Unknown magic sites in starting provinces? [Archive]

Arryn

March 18th, 2004, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by GavinWheeler:
To say that there 'were' some 'nonexistent unknown sites' is the sort of 'logic' that should have NTYoda whip any putative NTJedi back to NTPreSchool. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif I think we may have to try upgrading to XPJedi. <hr /></blockquote>Wouldn't it be better to give it up as a lost cause and go look for a linuxJedi as a replacement? I've never been fond of bloatware in any form ...

NTJedi

March 18th, 2004, 11:16 PM

These are magic sites which are revealed later in the game because of an event. Until the event occurs the magic sites are unknown.

It's good to see so many people think about me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ March 18, 2004, 21:17: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

Norfleet

March 18th, 2004, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
These are magic sites which are revealed later in the game because of an event.The magic sites aren't revealed, they're created. The site doesn't EXIST until the event occurs, and you cannot search for them and find them, even with Acashic Record. They simply do not exist.

NTJedi

March 18th, 2004, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by NTJedi:
These are magic sites which are revealed later in the game because of an event.The magic sites aren't revealed, they're created. The site doesn't EXIST until the event occurs, and you cannot search for them and find them, even with Acashic Record. They simply do not exist. <hr /></blockquote>ASK yourself the question:
DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THESE MAGIC SITES ?

Answer: NO because the don't exist yet

FACTS: THUS AN UNKNOWN MAGIC SITE... as per title of the topic.

Norfleet

March 18th, 2004, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
ASK yourself the question:
DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THESE MAGIC SITES ?

Answer: NO because the don't exist yetWrong: The answer is actually "Segmentation fault (core dumped)", because you're attempting to operate on a null pointer. The sites do not exist, period: Therefore, they cannot be known or unknown, and attempting to classify them as such will cause a crash.

[ March 18, 2004, 21:26: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

NTJedi

March 18th, 2004, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
Therefore, they cannot be known or unknown, and attempting to classify them as such will cause a crash. DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THESE MAGIC SITES ? (asking you not the game)

yes or no... and unless you created some map which has a controlled event occur the answer is NO.

UNKNOWN MAGIC SITE

[ March 18, 2004, 21:33: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

fahdiz

March 18th, 2004, 11:39 PM

NTJedi...think about it for a second. Something which does not exist cannot be known nor unknown. A thing which "is not" cannot be unknown, because "unknown" presumes that it exists but hasn't been discovered.

Your argument is ontologically flawed.

Please turn off the caps lock, too - nobody here is yelling at you, and nobody wants to be yelled at.

[ March 18, 2004, 21:43: Message edited by: fahdiz ]

Peter Ebbesen

March 18th, 2004, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Norfleet:
Therefore, they cannot be known or unknown, and attempting to classify them as such will cause a crash. DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THESE MAGIC SITES ? (asking you not the game)

yes or no... and unless you created some map which has a controlled event occur the answer is NO.

UNKNOWN MAGIC SITE <hr /></blockquote>Climbing further out on the limb with each answer, are you NTJedi? You cannot ascribe the property of being known or unknown to a nonexistent object.

(Unless you have invented your own particular branch of logic, where ontological reasoning does not hold, that is)

NTJedi

March 19th, 2004, 12:30 AM

Originally posted by fahdiz:
NTJedi...think about it for a second. Something which does not exist cannot be known nor unknown. A thing which "is not" cannot be unknown, because "unknown" presumes that it exists but hasn't been discovered.
Unknown does not presume it exists... that is wrong.

example:
there are likely unknown substances or metals which will be eventually be created... and because they don't exist now makes them unknown.

[ March 18, 2004, 22:34: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

NTJedi

March 19th, 2004, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen:
Climbing further out on the limb with each answer, are you NTJedi? You cannot ascribe the property of being known or unknown to a nonexistent object.

NTJedi is an intangible object... but does exist as it is seen by the readers here. And your correct pete this question was way way out.

[ March 18, 2004, 22:33: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

Norfleet

March 19th, 2004, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
NTJedi is an intangible object... but does exist as it is seen by the readers here. And your correct pete this question was way way out. Intangibility is not equivalent to nonexistence. An intangible object can still exist and be referenced. A non-existent object will crash anything that tries to reference it.

NTJedi

March 19th, 2004, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by NTJedi:
Intangibility is not equivalent to nonexistence. An intangible object can still exist and be referenced. A non-existent object will crash anything that tries to reference it. I was responding to Pete's comment and I agree that was way way OUT.

----returning back to the topic-------

These magic sites... do you know they exist?(asking you not the game)

You do not KNOW they exist until the event occurs. Once the event occurs they are known magic sites.
The iron and copper were there just not found... these deposits were unknown.

Before = Unknown magic sites

[ March 18, 2004, 22:45: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

Norfleet

March 19th, 2004, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
These magic sites... do you know they exist?(asking you not the game)This is like asking if I know the world is flat. It's an absurd question, because the fact in question is false. I know that the world is NOT flat, just as I know that the magic site in question does NOT exist!

NTJedi

March 19th, 2004, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by NTJedi:
These magic sites... do you know they exist?(asking you not the game)This is like asking if I know the world is flat. It's an absurd question, because the fact in question is false. I know that the world is NOT flat, just as I know that the magic site in question does NOT exist! <hr /></blockquote>it doesn't exist YET because it is unknown... once the deposits are found the magic sites become known.

If something has become known... then before it was unknown. The events make the magic sites known.

example:
there are likely unknown substances or metals which will be eventually be created... because they don't exist now makes them unknown.

[ March 18, 2004, 22:53: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

Peter Ebbesen

March 19th, 2004, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by NTJedi:

If something has become known... then before it was unknown.Only during the time it was in existence was it unknown. The period of time in which it was unknown cannot be longer than the time it has been in existence.

Both "known" and "unknown" imply existence as they describe a property of an existing object.

If a mammoth spontaneously arises one day as the result of the unlikely collision of billions of truly unusual particles, the mammoth was neither known nor unknown to anybody on the day before, rather, said mammoth did not exist.

The same goes for magic sites generated by event.

Peter Ebbesen

March 19th, 2004, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by NTJedi:

example:
there are likely unknown substances or metals which will be eventually be created... because they don't exist now makes them unknown. No, it does not make them anything. If they exist now, they are unknown now. If they do not exist now, but will be created sometime in the future, they are neither known nor unknown now as they do not exist at this point in time.

NTJedi

March 19th, 2004, 01:18 AM

Peter the magic sites are unknown at this time... the events make them become known. They exist as iron and copper deposits... these deposits don't just pop out of thin air.

It would be nice if gold deposits just popped in my backyard one day. Unfortunately if the gold is there then it's been there for awhile... as unknown.

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen:
Only during the time it was in existence was it unknown. The period of time in which it was unknown cannot be longer than the time it has been in existence.
That is wrong... there are many unknown substances which have not been created yet. Also look at living creatures/plants which no longer exist yet are known about and so many we still have yet to find.

[ March 18, 2004, 23:27: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

Graeme Dice

March 19th, 2004, 02:21 AM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Peter the magic sites are unknown at this time... the events make them become known. They exist as iron and copper deposits... these deposits don't just pop out of thin air.I don't think you are using the definition of unknown properly. Calling the sites "unknown" is likely to do nothing more than confuse people into thinking they can cause them to be found some way other than pure random chance.

Arryn

March 19th, 2004, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Peter the magic sites are unknown at this time... the events make them become known. They exist as iron and copper deposits... these deposits don't just pop out of thin air.

It would be nice if gold deposits just popped in my backyard one day. Unfortunately if the gold is there then it's been there for awhile... as unknown.The analogy does not apply to Dom because in the case of the game, until the event occurs the deposits very much DO NOT EXIST. They do, in fact, pop out of thin air, at least insofar as the game is concerned. Arguing, as you are, from the perspective of realism is irrelevant as the game simply does NOT work as you are trying to make it seem. Which, as Graeme points out, may confuse new players as to the underlying mechanics.

