Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Last week
  2. Okay, I have 30 more items stolen by the Imps now tagged for retrieval. WP if you can find at least 29 of them. You can keep 'em, sell them (or any RP items) back to me to restock the prop box at 1 sc each. If you're going to sell them back, just give me the ITC from where you found it, and I'll recover the items and still pay the 1 sc. Have fun, and thanks for the help!
  3. Ouch! The video works for me... Anybody else having issues? Anyway, yes, it's Datura (D. Wrightii and D. Innoxia) and its flower is said to come from Shiva's chest. šŸ™‚
  4. Damn video won't load, but I saw the first pic...that's Datura s., right? Beloved of Shiva, if I'm not mistaken
  5. Invie has managed to break the record, finding 28 of the 30 items tagged, so wins a wishpoint (has been delivered). As soon as I get another set tagged, you'll have to find at least 29 of them to get a wishpoint.
  6. Is the quest still active? If so, here's a bump. šŸ˜œ
  7. Earlier
  8. retrocausality either you agree that events in the future are "stronger" (maybe more real) than events in their past, then it means that whatever you experience in the present is following a purpose in its future, and everything are just "roots". or you consider events in the past "stronger" than whatever might follow them, meaning that everything in the future is totally meaningless and just a causal result of whatever happened before. The second version is what people find easier to accept and the first is for some plain outrageous. There are niche experiments that proved events in the future change events in the past (scientifically, look for "quantum eraser"), there is religion that talks about similar concepts (regardless of religion). However, direct, simple, observation can only tell the story of causality, you do one thing then the next event is the effect of what you did, cause and effect. My personal belief is that viewing things as causal, is dark ages level. I strongly believe that we observe reality (or our side of what we call reality), in a single, causal way, but it actually holds both sides. I think events happen at some point in "time" then spread their roots into the future AND the past, joining "threads" that will eventually confirm their existence and lead to it.
  9. Hi Che, Could you please select the winner? Thank you!
  10. Congrats for the special day, Fyrd. Happy wedding to your son.
  11. Ahaha, now I get it why you went on with MD like that- you thought about what you wanted to get from it and let that shape the 'roots' of the system. So the confidence was all in this one idea... Actually, isn't it how life orders things? Birds of a feather flock together, all you need do is show your feathers. And in one superior universal order, you get what you want, somehow. But, hmm, this is a positive interpretation - the talk about winners and losers (same idea behind) isn't so positive when you think you may have never had a chance.
  12. Fyrd will be slipping off to another dimension to witness the wedding of his son, Oct 9 through 17. Communications during this time, across dimensions, will be tenuous at best. I wish you all well!
  13. super hard to accept indeed. I say the system chooses its winners, because if you change the rules even just a little, an other winner might emerge. Its equally hard to accept that elements of randomness such as coin flips, or of free will, such as players, somehow have some degree of "awareness" about what the other, unrelated participants, do. Grab the first coin you find and flip it... you have 50/50 chances to get either side.... yet do this on a pile of coins, and you will see an abnormally even distribution of results, as if the coin flip "game" you just did had a knowledge of what side to pick next to achieve such an even distribution. In the organized form i proposed, having one of the participants that _always_ flips on one side, its equally strange. Again, all this is mathematically logical and not abnormal, but from a huma perspective, its not so logical. The explanation, in my belief at least, is that the outcome is so "fixed" that it causes its roots in such way. In reality, a coin can land on its side sometimes, or two players deciding on a draw, but in this example i eliminate such possibilities from the start, so the "genes" of such an event, are simply not there, so the final outcome can not be one of draw or undecisive flip. What happens in the coin flip experiment, is that we eliminate all possibilities that don't match the rules.
  14. So what you're saying is...it's like some people always seem to win their matches (always get a contract, always get first place etc) i.e. they're on a roll . Normally, you'd think it was about time for them to step down, or for someone to beat them in a match, but that rarely seems to happen Even if the chances of them winning are 50%, they manage to win every time I find it hard to accept a system chooses its winners, but maybe it's true...
