A discussion of metagame concepts in game design

[Ovinomancer]

This is a sweeping, unsupported, epistemological assertion; I can make those too, but it doesn't make them true.

What "other things" did you have in mind which are not part of "our universe?"

Sure.

"Science, when is it okay to kill someone?" "Science, what is the best corporate tax rate?"
"Science, prove [MENTION=4303]Sepulchrave II[/MENTION] is not a figment of my imagination."

Or, "Science, prove that Science is the best means to discover truth."

Now, I'm pretty sure they'll be handwaiving about the questions or that Science will on day figure all this out, but that's invalid because these are things in the universe, and you can't invoke non-scientific guesses about the future to justify science. That's self-defeating for the question - you're using not science to claim science is (will be?) right.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Actually, the idea on whether physics and other sciences exists in D&D is completely a side discussion I believe. Yes, it's in the thread about metagaming, but this portion did a strong right turn off topic, which often happens in threads of any significant length.

Nope, started directly off the action surge/second wind as magic discussion.

 

[Maxperson]

Nope, started directly off the action surge/second wind as magic discussion.

Well, okay then. Me personally, I'm not arguing about that. Action surge isn't even metagaming since people can in fact intentionally dig deep for a brief surge of strength or speed a limited number of times, and second wind isn't properly named. Second wind is just a natural process which gives you some extra energy that reduces fatigue, allowing you to run farther or stay at Disneyland longer to get on more rides. It doesn't correlate to hit points, since you don't lose hit points when you get tired.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, okay then. Me personally, I'm not arguing about that. Action surge isn't even metagaming since people can in fact intentionally dig deep for a brief surge of strength or speed a limited number of times, and second wind isn't properly named. Second wind is just a natural process which gives you some extra energy that reduces fatigue, allowing you to run farther or stay at Disneyland longer to get on more rides. It doesn't correlate to hit points, since you don't lose hit points when you get tired.

Sure, man, you do you.

 

[Kobold Boots]

In general, I agree with this. There is no real "Science," just the scientific method which is a tool, not truth. You shouldn't believe in science any more than you should believe in your hammer. It's also not the sole or even best approach to truth in general -- the scientific method is excellent for observing our universe, but cannot offer answers on other things. \

However, if you really think math and science papers are just shorter, I'm going to have to disagree on that point. I read quite a few beasts in my time.

And, further furthermore, to the thread in general, I find it absolutely ridiculous that this thread has devolved into arguments about whether modern physics exists or doesn't in made up elf games just so that one side or the other can show that a preference for non-magical fighter abilities is wrong or right. Why the hell are we inventing stupid arguments about the nature of reality in elf-games just to prove another's preferred method of explaining something in that elf-game is wrongheaded? What your end goal? I love to drop bombs about Galileo when I get the chance, but it just dawned on me why it even came up in this thread, and I'm left befuddled as to the point.

There are always exceptions to the general rule.. but in my limited personal experience, the moment I realized that my undergrad history thesis grew to over 700 pages while my masters thesis on advanced crypto rang in at 30 before references.. lets' just say that what I was advised by those particular instructors rang true in a very personal way. (Note that the defense of that thesis was brutal due to its length. So you do have a point that I'm not refuting.)

I agree regarding the ridiculousness of this thread. My apologies for adding to it.

Be well
KB

 

[Sepulchrave II]

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that you didn’t answer my question (emphasis added):

What "other things" did you have in mind which are not part of "our universe?"

I’m still confused about what better methods there are for determining truth when you wrote of science:

It's also not the sole or even best approach to truth in general

You asked:

"Science, when is it okay to kill someone?"

What is a “better” approach to moral judgments?

"Science, what is the best corporate tax rate?"

This is a poor example. What “better” way can you assign a corporate tax rate which does not include predictive economic modelling.

"Science, prove [MENTION=4303]Sepulchrave II[/MENTION] is not a figment of my imagination."

Yes, there’s always solipsism. But what “better” way is there of proving the truth of my existence to you?

Or, "Science, prove that Science is the best means to discover truth."

“Better” way?