Norfleet

March 19th, 2004, 03:07 AM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Peter the magic sites are unknown at this time... the events make them become known. They exist as iron and copper deposits... these deposits don't just pop out of thin air.Actually, they pretty much *DO* pop out of thin air, due to divine providence. The fact that deposits don't suddenly appear out of the void in the real world has nothing to do with this: In the real world, you're not likely to be suddenly ARROWED! by a seeking arrow lobbed from the other side the world, either.

NTJedi

March 19th, 2004, 03:30 AM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
I don't think you are using the definition of unknown properly. Calling the sites "unknown" is likely to do nothing more than confuse people into thinking they can cause them to be found some way other than pure random chance. Hopefully it's not confusing any new players. I was merely mentioning these are magic sites which can appear at the capital. The magic sites remain unknown until one of those events occur and will not appear by any other means. As discribed in the event the iron/gold/copper deposits are found.

Hopefully that clears it up for any new players reading the forums.

[ March 19, 2004, 01:32: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

Darryl

March 19th, 2004, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
I don't think you are using the definition of unknown properly. Calling the sites "unknown" is likely to do nothing more than confuse people into thinking they can cause them to be found some way other than pure random chance. Hopefully it's not confusing any new players. I was merely mentioning these are magic sites which can appear at the capital. The magic sites remain unknown until one of those events occur and will not appear by any other means. As discribed in the event the iron/gold/copper deposits are found.

Hopefully that clears it up for any new players reading the forums. <hr /></blockquote>Actually, according to the game, the sites don't exist until the events occur, as the definition to "Aschaic Record" states that it reveals the prescence of "all magic sites in a given province". As these sites cannot be found by Aschaic Record, then either the spell is intentionally misleading or the sites did not exist and were "created out of thin air".

Darryl

Arryn

March 19th, 2004, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by Darryl:
As these sites cannot be found by Aschaic Record, then either the spell is intentionally misleading or the sites did not exist and were "created out of thin air".The spell is worded properly. As has been mentioned before by myself and others, the sites do not exist at all, period, until the event that brings them into being and they do, indeed, magically appear out of thin air.

Acashic Record is the proof of the assertion. Once a province has been searched via this spell, any sites that show up later due to an event most assuredly do appear literally "out of nowhere", as the spell had already uncovered ALL sites that had been generated for that province at the start of the game. New sites in such a province are therefore just that, new, since "unknown" has been ruled out.

GavinWheeler

March 19th, 2004, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
If something has become known... then before it was unknown.Faulty logic, as there are other possibilities - it may well simply not have existed before it suddenly both came into existence and became known. To talk about an "unknown nonexistent object" is just a problem of sloppy language. Something that does not exist has no qualities.

The events make the magic sites known.And brings them into existence, in reality.

In-game, the rationalisation may be that they existed and have just been found, but out-of-game, in reality, the sites did not exist before the random event.

example:
there are likely unknown substances or metals which will be eventually be created... because they don't exist now makes them unknown. Many elements were 'known', theoretically, long before we could make them. We can even work out their properties before making them. If they have short halflives, we continue to know about them even after the synthetic sample has ceased to exist.

But you are confusing a Category of things, such as atoms of the element X, with a specific example of that Category, such as a handful of such atoms created in a collision chamber. Before the handful was created, we knew about the possibility of X atoms existing, how to make them, when we would bang together other atoms to try to make them, and what their properties would be when they were made. But it would be silly to talk about there being a handful of nonexistent (known or unknown) X atoms floating around in the chamber waiting to 'turn into' known existing atoms.

And it doesn't matter. If there were (only) nonexistent copper mines (known or unknown) before the event and no existing ones, then no copper mines existed before the event, so there were no (known or unknown) copper mines before the event. QED.

PS: It is possible for a gold/copper/diamond deposit to suddenly come into existence in your back yard, especially if you live somewhere geologically exciting like Hawaii. But it is probably not something you would want to happen while you are anywhere in the vicinity. Although if you keep quibbling like this, others here may wish you to be! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

NTJedi

March 19th, 2004, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by GavinWheeler:
To talk about an "unknown nonexistent object" is just a problem of sloppy language. Something that does not exist has no qualities.
Any scientist would strongly disagree with you because there are Unknown substances which have still yet to be found and created.
If for some reason all gold in the world vanished... the properties/qualities of gold would still exist even if everyone lost knowledge about it.
If a new fuel was developed next year... this qualifies now as an unknown nonexistent object.

For heavens sake goto school !

Originally posted by GavinWheeler:

PS: It is possible for a gold/copper/diamond deposit to suddenly come into existence in your back yard, especially if you live somewhere geologically exciting like Hawaii.
Goto school as diamonds and gold do not SUDDENLY come into existence. Or search the internet and you'll see what is needed !

Nature's way of creating diamonds is to subject carbon molecules to intense heat and pressure over eons of time.

------------------

The magic sites found at a capital because of an event are unknown nonexistent mines. The mines become available and known because of the event.

One of the following conditions apply:
To know about something which does not exist (dinosaurs, places or plants now extinct, places yet to be created, etc...)
To not know about something which does not exist (futuristic metals, fuels or substances)
To know about something which does exist (gasoline, the wheel)
To not know about something which does exist (cancer, quantum physics, etc.)

[ March 19, 2004, 20:15: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

E. Albright

March 19th, 2004, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by GavinWheeler:
Faulty logic, as there are other possibilities - it may well simply not have existed before it suddenly both came into existence and became known. To talk about an "unknown nonexistent object" is just a problem of sloppy language. Something that does not exist has no qualities.Well. This depends. Under certain metaphysical systems, one can have non-existent objects that possess qualities. We could, for example, drag out such hideous entities as Platonic Ideals <shudder>. But of course at that point we should likely fall into a bitter, sectarian squabble as to precisely what "exists" means...

[ March 19, 2004, 20:29: Message edited by: E. Albright ]

E. Albright

March 19th, 2004, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Any scientist would strongly disagree with you because there are Unknown substances which have still yet to be found and created.
[...]
If a new fuel was developed next year... this qualifies now as an unknown nonexistent object.

For heavens sake goto school !Please calm down.

Methinks the problem here is essentially one of semantics. I blame the English langauge. On one hand, we have the notion of "discovering" something which was created; i.e., something that did not exist. On the other hand, we have the notion of "discovering" things which existed but were unknown; e.g., a new species of parrot or moose. One refers to gaining knowledge of something which previously had no referent, and the other refers to gaining knowledge of something which previously had a referent of which the learner was ignorant. The single term "discover" conflates the two, but one can and ought to make a distinction.

If for some reason all gold in the world vanished... the properties/qualities of gold would still exist even if everyone lost knowledge about it. Um. This doesn't parse for me. How could the properties/qualities of gold exist without a referent? Do you mean that things that were metal, pyrite-colored, more-or-less as dense as lead, etc., but not all of the above and thus "gold", would continue to exist? Or do you mean that gold's "goldness" would continue to exist in an abstract (ideal) form? And if the latter, are we then talking something like a Platonic Ideal (in that you've also posited that everyone will have forgotten what gold is, and "goldness" could not then just be a mental construct of what it is to be gold)?

[ March 19, 2004, 20:48: Message edited by: E. Albright ]

Peter Ebbesen

March 19th, 2004, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by NTJedi:

For heavens sake goto school !
For heavens sake, take a rhetorics course! - or a logic course. If you want to argue that you can assign known/unknown status to nonexistent objects, you can do much, much, better than to try to do it by blurring the distinction between an unknown idea and an unknown object on the one hand, and between a physical object developed through millenia in the real world and a simulated physical object created in an instant with no pre-history in a game on the other!

"All scientists say..." and "goto school" just don't cut it! Because they don't and we have.

[ March 19, 2004, 21:04: Message edited by: Peter Ebbesen ]

GavinWheeler

March 19th, 2004, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by E. Albright:
Well. This depends. Under certain metaphysical systems, one can have non-existent objects that possess qualities. We could, for example, drag out such hideous entities as Platonic Ideals <shudder>. But of course at that point we should likely fall into a bitter, sectarian squabble as to precisely what "exists" means... Of course, under Plato's system there is a neat answer to that in the concept of a platonic existence. Personally, if you differentiate between the concept of something and the thing itself, the signifier and the signified, I don't see where a problem exists.

