Jump to content

Muratus del Mur

Root Admin
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Muratus del Mur last won the day on October 17

Muratus del Mur had the most liked content!


About Muratus del Mur

  • Birthday 03/06/1982

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Bucharest Romania
  • Interests
    Photography, oil painting, writing, understanding minds, programming, sculpting, building stuff, experimenting, rain and fire, Paganini, smart sexy girls, near death experiences, driving fast while drunk, nothing and everything
  • Playername
    .Muratus del Mur.

Recent Profile Visitors

20,432 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. @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.
  6. 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.
  7. As i was building tournaments section of this game, at some point i needed to find a better way to present a tournament, than to show the total number of maps to be played in it. For one individual player, the total number of maps played is not that relevant, as it is to know how many maps he has to win to win the tournament. Lets imagine this for a bit. There are 8 players, and they play in pairs of 2, a total of 4 games. This would be the first round. Then, the 4 winners of the first round, play in the second round of 2 games, and obviously just 2 players win. There are no draws, you either win or lose. The remaining 2 winners, join a match for the final fight, and as usual, only one wins, lets call him John. John wins the tournament. So far nothing abnormal, every match has 2 players, and one winner. Overall the tournament has one winner. Maybe its obvious for you, but for me it was not obvious without specifically thinking about it, that all John's fights are consecutively won fights. John had to win every single time to reach the end of the tournament. Imagine this was not about strategy at all and it was a game of coin flipping and pure chance. Imagining this as a game of coin flipping excludes any possible explenation that one of the participants is terribly skilled in any way, so lets think of it in this way. All 8 players flipp a coin and only heads move forward to the next round, and so on. Over 3 rounds, the winner would have always flipped heads, against all odds. Flipping a coin and heads 3 consecutive times, its not big deal, but if you follow same rules, and increase the initial pool of participants, the winner would need to get more and more consecutive heads to reach the end of the tournament. The winner of a tournament with 100 rounds for example, would have hit heads 100 consecutive times, each time having 1/2 chances to hit either heads or tails. Seen from the start to end perspective, nothing looks abnormal, as each time one wins one loses, but seen backwards, from the winner perspective, the chances to flip just heads so many times, is insane. I've been thinking about this, and i realised that regardless how you put it, given enough number of initial participants, you can "force" one participant to hit just one side of the coin, every single time...every...time. Its irrelevant how lucky that person is, you could bring together the most unlucky people on the planet, and one of them will always be the one that at the end hit heads every single time. ...crazy no? It is as if you could force the luck into one person just because you put him the right competition. Any thoughts on this?
  8. I consider the food issue solved. If anyone things otherwise please provide exammples/screens.
  9. I am going two weeks on vacation in 2 days, not sure if i will be able to do any updates while on vacation. Anyway, artworks are on their way, so updates will still happen.
  10. I broke something with the start after the php8 change. I will postpone this fix because i plan to add predefined starting positions, not random, so i wont be wasting time trying to fix the random placer right now.
  11. If anyone observes new ai issues post them here pls. Only issues, not missing features Current known issues: - its not making higher level units - lower level units replace higer level units if they move over (probably) - sometimes units disapear
  12. Thats so strange...i played a few maps and didnt happen to me after the fix.. Can you confirm if its repeatable or also "random"?
  13. also this distance allows for more strategy than if it is smaller. If its smaller, you can't really surprise the enemy much as he sees it way before you close in on him, i hope it makes sense.
  • Create New...