses some of his own take on the implications of his own work:

We might have thought that the ultimate story of science would be about what the universe “gives to us”. But what the arguments here imply instead is that it’s actually about what we “take from the universe”—and how we are set up to sample the whole rulial universe.

It’s notable that our way of describing—or sampling—the rulial universe is not just determined by the “pure physicality” of where we are in physical space, or how we’re configured as biological organisms. It also depends on how we “mentally model” the world, and how our formal thinking describes what we perceive is going on.

We might have hoped that intelligence would be something that science would show is fundamentally special about us. But the Principle of Computational Equivalence implies that “abstract intelligence” is actually a common and general phenomenon. So does this mean that there is nothing special about us? Well, no. It just highlights the importance of all those particular details that make human intelligence and the human condition what it is. In other words, from exploring “general science” we come to realize that it’s our human details that are actually what’s important.

And so it is, I think, when it comes to looking at our whole universe. What is special and significant isn’t some general aspect of what underlies the structure of the universe. Instead, it’s the details of how we—as humans—describe the universe. (Though, as we’ve discussed, the general “consciousness features” of that description robustly give us laws of physics such as relativity and quantum mechanics.)

So, in the end, as we reach what we might see as the ultimate foundations of science, we are in some sense back to us humans being at the center of everything. We might have thought that somehow science would long ago have “abstracted us humans” away. But instead, the only way to make anything meaningful is in a sense to put us right in the middle of everything, with features of our perception defining how we describe the universe, and what we consider the reality of the universe.

As I look around at my physical environment it’s still a little shocking to think that it’s all in a sense just “created by me” by “knitting together” some kind of generic “formal abstraction”. Yes, the computational boundedness and sequentialized thread of experience that seem to form the basis for what we view as consciousness force certain properties of the physical environment that correspond to laws of physics we know. But some putative alien—or even future human or human-like entity— could still perceive this physical environment quite differently, even though it’s always ultimately based on the same formal structure.

But while it might seem like a different universe, it’ll still seem like some universe (albeit perhaps one incoherently different from ours). And however we perceive it, the conclusion will be the same: from pure abstract necessity it will follow that the universe exists, and that there is something rather than nothing.

Edited yesterday at 05:26 AM by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Anekto.8391]

17 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

And however we perceive it, the conclusion will be the same: from pure abstract necessity it will follow that the universe exists, and that there is something rather than nothing.

Thanks again for the informative post ! I think im comfortable with the concept now in a superficial way of understanding!

 

To relate to that last part i want to tell you about my reasoning back then before i heard of the ruliad and now your explanation of the ruliad or the concept of infinity that it also includes.

 

Back in 2014 i think i was into watching physics videos and people were arguing about the big bang and the question why there is something rather than nothing just like your post says and argues abot.

So i tried to understand and make a case for something! And my idea was that:

 

If you, from a logical standpoint, want to have nothing you also need to have everything.

If you want to define nothing to exist you also need to have the counter example or definition for it to exist. Basically it has to cancel out or rather be complementary to each other.

So if we say we have one unit of "nothing" we will also get one unit of "everything". Thats to objects we now can use logically to combine into a third object and go from there to even more objects.

 

And in that way i argued well if there can be nothing conceptually there should also be everything !

Another thought i had about this is:

If you take the empty set. It is empty but its still an object and can be used to create another set. A set containing the empty set. And you can use this to construct another set and mix stuff up to get to more combinations. And thus creating variety and basically more stuff.

[Coldtart.4785]

Jumping to the last page gave me whiplash.