For example we all know that "a unicorn has a horn on its head", but we are talking about the concept, the mythical entity. The concept exists and has qualities, but the thing itself does not. If we try to talk about a physical unicorn having or lacking a horn, we are in quite different territory and should produce the unicorn in question before the debate is sensible.

Arryn

March 20th, 2004, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
For heavens sake goto school !You need to take your own advice. There is no such word "goto" in modern English. This term only exists in (obsolete) computer Languages such as BASIC. The correct phrasing would be "For heaven's sake, go to school!". Please note the use of appropriate punctuation, which you also failed to use. If you're going to admonish people (in an insulting fashion no less) to improve their education, the least you could do is get it right yourself.

GavinWheeler

March 20th, 2004, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Any scientist would strongly disagree with you because there are Unknown substances which have still yet to be found and created. I have a PhD in molecular physical chemistry and a dozen publications - does that make me enough of a 'scientist' to qualify for your appeal to authority? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif And even a first year undergraduate should know that you can generate a list of all the elements (at least of normal matter) that can possibly exist just by counting protons.

As I said, even if no atoms of a theoretical element exists, we can still know that the 'element' exists in potentia, can often work out probable qualities of atoms with that number of protons (such as how many neutrons it needs to be as stable as possible) and so on.

But you are confusing the general with the specific. To use your example, you are confusing the general properties of the element gold with the qualities of a specific lump of the stuff. The concept of gold, the laws that govern it and set the properties of atoms with 79 protons, all exist whether or not any of the actual stuff exists. The concept is not the same thing as the concrete specific sample.

Originally posted by NTJedi:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Originally posted by GavinWheeler:

PS: It is possible for a gold/copper/diamond deposit to suddenly come into existence in your back yard, especially if you live somewhere geologically exciting like Hawaii.
Goto school as diamonds and gold do not SUDDENLY come into existence. Or search the internet and you'll see what is needed ! <hr /></blockquote>Again, you confuse a deposit of the stuff with the stuff in the deposit. Take your own advice: look up what a 'diatreme' is and tell us if you would want to be around when one surfaces suddenly.

If you can understand how these events could create a deposit of gold or diamonds in a particular location, but would not 'create' the gold or diamonds in the deposit, you'll be on the way to understanding the kind of fundamental logical errors you are making.

fahdiz

March 20th, 2004, 12:45 AM

Oh...my...goodness...

I hadn't really checked into this thread for a while...and I cannot believe you are still trying to argue this point, NTJedi - especially with name-calling and accusing some quite accomplished folks of needing to "goto school", as you put it.

You are wrong. It is okay to be wrong once in a while. The important thing is to take it like a man, and admit it.

NTJedi

March 20th, 2004, 12:51 AM

Arryn...
It was a typo... missed the spacebar... big deal and your post is nothing but an off topic flame. Stay focused or please stay off the topic.

=================

Originally posted by GavinWheeler:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by NTJedi:
[qb] Any scientist would strongly disagree with you because there are Unknown substances which have still yet to be found and created. I have a PhD in molecular physical chemistry and a dozen publications - does that make me enough of a 'scientist' to qualify for your appeal to authority? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif
<hr /></blockquote>Then you should well know that there are things which qualify as unknown and nonexistent. I've listed only a few examples... to say someone or something knows everything about all nonexistent objects/things is obviously wrong.
A new fuel developed next year... qualifies now as an unknown nonexistent object. The discussion for developing the futuristic fuel may not have even started yet.

As I said, even if no atoms of a theoretical element exists, we can still know that the 'element' exists in potentia, can often work out probable qualities of atoms with that number of protons (such as how many neutrons it needs to be as stable as possible) and so on.

[quote]
The concept of gold, the laws that govern it and set the properties of atoms with 79 protons, all exist whether or not any of the actual stuff exists.
Based on my example... The properties for creating gold would be possible yes... but until that took place gold would remain as an unknown nonexistent object because there would be no available samples(thus nonexistent). There would only be the knowledge that yes it creates something(thus unknown). Even taken to a more basic level a spider web was unknown and non-existent until the first time it was actually created.

[ March 19, 2004, 22:55: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

Peter Ebbesen

March 20th, 2004, 12:54 AM

It is sort of fun in a sad tearjerking way, though. The way things are going, we will pretty soon all be revealing our respective scholarly titles to fight the "all scientists say" call to authority.

At which time we will have no choice but to call in the philosophers to confuse the issue once and for all.

March 20th, 2004, 12:58 AM

I'm of the firm perception that this conversation never existed.

Arryn

March 20th, 2004, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by fahdiz:
You are wrong. It is okay to be wrong once in a while. The important thing is to take it like a man, and admit it. FYI, since I joined the forum in early January, NT has never admitted being wrong in quite a few arguments exactly like this one. It makes no difference whatsoever the topic, nor who's in the discussion, nor what facts he's presented with. He will go on, and on, and on, until he wears everyone else down and they quit participating on the other side of the debate, in frustration over what one of my college professors long ago called "invincible ignorance". I admit that I enjoy a good, healthy debate, in which someone is actually learning something. But to me, it seems that NT merely enjoys arguing for the sake of arguing. And he's not even good at arguing, itself, as an art form.

All of us should quit feeding his addiction. It's painful to those of us with reason, only prolongs our suffering, and continues to give NT an outlet (excuse) for spewing nonsense.

Sincerely,

Arryn

Peter Ebbesen

March 20th, 2004, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by Zen:
I'm of the firm perception that this conversation never existed. Would that be the conversation or the idea of the conversation? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

*I need to sleep*

NTJedi

March 20th, 2004, 01:03 AM

With Arryn having nothing better to do except drop another flame he continues to pollute the topic. Arryn please stay focused on the topic and keep your personal opinions of others to yourself.

Arryn

March 20th, 2004, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
With Arryn having nothing better to do except drop another flame he continues to pollute the topic. Arryn please stay focused on the topic and keep your personal opinions of others to yourself. You, long ago, ceased discussing the topic yourself. As various others have been trying to point out to you ...

March 20th, 2004, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen:
Would that be the conversation or the idea of the conversation? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Both and neither. For they never existed.

[ March 19, 2004, 23:09: Message edited by: Zen ]

NTJedi

March 20th, 2004, 01:09 AM

Again Arryn please focus on the topic which is Unknown magic sites. The point I was proving is the copper/iron mines found at capitals are unknown nonexistent magic sites. My Last post was directed at GavinWheeler which was explaining how it is possible to have something unknown and nonexistent. Until the first spider web was actually created it was also unknown and nonexistent.
And as I have written earlier:
One of the following conditions apply:
To know about something which does not exist (dinosaurs, places or plants now extinct, places yet to be created, etc...)
To not know about something which does not exist (futuristic metals, fuels or substances)
To know about something which does exist (gasoline, the wheel)
To not know about something which does exist (cancer, quantum physics, etc.)

[ March 19, 2004, 23:13: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

Kristoffer O

March 20th, 2004, 01:20 AM

???

Truper

March 20th, 2004, 01:21 AM

Astounding... 4 pages of total fluff...

SATANS PAWN

March 20th, 2004, 01:24 AM

And the winner is .... NTJedi.

Complainer of the year award goes to Arryn. What a NAG !

>>>THE HORNED KING<<<

Peter Ebbesen

March 20th, 2004, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by Truper:
Astounding... 4 pages of total fluff... Yes, it is impressive considering the answer to the question posed: "are there unknown magic sites in starting provinces" is a clear: "Not in capital provinces but possibly in other starting provinces." - and was answered in the first four Posts.

[ March 19, 2004, 23:34: Message edited by: Peter Ebbesen ]

NTJedi

March 20th, 2004, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Truper:
Astounding... 4 pages of total fluff... Yes, it is impressive considering the answer to the question posed: "are there unknown magic sites in starting provinces" is a clear: "Not in capital provinces but possibly in other starting provinces." - and was answered in the first four Posts. <hr /></blockquote>And I simply pointed out that its possible to have unknown nonexistent magic sites at the capital as well.
Copper and Iron Mines which become available from events.