  15. Let me explain this again differently. If you have a pile of coins and you flipp each 4 times, you would normally think that it is not mandatory that one coin will flip 4 times on the same side, why would it, right? However, if you do the same thing, but just flip them in a different order, like the game described above, it IS mandatory that one will flip 4 times in a row on the same side....how crazy is that. This is the endless fight between probability and chance, and i must admit i am having a hard time to understand it properly. You have equal chances to flip one or the other side, so in theory you could flip 1million times on the same side, or alternate sides 1mil times,right? No, not right.. if you distribute all possible outcomes, some scenarios happen more than others, but one happens just once.
  16. I am not sayibg this, because in this example, nobody has free will, all fights, or coin flips, obay strict rules. Having free will in this example would mean to be able to land a coin on its edge (thats happening in reality), or both participants simply not show up for a fight (also happening). Maybe this is more of an example of how things would look without free will, its hard to tell what its relation to free will is. Its clear to explain it mathematically, and there is no mystery about why it happens or how...but still its hard to accept that its happening at all. I will do this experiment with coins, actual physical coins, and see what happens. If i am right, then one coin in a very large number will have to always land on one side. I am curious what would happen if a cheating coin is introduced, or other factors. Maybe childish games that a matematician would laugh at..but i suck at math, i like practical
  17. This sentence...means we have no free will, right? I think it was the 17th and 18th centuries that were so focused on this, trying to say we are different from animals because we have free will (also, Christian theology is putting emphasis on this).
  18. So, Stavaroiu found 27 of the 30 items I had tagged. In order to get a wishpoint, anybody else will have to beat that score. BUT, you do get to keep the items you want. I will be tagging additional items stolen by the imps, but 30 is my limit. QUEST NOTES: If you just want the silver, and not the actual item, don't collect on the ITC - simply send it to me in a PM and I'll pay up and recover the item myself, and that will save us a lot of paper shuffling.... Don't worry about who was first, the little birdies will tell me who got there and in what order....
  19. @Fyrd Argentus yes, thats the math, i dont argue with that, i am just more interested in the philosophical conclusions. From this its clear to me that system is always picking its participants, not the other way around. There is no "room" for multiple winners, and more interesting, one is forced to be as part of that system. @Lazarus nobody is pushing anything to anyone. MD is my only community of friends and gamers, and this is an other project i do, same as i work on md. I see nothing wrong in talking to you md people about it. Consider it advertising if you dont understand what i just wrote.
  20. Yep, I count 27. Let's negotiate a buy-back of what you don't want. The wish point will be on the way, as soon as I finish up on GWI tonight. Very impressive!
  21. Hello everyone in MD, my first post in a while I think i found all your items Fyrd, except Jack oā€™ Pumpkin and Iā€™m #1 Badge
  22. With N rounds you must win N matches each with 1/2 probability, so (1/2)^N chance of winning the series. There will be 2^N contestants, only 1 of whom will win. Either way you approach it, your odds of winning (all else being equal) are 1 in 2^N. Yes as N goes to infinity, that's a big number worthy of astonishment, but 2^N is even bigger, and accordingly harder to fathom.
  23. I really don't like this Warventure thing you're trying to push, but if you add some dank memes as resource, I would definitely love it and play it with my friends who also like the dankest memes.
  24. Its obvious what is going on, the less obvious thing is the final outcome, regardless how it is explained, its still a fact that the winner is somehow forced into a streak of lucky tries, and as a big picture, such a system will always yield such a player. Think of it, given enough participants, you could break any world record of consecutive flips. The numbers become outrageous, but the "luck" comes out with mathematical precision every single time.
  25. Another way to put it is that your 50% chance of winning is not independent of your opponent's chances. If you fail, the other succeeds.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...