You can't invoke non-scientific guesses about the future to justify science.

No, but you can use cliodynamics to model rates of scientific progress, and it does have predictive value.

these are things in the universe

Yes, they are.

 

[Ovinomancer]

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that you didn’t answer my question (emphasis added):


I’m still confused about what better methods there are for determining truth when you wrote of science:


You asked:

What is a “better” approach to moral judgments?


This is a poor example. What “better” way can you assign a corporate tax rate which does not include predictive economic modelling.


Yes, there’s always solipsism. But what “better” way is there of proving the truth of my existence to you?


“Better” way?


No, but you can use cliodynamics to model rates of scientific progress, and it does have predictive value.


Yes, they are.

Ah, I see. I left off "physical" prior to universe and you've locked onto that. Consider it a slip. That said, is a justification for murder actually part of the universe? Is there a fundamental particle of justification, or a physical process by which it is generated? Is the number 2 part of the universe? Can you show it to me?

A better method for justifying murder is myriad -- discussion, belief, arbitration -- any number of non-science human consesus building methods. They aren't good either, but science can't even address the question, so their better than that.

As for taxes, are you actually saying that predictive economic models are science? Weird. Science has no inout here because the reasons for setting tax levels are widely based on non-scientific preferences and policy goals which are thenselves immune to science.

Re: you're existence, no better way I can think of, but that doesn't defeat the point tgat science cannot either. Hypothesis: you're a figment of my imagination along with all of my perceived reality. Test:....

Seeing as these haven't seemed persuasive, can science answer why the universe exists? To head anything off, I'm agnostic, so my question isn't pointing to a religious answer at all. Strictly in the secular.

At the end of this, it occurs to me that you've just contested my statements without stating a position of your own. Is there a counter-position you'd like to stake out?

 

[Sepulchrave II]

At the end of this, it occurs to me that you've just contested my statements without stating a position of your own. Is there a counter-position you'd like to stake out?

History doesn’t have a great track record with non-scientifically evidenced truth claims, so when you write:

It's also not the sole or even best approach to truth in general

I tend to disagree.

You’ve occupied a moving position between caricaturing “science” on one hand, and representing it as a toolkit – with which I largely agree – on the other.

If a mode of inquiry which seeks replicable, predictable results is not the best means to determine truth, then what is? Other methods are moveable; subjective; particular rather than generic: this is not to say that they should not be valued – just that they’re not best deployed in the search for truth.

But you seem to be using a very expansive definition of “truth,” and a very narrow definition of “science.” Perhaps the reverse is true for me.

 

[pemerton]

The assertion that moral truth is a thing in the universe is contentious. "Thing in the universe" is not really a technical term, but if some form of meta-ethical expressivism of some form is correct, then it seems reasonable to deny that moral truth is a thing in the universe.

The best argument I'm aware of that [MENTION=4303]Sepulchrave II[/MENTION] (and other minds in general) exist is a version of that developed by the late nineteeenth and twentieth century empiricists, and that takes the form of argument to best explanation - which is a mode of scientific argument, though not based on the sort of regimentation of observation that is characteristic of scientific enquiry. Similar structures of argument explain why inference to best explanation grounded in careful and regimented observation is the best path to knowledge.

The soundness of these empiricist modes of argument is of course contested. But for the purposes of friendly conversation on a RPG message board, it can't be treated as obvious that scientific modes of explanation can't be used to explain the power of science, nor the existence of other minds.

 

[Ratskinner]

No. First all mathematics of all sorts exists as truth whether human minds conceive of it or not. It is true that on a plane in all universes the shortest distance between a point is a straight line.

I suppose there are alien minds, but "truths" AFAICT, don't exist outside minds. The universe just do what it do.

You can conceive of a non-Euclidean universe and that is fine but the math for a plane is still true math. It may not be as useful in a different universe it is still true. The same for math used to describe alternate realities. It would all be true in all universes.

This, I agree with (provided the mathematics is properly formulated). However, that doesn't mean that the math requires any special existence outside our minds. I'm also not sure what "true in all universes" would mean, vs. just "true".