[ March 19, 2004, 23:38: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

Phoenix-D

March 20th, 2004, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
And I simply pointed out that its possible to have unknown nonexistent magic sites at the capital as well. Which is incorrect. Something cannot be known or unknown if it doesn't exist. That doesn't make it unknown, which implies it has properites to know. If it doesn't exist it has no proprities and therefore nothing to know.

EDIT: to make a simplier comparision, saying a non-existant object is unknown is logically equivilent to 1/0. Yes, you can say it. No, it doesn't make any sense. No, it isn't helpful in any way.

[ March 19, 2004, 23:41: Message edited by: Phoenix-D ]

NTJedi

March 20th, 2004, 01:44 AM

Because it doesn't exist makes it unknown for the case with the copper and iron mines. Hypothetically speaking if a fortune teller was able to see into the future and witness the event which brought the copper and/or iron mine then for that fortune teller it would be known and nonexistent.

IF humans were to evolve into something else within the next 2000 years... this would currently qualify as unknown and nonexistent.

[ March 19, 2004, 23:53: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

Peter Ebbesen

March 20th, 2004, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
And I simply pointed out that its possible to have unknown nonexistent magic sites at the capital as well.
Copper and Iron Mines which become available from events. And thus we start from square one again, and another four pages of bickering.

As you very well know, copper and iron mines do not become available from events (implying that they have some sort of prior existence as iron or core deposits, which is now through the hard labour of the peasantry turned into an iron mine) - they are created out of nothing as a random event based on the current scales of the province in question. The text blurb may say otherwise, but only the most credulous peasant in the land would believe it - and we are discussing as players, not as inhabitants of the fantasy world.

If an "iron deposit" or a "copper deposit" were created in specific provinces during game initialisation and then found at some time during game play, you would have a point in saying that they were made available, became known, &etc.

But they are not.

[ March 19, 2004, 23:52: Message edited by: Peter Ebbesen ]

NTJedi

March 20th, 2004, 01:54 AM

Peter look at it from this angle then:

Hypothetically speaking if a fortune teller was able to see into the future and witness the event which brought the copper and/or iron mine then for that fortune teller it would be known and nonexistent.
OR
If someone programmed an event for that copper and/or iron mine to appear.... then for that programmer it would be known and nonexistent. Yet it would remain unknown and nonexistent for any of the other gamers.

[ March 19, 2004, 23:57: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

March 20th, 2004, 01:58 AM

Since when does precognition have a place in the debate of existance? Might as well say "What if Space Clams said sometime in the future there would be X" then it has to be known, yes?

NTJedi

March 20th, 2004, 01:59 AM

Zen look at it from this angle then:

If someone programmed an event for that copper and/or iron mine to appear.... then for that programmer it would be known and nonexistent. Yet it would remain unknown and nonexistent for any of the other gamers.

March 20th, 2004, 02:01 AM

Only from their peception. I can claim to 'know' things which may or may not be fictional about anything. And you've switched your debate topic. What if the programmer programmed the copper or iron mine to only appear on certain conditions but not for other conditions? Then those conditions are not met, so there is no possibility of there ever being a iron or copper mine, is it still known?

Peter Ebbesen

March 20th, 2004, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by NTJedi:

Hypothetically speaking if a fortune teller was able to see into the future and witness the event which brought the copper and/or iron mine then for that fortune teller it would be known and nonexistent.
Ok, hypothetically allowing precognition, and infallible precognition at that.... (I know I am going to regret this)

No, the copper mine would be nonexistent but it would be known to the fortuneteller that a copper mine would exist at some time and place in the future. That is not the same as that future copper mine being known to the fortuneteller in the present, and, likewise, the copper mine was not unknown in the present before the fortune teller performed his divination.

Before the divination, the fact that a specific copper mine would exist at that time in the future would be unknown - but that fact is not the copper mine.

If someone programmed an event for that copper and/or iron mine to appear.... then for that programmer it would be known and nonexistent. No, that future mine would be nonexistent in the present, but the programmer would know the fact that a copper mine with specific properties would come into existence at some time in the future. He would not know the copper mine now.

You seem to be consistently equating concepts and ideas with objects, and equating knowledge of future events with future objects being known in the present (when, in fact, only the knowledge that they will exist in the future is known), which makes this discussion very surreal.

EDIT: More surreal that it was already, that is. Bringing precognition into a discussion is not usually a good way to advance your cause.

[ March 20, 2004, 00:17: Message edited by: Peter Ebbesen ]

NTJedi

March 20th, 2004, 02:22 AM

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
No, that future mine would be nonexistent in the present, but the programmer would know the fact that a copper mine with specific properties would come into existence at some time in the future. He would not know the copper mine now.
It would be known that the copper mine is nonexistent until the event took place. Thus the copper mine is known and nonexistent for this case. One could even prepare to use the mine the day it arrives by saving gold. Another explanation for it being known and nonexistent. The fact that it is known to appear in the future still shows there is known knowledge about the mine.

==================================

Originally posted by Zen:
What if the programmer programmed the copper or iron mine to only appear on certain conditions but not for other conditions? Then those conditions are not met, so there is no possibility of there ever being a iron or copper mine, is it still known? Yes... the programmer still has known knowledge about the mine. The programer knows the mine will appear when those conditions are met... thus making it known and nonexistent. The copper mine would remain unknown and nonexistent for all the other gamers unless the programmer lets them know and/or the event occurs.

[ March 20, 2004, 00:54: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

Darryl

March 20th, 2004, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
No, that future mine would be nonexistent in the present, but the programmer would know the fact that a copper mine with specific properties would come into existence at some time in the future. He would not know the copper mine now.
It would be known that the copper mine is nonexistent until the event took place. Thus the copper mine is known and nonexistent for this case. One could even prepare to use the mine the day it arrives by saving gold. Another explanation for it being known and nonexistent. The fact that it is known in the future still shows there is known knowledge about the mine. <hr /></blockquote>So my godhood is known and nonexistent? (I'm not a god). My third and fourth arms are known and nonexistent as well? Godzilla and Bugs Bunny are known and nonexistent as well, correct?

NTJedi

March 20th, 2004, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by Darryl:
So my godhood is known and nonexistent? (I'm not a god). My third and fourth arms are known and nonexistent as well? Godzilla and Bugs Bunny are known and nonexistent as well, correct? Your introducing different variables into the discussion... which can stray the topic... but I will respond anyways.

The godhood comment introduces religious and belief variables so I will avoid this because it can blossom so many different topics.
Godzilla and BugsBunny are known and they do exist as cartoons on television... thus known and exist. One can even visit a local store and purchase a BugsBunny.
The 3rd and 4th arm... needs more explanation. How do you know about these are arms? Are you a mechanic which works on prosthetics? Are you referring to someone who might be insane and able to see these arms?
In the case of the programmer he knows about the copper mine because he programmed the event... making the copper mine known and nonexistent.

[ March 20, 2004, 00:52: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

March 20th, 2004, 02:54 AM

The only thing known and non-existant that we have here, is logic.

NTJedi

March 20th, 2004, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by Zen:
The only thing known and non-existant that we have here, is logic. Zen I'm sure you've been on many forums and never thought I would have to say this to you but... please FOCUS on the topic or don't post. Avoid the flames for heavens sake !

[ March 20, 2004, 00:56: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

Darryl

March 20th, 2004, 03:40 AM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Your introducing different variables into the discussion... which can stray the topic... but I will respond anyways.

The godhood comment introduces religious and belief variables so I will avoid this because it can blossom so many different topics.
Actually many believe this has happened to the current topic in light of the original question asked as well.

Godzilla and BugsBunny are known and they do exist as cartoons on television... thus known and exist. One can even visit a local store and purchase a BugsBunny.
Actually in reality as physical living beings they do not exist, which is what I was referring to (but admittedly didn't make clear). If one were to actually attempt and FIND Godzilla or Bugs Bunny one would not be able to as they do not exist outside of fictional concepts. No one uses the term "unknown" to refer to Godzilla because the lizard creature is not real.

The 3rd and 4th arm... needs more explanation. How do you know about these are arms? Are you a mechanic which works on prosthetics? Are you referring to someone who might be insane and able to see these arms?
Are we talking about knowledge or existance. If I am insane and see more than 2 arms that does not mean the arms suddenly "exist" in the physical term of the word any more than Bugs Bunny "exists". My point here is you seem to include things that hypothetically could come into existance at a later date, which is why I posted this.

In the case of the programmer he knows about the copper mine because he programmed the event... making the copper mine known and nonexistent. Here you seem to have changed the original spirit of the question. Of course the programmer knows about the event. The event though is known AND it exists! Then you switched to the actual copper mine. The event and the actual mine are 2 different things. The event was programmed. The actual ocurrence gives you gold and "actually happens". So before it happens, the actual mine doesn't exist.

What people are saying is that when something "doesn't exist" it is not elgible to be called "known" or "unknown". In 1960 I was not "unknown", I simply didn't exist as I wasn't born yet. Suppose someone asked these 2 questions:

Where is your actual physical being real mother right now?

Where is the actual physical being real Bugs Bunny right now?

Now it is assumed that your mother does exist but you may not know her current location and you may. In the case of Bugs Bunny (the actual physical living being) he does not exist. Never has. To say the location of Bugs Bunny is "unknown" is incorrect. The term does not apply if something cannot be known since it doesn't exist.

So in light of your Posts I am assuming you find the description of "Aschaic Record" in error since it says it finds all sites in a province, but won't find those from events, correct?

NTJedi

March 20th, 2004, 04:22 AM

Darryl...

You are adding lots of new variables... but they do not change the facts. The copper mine remains known even tho it does not exist yet... and may never exist. Things which someone has knowledge of and could come into existence should be recognized and thus classified as known and nonexistent.

The event is known and does exist... the copper mine is known and nonexistent. The player does not have to recieve gold first... the mine could exist and indicate in the game an increase for gold income next turn. The change in the game setting for an increase of gold next turn shows the mine exists.

======
Where is your actual physical being real mother right now?

Where is the actual physical being real Bugs Bunny right now?
======

======

Game information such as an event which creates a mine can easily be proven when playing the game. The question you are asking is far different then what can be proven when playing a game. For example what happens if someones real mother is to die... now you've introduced another topic about spirtuality/religion as some would see the real mother as nonexistent and others would disagree. The statements I made are directed at the game... you are introducing so so many outside variables leaving the answers for your questions as subjective from person to person.
Lets stick with either a game example or your 3rd arm example which does not have so many extra variables.

[ March 20, 2004, 02:26: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

Graeme Dice

March 20th, 2004, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
You are adding lots of new variables... but they do not change the facts.No. None of your arguments where you continually show your near complete lack of understanding of the English language changes the facts. Something which does not exist cannot be either known or unknown.

Arryn

March 20th, 2004, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
No. None of your arguments where you continually show your near complete lack of understanding of the English language changes the facts. Something which does not exist cannot be either known or unknown. Careful, Graeme. He'll accuse you of flaming him for stating facts obvious for all to see, just as he did when Zen and I pretty much said the same thing.

Leblanc

March 20th, 2004, 05:25 AM

The problem seems to be that the physical world, in which we are people playing Dominions and the game exists as a series of commands on our computers, and the world of Dominions, in which we play gods, are not being thought of as seperate. If we are thinking of ourselves as inhabitants of the game world then yes, the sites probably existed before, as mineral deposits dont frequently appear out of nowhere (though they do sometimes I suppose). Since they are simply minerals, whether or not they are truly magic and thus dectectable by acashic recodrd could be debated, but that is missing the point entirely. The point is that the world of Dominions exists only in our computers. It was programmed by other people who coded certain commands that would occasionaly 'create' sites in capital provences. If we look at the code, the site did not exist before hand. We have the knowlage that it could cerainly, but it is not coded into the game that it exists at the begginning of the game. If we classify that as knowing a non-existent object then so be it.

Thats just my thoughts in the argument, but in the end Im wondering exactly why it is even being pursued with such vigor. As I attempted to say above, it is an argument purely of point of view and semantics and, further more, it is completely irrelevnt for any reason other than pointless pontificating. Unidentified sites do not exist in your starting province at the begginning of the game. Later, if certain things happen in the coding triggering an event, a site can appear that was not there before in strictly game terms. If we think as inhabitants of the game world perhaps the site was there.

In the end it hardly seems to matter much at all...

Darryl

March 20th, 2004, 06:12 AM

Well my NCAA bracket is slowly falling apart, so I might as well answer here....

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Darryl...
Game information such as an event which creates a mine can easily be proven when playing the game. The question you are asking is far different then what can be proven when playing a game. For example what happens if someones real mother is to die... now you've introduced another topic about spirtuality/religion as some would see the real mother as nonexistent and others would disagree. The statements I made are directed at the game... you are introducing so so many outside variables leaving the answers for your questions as subjective from person to person.
Lets stick with either a game example or your 3rd arm example which does not have so many extra variables. Ok, fair enough. In the game the term "unknown" as I understand it seems to refer to something which is possible to be found through some conscious action by the player. The obvious example being searching for magic sites. "Unknown" sites refer to sites which are coded into the specific game being played, but are not visible to the player. Aschaic Record is a spell which changes the status of all "Unknown" sites to "known". Copper mine events (and other events) create out of thin air mines which can give the player additional benefits. In game terms, they are not "unknown" as Aschaic Record would have found them if they were. This is my understanding of game mechanics.

If this game were "The Sims" or something where magic does not reign supreme, I'd probably understand your argument better, as copper mines do not appear out of thin air in some games. In this game, many things appear out of thin air ("and suddenly a {blank} appeared in the lab") and as there is a spell which is defined as "finds ALL sites in a given province" the only conclusion is that sites given by special events weren't there if they couldn't be found by that spell.

Now NTJedi, what is it about that which isn't consistent with the game?

Darryl

Edit: changed less than and greater than symbols to brackets

[ March 20, 2004, 04:21: Message edited by: Darryl ]

Ryukenden

March 20th, 2004, 06:16 AM

Topic: Do unknown sites exists in starting provinces? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Answer: If you have multiple provinces, yes. However, your capital province (the one in which your Pretender will usually start in) does not contain any unknown provinces that exist; sites may appear into existance from random events, but they did not exist in the capital before the event had occured. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

Opinion: This discussion has taken a turn off of the original topic numerous times, and has become a rather personal one (with the insulting and wanting to be "right"). However, I have found it interesting to read the amount of thought being put into these arguements (with a few exceptions, one of which involving indirectly {and sometimes directly} denying someone's intelligence). I believe that this discussion should end now, as the answer to the original question has been reached; the answers secondary questions indirectly presented by thos who were supposed to answer the primary question should be persued within a different discussion.

GavinWheeler

March 20th, 2004, 11:40 AM

Yikes. I felt a built guilty about replying Last time, but didn't expect anything like this!

So we are abusing Shrapnel Games' hospitality here, folks. If anyone really wants to debate this further, I would suggest they take it to somewhere like alt.atheism for some real philosophical slap-downs. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

We all agree that no unknown sites exist in Capitals, so there is no need to search there. Noone is going to publically admit being wrong, here (although it is a useful to skill to cultivate, when it is true) so lets all just leave the opposition to digest our cutting arguments, shall we?

Maybe a moderator could lock the topic, or even trim it down to the first few relevant Posts?

NTJedi

March 20th, 2004, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Something which does not exist cannot be either known or unknown. There are probably hundreds of extinct prehistoric plants which have left no trace of existence on this earth. This would be classified as unknown and nonexistent. Also because of special circumstances some prehistoric plants have been identified... and would be classified as known and nonexistent.
A futuristic fuel used for flight in the year 3850 would also be unknown and nonexistent.
The copper mine programmed to be created when an event occurs. The programmer has knowledge of this futuristic copper mine. Thus known and nonexistent for the programmer... yet unknown and nonexistent for the other gamers.

[ March 20, 2004, 15:30: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

Gandalf Parker

March 20th, 2004, 07:37 PM

I agree that topics wandering way off course of this forum would probably have a more enjoyable time if moved to newsGroups (most internet providors give access to newsGroups, ask your support)

As to the sites thing...
I know Im jumping in late and being nitpicky BUT I believe the Devs already answered this somewhere. The game itself will not put hidden sites in a capital. Even if you capture a capital, they wont be there.

HOWEVER it is possible for hidden sites to be given to capitals by using map commands. As far as I know, no map available for download has done that but I have been playing with the idea. I would not be surprised to find out that only on the wild random-strewn maps I create would such a thing be likely. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif If I do then I plan to make it part of the map description so as not to surprise anyone.

[ March 20, 2004, 17:38: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Peter Ebbesen

March 20th, 2004, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:

HOWEVER it is possible for hidden sites to be given to capitals by using map commands. As far as I know, no map available for download has done that but I have been playing with the idea.
It is done in Version 0.8 of my Orania Wars - Nasty Edition, that I hope to hape up for download tomorrow pending playtesting http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif - Well, to be more precise, there are additional fixed KNOWN sites in each capital rather than hidden sites, as fixed hidden sites benefits the human player much more than the AI.

Graeme Dice

March 20th, 2004, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
[qb] Something which does not exist cannot be either known or unknown. There are probably hundreds of extinct prehistoric plants which have left no trace of existence on this earth. This would be classified as unknown and nonexistent.<hr /></blockquote>No, they would be classified as unknown only. They existed, so to say that they are non-existent is ridiculous.

Also because of special circumstances some prehistoric plants have been identified... and would be classified as known and nonexistent.No, they would be classified as known and extinct.

A futuristic fuel used for flight in the year 3850 would also be unknown and nonexistent.No, it would be non-existent only. There is no information to determine whether it is known or not.

The copper mine programmed to be created when an event occurs.And until that event occurs, it does not exist. Thus there is no information about it whatsoever.

I suggest, once again, that you learn to understand English properly before claiming that you can make arguments about the semantics or words.

GavinWheeler

March 21st, 2004, 12:41 AM

"Last night I saw, upon the stair
a little man who was not there.
He wasn't there again today -
I wish that man would go away"

Goad

March 21st, 2004, 12:42 AM

I think it's really unfair of all you guys to keep taunting NT Jedi like this. Sure, it was funny at first. But after 6 pages, doesn't anyone start to find it cruel?

The ability to distinguish between concept and instance may be fundamentally important if you're, say, a philosopher or theoretical scientist, but it's really not that important for some guy to enjoy playing some game. People can't help or change the basic level of intellect they're born with, why torment the guy about it?

Besides, my friend who's a psychiatrist told me that such a persistent inability to distinguish between concept & instance in otherwise functionally intelligent adults can be a symptom of latent mental illness, and if that's the case here it makes it doubly unfair for you all to keep poking at him like this.

Peter Ebbesen

March 21st, 2004, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by Goad:
I think it's really unfair of all you guys to keep taunting NT Jedi like this. Sure, it was funny at first. But after 6 pages, doesn't anyone start to find it cruel?
Actually yes. It brings to mind the adage: "I would engage you in a battle of wits, save I never fight an unarmed man" - which would be both cruel and unjustified. It must be the persistent self-righteous refusal to distinguish between the general and the specific (or concept and instance), that just manages to rub the scientifically trained wrong.

I blame our education. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

....And the fact that we are a bunch of intellectual nitpickers. That goes with the territory.

NTJedi

March 21st, 2004, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Something which does not exist cannot be either known or unknown. I went and acquired actual proof where the phrase �known and nonexistent� are being used to further prove my point. Despite all this actual physical proof I seriously believe PeterEbbesen or Graeme Dice lack the honor to apologize for being wrong and rude.
I would also like to point out that they have not given any proof except for their weak opinion.

Supreme Court Document
Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington

http://www.mrsc.org/mc/courts/supreme/058wn2d/058wn2d0180.htm

�1] PRINCIPAL AND AGENT - LIABILITY OF AGENT TO THIRD PERSON -CONTRACTS IN NAME OF PRINCIPAL - NONEXISTENT PRINCIPAL. Where an agent for a nonexistent principal enters into a contract in the name of such principal, and all parties to the contract know the principal to be nonexistent,��. �

Mail Tribune Online
Newspaper Publication
http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2002/0829/edit/let.htm

�If President Bush "touted 100,000 jobs more logging on federal lands could bring to the Northwest" that are now known to be nonexistent��

=========
edited my post so it would not take up so much space.
=========

At the start of the game the programmer would know the copper mine to be nonexistent. The copper mine however would remain unknown and nonexistent to all other players.

The prehistoric plants example is one of the best examples since during the present they are nonexistent yet depending on the specimen can be both known or unknown. The copper mine is very much the same except that it qualifies as being in the future and not the past.

[ March 21, 2004, 18:21: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

Taqwus

March 21st, 2004, 08:18 PM

NTJedi --
Neither example you give supports your case. T'is the _nonexistence of the issue in question_ that is known, not the item itself.
For instance, with the known nonexistence of a principal case, both parties know that the principal does not exist; neither knows the principal. You're confusing objects and properties of objects.

NTJedi

March 21st, 2004, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by Taqwus:
NTJedi --
Neither example you give supports your case. T'is the _nonexistence of the issue in question_ that is known, not the item itself.
For instance, with the known nonexistence of a principal case, both parties know that the principal does not exist; neither knows the principal. You're confusing objects and properties of objects. Supreme Court Document :
KNOW THE PRINCIPAL TO BE NONEXISTENT
object: "the principal"

The object is known as nonexistent

The Magnanimous Cuckold (comedy)
Author: Fernand Crommelynck
http://newmedia.cgu.edu/stageart/holland/summc.html

Once his jealously has been aroused, Bruno, pursuing an insane logic of his own, cannot rest until he has put all doubts to an end by absolute certainty. He therefore compels the suffering Stella to sleep first with Petrus and then with all the men in the village as he pursues the phantom of an unknown and nonexistent lover.

University of Mississippi
http://home.olemiss.edu/~weiming/654p.htm

�As to the nonexistent value, it is just the negative value of unknown value, since in fact it is known to be nonexistent. The predicate expression��

The value known to be nonexistent

The copper mine known to be nonexistent

=======

And I have yet to see any proof showing I am wrong... besides opinions.

[ March 21, 2004, 18:37: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

Taqwus

March 21st, 2004, 08:38 PM

NTJedi --
Playwrights aren't exactly reliable citations when it comes to logic. Shall we resort to Gilbert and Sullivan for a serious discussion of piracy or Japanese history? Does Shakespeare serve as an authority on Midsummer rites and faeries? No.
As for your database example, do you know what a 'null' field in a database table refers to, and why you might have one? Have you studied relational databases, actually? Implemented one yet? If so, you might know why it has no bearing on your claims.

NTJedi

March 21st, 2004, 08:39 PM

The prehistoric plants example is one of the best examples since during the present they are nonexistent yet depending on the specimen can be both known or unknown. The copper mine is very much the same except that it qualifies as being in the future and not the past.

More Court Documentation:

http://www.harp.org/wheeler.txt

"..Not only is the resisting party (presumably the
patient) claiming lack of knowledge of the arbitration term, but he asks not to be prevented from litigating a consequential loss controversy that was also unknown and nonexistent at the time of contracting. Viewed in this light, the knowledge factor is ....."

http://www.bakers-legal-pages.com/cca/opinions/74185.htm

As Judge Miller explained in his concurring opinion in Ex parte Carillo, 687 S.W.2d 320, 325 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985):

Parole is very much a speculative proposition. Its happening is contingent on many factors unknown and nonexistent at the time of a guilty plea.

There are hundreds of quotes using known and unknown with nonexistent.

And I have yet to see any proof showing I am wrong... besides opinions.

[ March 21, 2004, 18:48: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

Graeme Dice

March 21st, 2004, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Despite all this actual physical proof I seriously believe PeterEbbesen or Graeme Dice lack the honor to apologize for being wrong and rude.I don't apologize to idiots who refuse to admit that they are wrong.

�1] PRINCIPAL AND AGENT - LIABILITY OF AGENT TO THIRD PERSON -CONTRACTS IN NAME OF PRINCIPAL - NONEXISTENT PRINCIPAL. Where an agent for a nonexistent principal enters into a contract in the name of such principal, and all parties to the contract know the principal to be nonexistent,��. �This is not regarding a physical object, and so couldn't prove your point even if the words said what you think they do. This is merely a case where you have a non-existent entity that everyone agrees is non-existent. Thus it's non-existence is known. The above is a question of whether the object is known to be non-existent. Not whether the object is non-existent or not.

�If President Bush "touted 100,000 jobs more logging on federal lands could bring to the Northwest" that are now known to be nonexistent��Yes, the jobs do not exist, and there is information on their non-existence, so people can agree that they do not exist.

This is in complete contrast to your claim, where there is no information on whether the copper mine exists, and in fact, according to yor examples above, the only thing you could say is that it is known to be non-existent.

At the start of the game the programmer would know the copper mine to be nonexistent. The copper mine however would remain unknown and nonexistent to all other players.The copper mine does not exist until the random event causes it to exist. The programmer does not have the knowledge to tell you whether the copper mine will exist at some point in the future. Thus there is no way to say that the mine is "unknown". It simply doesn't exist.

The prehistoric plants example is one of the best examples since during the present they are nonexistent yet depending on the specimen can be both known or unknown. The copper mine is very much the same except that it qualifies as being in the future and not the past. Once again you are dodging the point. There is no information whatsoever about prehistoric plants that have no evidence of their existence. You are claiming that something which is _known_ to be non-existent, such as a copper mine before the event creates it, is actually unknown. You're trying to claim that adding the word unknown is useful, when it instead adds no information whatsoever.

Graeme Dice

March 21st, 2004, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
More Court Documentation:You will let me know when court cases bear any resemblance to the existence of objects in the physical world?

"..Not only is the resisting party (presumably the
patient) claiming lack of knowledge of the arbitration term, but he asks not to be prevented from litigating a consequential loss controversy that was also unknown and nonexistent at the time of contracting. Viewed in this light, the knowledge factor is ....."Once again, that's an idea, not an object. Try and find some relevant examples.

There are hundreds of quotes using known and unknown with nonexistent.

And I have yet to see any proof showing I am wrong... besides opinions.There might be hundreds of quotes, but not one of them will be relevant to the question at hand. You haven't seen any "proof", because no such "proof" is needed. The answer to the question is obvious to all but your deluded mind.

NTJedi

March 21st, 2004, 08:50 PM

Graeme Dice
besides your weak opinion what actual proof have you provided ZERO.

The prehistoric plants example is one of the best examples since during the present they are nonexistent yet depending on the specimen can be both known or unknown. The copper mine is very much the same except that it qualifies as being in the future and not the past.

Also the fact that these phrases are used in court documentation shows the phrase is correct and I am right. I have given actual proof in many different ways showing things which are nonexistent can be either known or unknown.

[ March 21, 2004, 18:54: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

Graeme Dice

March 21st, 2004, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Graeme Dice
besides your weak opinion what actual proof have you provided ZERO.I've provided my proof. It's called "the difference between an idea and a physical object".

The prehistoric plants example is one of the best examples since during the present they are nonexistent yet depending on the specimen can be both known or unknown. The copper mine is very much the same except that it qualifies as being in the future and not the past.Once again you are completely and utterly incorrect. The plants with no evidence that once existed are not non-existant. Their evidence is non-existant, but they are not. The evidence is an idea, it is possible to be non-existant and unknown. A physical object cannot have these characteristics, since if it is non-existant, there is no information about it. It can be unknown whether the object is non-existant or not, but that is a completely different phrase from something being "unknown and non-existant", which is a meaningless phrase.

Also the fact that these phrases are used in court documentation shows the phrase is correct and I am right.No, it shows that you are not smart enough to figure out the difference between an idea and a physical object.

NTJedi

March 21st, 2004, 09:04 PM

by Graeme Dice
Once again, that's an idea, not an object.
So ideas can be nonexistent as known or unknown... but an pretend copper mine from a computer game cannot?

Graeme Dice you still are not providing any proof... only your opinion of how you feel english should be recognized.

PROVE TO ME THAT something NON-EXISTENT cannot be known or unknown. Certainly you can find some documentation to back up your weak words.

A search on Google for "cannot be known or unknown" returns with nothing... you can guess why. Yet I have found so many different phrases on the internet using nonexistent with known and unknown.

[ March 21, 2004, 19:20: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

jaif

March 21st, 2004, 09:33 PM

Oh neat, a flame war, can I play too? :-) While I don't know (or care to read) where this little war started from (though I can guess from the topic), I'd like to chime in about the topic at hand.

exist: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=exist

"To have actual being; be real."

know: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=know

"To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty."

There is a difference between a thing and knowledge of the thing. While common usage can cause the definitions of these two to cross, a quick check of the dictionary shows how they differ.

Finally, I think there's little point in arguing words; words are simply meant to communicate thoughts, so just agree on a meaning of the words and move on to the underlying thoughts (which are apparently lost in the 90+ Messages preceding this.).

-Jeff

Graeme Dice

March 21st, 2004, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Graeme Dice you still are not providing any proof... only your opinion of how you feel english should be recognized.Thanks for completely ignoring my arguments, which would be an implicit concession if this were a tre debate. As for your proof, there are two things. The first is that you are asking me to prove a negative. This is an impossibility and requiring someone to do so is a logical fallacy. The second is that it's your claim that it's proper use of the English language, therefore you must find the evidence to support your claim. I would also suggest that you should change yor argument style so that it does not consist of posting exactly the same argument over and over and over again. If it's not correct the first time (and it wasn't), then it won't be any more correct the fiftieth time.

As for my argument. If something does not exist, then that means that there is absolutely no way to obtain information on it. Let's use your example dealing with prehistoric plants. If there is evidence that the plants existed, then they are known to exist. If the plants existed, but there is no evidence for them, then their state of existence is unknown, not the existence of the plants themselves. The existence or non-existence of the plants is not modified by what information is available about them. If the plants did not exist, then they are non-existent. However, it is still incorrect to say that the plants themselves are unknown and non-existent. The plants are non-existent only.

This example does not map into dominions however. Here we have a copper mine which does not exist prior to the random event, and does exist after the random event. After the random event, it's presence is known, and it physically exists. Before the random event it does not physically exist, and there is no information on whether it will exist at some point in the future or not. Note that the state of "no information" is not equivalent to "unknown" it is separate state where it is impossible to make any judgements about something.

Graeme Dice

March 21st, 2004, 09:37 PM

NTJedi, will you please stop editing your Posts after you make them?

NTJedi

March 21st, 2004, 09:52 PM

Graeme Dice
Something which does not exist cannot be either known or unknown.That's just flat wrong... there are known and unknown prehistoric plants which do not exist. There is nothing in your post except for your opinions of the english language. Some are correct and some are wrong.

I only edit my Posts to correct a mistake or add an important phrase instead of creating new Posts. Update the webpage more frequently.

Once again you have no documentation for your statement. Backup YOUR STATEMENT(your words) with documentation:
"Something which does not exist cannot be either known or unknown. "

[ March 21, 2004, 19:53: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

NTJedi

March 21st, 2004, 10:07 PM

Graeme Dice I have searched many places on the internet yet could not find anything to backup your words.

You say it's nonexistent only but thats only your opinion. And actual information and knowledge can be obtained from prehistoric plants based on many unique findings such as impressions left in stone. This is only some of the information which helps identify the plant and thus classified as known and nonexistent.

Graeme Dice

March 21st, 2004, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
[QB] <blockquote>quote:<hr />Graeme Dice
Something which does not exist cannot be either known or unknown.That's just flat wrong... there are known and unknown prehistoric plants which do not exist.<hr /></blockquote>If the plants do not exist, then there is no information on them, so your statement that they can be known of unknown is nonsensical.

There is nothing in your post except for your opinions of the english language. Some are correct and some are wrong. My post is not "opinion". It is a clear explanation of how the language works on this issue. Since you have not pointed out which parts are wrong, and have completely ignored my arguments I am quite happy to accept your concession that you are wrong about this issue.

I only edit my Posts to correct a mistake or add an important phrase instead of creating new Posts. Update the webpage more frequently.Editing your own Posts is a despicable debating tactic, and the fact that you do so shows what a useless person you are. I should not have to check your Posts multiple times just to make sure that you aren't changing their content.

Once again you have no documentation for your statement. Backup YOUR STATEMENT(your words) with documentation:
"Something which does not exist cannot be either known or unknown. "The evidence has already been provide in this very thread. I suggest you read and understand the latest post by Jaif.

jaif

March 21st, 2004, 10:17 PM

"If something does not exist, then that means that there is absolutely no way to obtain information on it."

Of course you can; you can derive information through deduction or induction. Not all knowledge is experience.

Which is a sad thing, oft-times.

-Jeff

Graeme Dice

March 21st, 2004, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Graeme Dice I have searched many places on the internet yet could not find anything to backup your words. So what? The internet is not an authoritative resource.

You say it's nonexistent only but thats only your opinion.No, that's not just my opinion, that's the nature of the matter. A plant that never existed cannot have any information about it.

And actual information and knowledge can be obtained from prehistoric plants based on many unique findings such as impressions left in stone. This is only some of the information which helps identify the plant and thus classified as known and nonexistent.You are once again dodging the point. You have just outlined types of evidence about the plant. This makes it fall into the Category of existent with evidence. Thus the idea of its existence is known, and the plany physically exists. You are also once again trying to ignore the difference between an idea and an object, which Jaif has already pointed out with his two definitions.

Graeme Dice

March 21st, 2004, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by jaif:
"If something does not exist, then that means that there is absolutely no way to obtain information on it."

Of course you can; you can derive information through deduction or induction. Not all knowledge is experience.So how do you derive information about something that does not exist? Information is experience or it is nothing more than random noise. If your knowledge is not based on some kind of measurement of the world, then it is no more lilely to be correct than picking an answer at random.

Darryl

March 21st, 2004, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Supreme Court Document :
KNOW THE PRINCIPAL TO BE NONEXISTENT
object: "the principal"

The object is known as nonexistent
 Originally posted by NTJedi:
University of Mississippi
http://home.olemiss.edu/~weiming/654p.htm

�As to the nonexistent value, it is just the negative value of unknown value, since in fact it is known to be nonexistent. The predicate expression��
"Known to be nonexistent" and "known as nonexistent" are different phrases from "Known and nonexistent". Please post the examples of "known and nonexistent" that you have found. You posted examples of a phrase that you changed to support your argument.

Also, there are 2 different application of the word "nonexistent" being used here. NTJedi, your prehistoric plants example uses the term nonexistent in reference to something with once did exist, but no longer does. The game example of a copper mine uses the word nonexistent to refer to a specifc physical thing which does not exist in a particular province and never did in that province before it appeared. "Nonexistent" referring to something that is extinct, and "nonexistent" referring to something which never did exist is semantics, using the same word to describe 2 different concepts. Most people, for example, would regard dinosaurs differently than they do draconians, because despite both being "nonexistent", the "nonexistence" of dinosaurs is different from the "nonexistence" of draconians.

Also, as Graeme said NTJedi, the term "unknown" adds nothing to the phrase "unknown and nonexistent" as the phrase "known and nonexistent" is nonsensical. That phrase can be applied to anything which anyone can think up. Seriously. Name one thing that doesn't exist that "known and nonexistent" does not apply to (using the line of reasoning you've used in this thread with the copper mine being "known and nonexistent").

GavinWheeler

March 21st, 2004, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Despite all this actual physical proof I seriously believe PeterEbbesen or Graeme Dice lack the honor to apologize for being wrong and rude.Maybe you could lead the way by apologising to me?

Reminder: you told me to go to school, told me that any scientist would agree with you, and told me again to go to school to learn about diamond deposit formation. Having been shown that these various comments were all way off base, where is your apology?

For that matter, forget apologies - just drop this ridiculous argument by attrition, already.

Peter Ebbesen

March 22nd, 2004, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Despite all this actual physical proof I seriously believe PeterEbbesen or Graeme Dice lack the honor to apologize for being wrong and rude.
I will apologise for being rude. No matter how wrongheaded I consider your tactics, and I consider them very wrongheaded, that does not excuse my rudeness.

I will not apologise for being wrong, however, for the simple reason that I do not consider myself to be wrong. There is to my mind a significant difference between the General and the Specific (and likewise between a Concept of an object and an Object), and that difference remains no matter how many times you attempt to equate an object with knowledge about the object and how many times you equate the current nonexistence of something that once existed with the nonexistence of something that never has existed.

From you, NTJedi I would like an apology for insulting the intelligence of all the readers by using arguments such as "all scientists agree..." when they manifestly do not (as several of the people who oppose you here qualify as scientists). I do not ask you to apologise for being wrong, though I consider you to be so, merely for insulting our intelligence.

[ March 21, 2004, 22:44: Message edited by: Peter Ebbesen ]

jaif

March 22nd, 2004, 12:56 AM

"So how do you derive information about something that does not exist? Information is experience or it is nothing more than random noise. If your knowledge is not based on some kind of measurement of the world, then it is no more lilely to be correct than picking an answer at random."

First off, nobody said all knowledge is "correct". That's not part of the dictionary definition: as long as you believe the idea in your head, it's "knowledge".

Let's put this another way: I know about centaurs. There are no real centaurs: they don't exist, it's just an idea in my head (and in many peoples).

As for basing knowledge on experience, of course that's generally the root. However, the human mind is able to combine ideas and make obscure connections to come up with "new" ideas. I put new in quotes because there's a huge philosphy debate on what's really "new", and I shudder to go down that road because it's really boring.

All that said, I agree entirely with this '..."known and nonexistent" is nonsensical. That phrase can be applied to anything which anyone can think up.' I was playing a game of semantics, but it boils down to what he says here; you can believe whatever you want.

Finally, NTJedi, as an outside observer I do have to say that I agree with the others that your argument style is rather insulting. Just look up the meanings of the words involved in a dictionary, and then take an english course where past tense, present tense, etc are explained. Spending pages debating common english words and using slippery sematical differences is just a baby game.

"God is love."
"Love is blind."
"Ray Charles is blind"
"Ray Charles is God"

See? Playing with words just leads to nonsense (though fun nonsense, in this case<g>).

-Jeff

Zapmeister

March 22nd, 2004, 01:10 AM

First off, nobody said all knowledge is "correct". That's not part of the dictionary definition: as long as you believe the idea in your head, it's "knowledge". I heartily disagree. Knowledge is the awareness of a set of facts. Facts are premises which are correct (otherwise they're fallacies).

If you "believe an idea in your head" it's a belief if there's some empirical reason to hold it, or a faith otherwise. Not knowledge.

Regarding the original topic, I think the most salient point was made by whoever pointed out that Akashic Record will not detect the sites prior to the event, proving their non-existence, and it's meaningless to speak of knowledge of non-existent entities.

jaif

March 23rd, 2004, 01:51 PM

I beg to differ - I *know* many fallacies. Knowledge is the sum of a person's experiences, intuitions, and deductions. Facts are things which are 'true'; they're the 'ideal' while knowledge is how close we get to the ideal (or not).

-Jeff

Zapmeister

March 24th, 2004, 02:22 AM

Hmm. I would say that you know *of* many fallacies. The *facts* that constitute your claim to knowledge in this matter are that the statement (of the fallacy) has been made, it makes sense and that it is false.

SelfishGene

March 25th, 2004, 10:05 AM

Wow. ... ^^

I think however i understand whats in his mind. This might be seen as a bad thing http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

Think of the differences between a random 'seed' variable being created *at the start* of a Dom2 game which creates a mine that is later triggered, and rolling to place a mine in a province at the moment of creation.

The former is his "nonexistent and unknown", or at least it could be from the way i gathered he was attempting to define non-existence. A sort of 'predestination' since the mine 'seed' had already been generated.

And hopefully he could see the difference as well...

[ March 25, 2004, 08:06: Message edited by: SelfishGene ]