Guest posts by PhuzzY LogiK

109

Deck Help / Re: Restart my Deck? (scared unupgraded)

« on: March 25, 2010, 01:27:02 am »

Thanks went to the chat, chatted with onetwothree, faced a top 50 and got my Eternity.

For future reference, if you can't get a rare farm up, make a Level 3 AI speed deck (you should be able to make the whole deck for less than the cost of upgrading a single card).  You can get through matches in less than 2 minutes and you have a decent chance to spin a weapon.

110

Deck Help / Re: Mono-Time

« on: March 25, 2010, 01:18:31 am »

yes but the reason i use precognition is this, hourglasses are the same cost per draw. And with 3 I think 6 is a bit overkill. Like I said seeing the hand is only a bonus. As for the cost thats why I run 15 time pillars.

If you don't want to see their hand, Precog in a deck over 30 cards is useless.  You could have just drawn the card you were going to away instead of Precognition and not had to pay for it at all.

111

Rainbow Decks / Re: PuppyChow's FG Rainbow

« on: March 23, 2010, 11:04:03 pm »

About the diamond shield, you just draw until you get a pulvy or steal so you're ready. It's rare that he plays the shield and protects it the same turn. And if he does, you rely on mutants (and rely on the rewinded mutants to stay alive).

Everytime I can remember playing him (at least 5 times in recent memory), he'll have a PA'd Diamond Shield in the first few turns.  Combine that with the fact he Quicksands every last one of my towers, and I find him almost unbeatable.  I usually quit after two or three turns.  Maybe it's just my luck.

112

Religion / Re: Does God Exist?

« on: March 22, 2010, 11:10:08 pm »

I think all these statements about the burden of truth are quite contradictory on their own.

Say no one knew that monkeys existed. If one was seen, and someone swore up and down that they saw it, who would be the person with the burden of truth?
It would be the person who swore up and down that they saw it.

Actually, Daxx summed it up nicely on page 7 of this thread:
"It is a logical impossibility to prove a negative. In this instance, proving that God does not exist is impossible because there is no way to falsify his existance. This means that it is reasonable to assume that something like God, or an invisible pink unicorn, does not exist unless someone proves that it does."
"If there is no proof that something exists, it is reasonable to assume that it does not. That is the primary contention of those who answer the thread's question in the negative."
"One side (the side not making the positive claim) doesn't need evidence, as it is the default position."

Now we all know that monkeys exist, so lets say the opposite. There was someone who said monkeys didnt exist. Who would be the person to have the burden of truth here?
It would be the person who said it doesnt exist.

No, because you could simply show them a monkey.  If they still deny it, then it is a metaphysical issue beyond the existence of the monkey.

The burden of truth itself is fundamentally flawed because the owner of that burden is the one going against the thought of the majority. So based on the burden of truth, if 51% of people believe that some type of higher being exists, then the people who DONT believe in one have the burden of truth to prove that one doesnt exist.

That's actually pretty close to the description of a logical fallacy.

It is believed that is how it works. That isnt technically a fact though. Heres why.

What if I believed that God is the one in control of all things. If he is omnipotent, then this would be no problem. He is an intelligent being, and therefor wants  certain amount of order in an otherwise chaotic world. Therefor, one of the things he does to make the world orderly is pull everything down with an equal amount of force depending on their location. Man figured out what the formula god uses in this one instance is.

That's an alternate explanation, but a fact would still be a fact.  That said, gravity is indeed not a fact.
FACT: When you drop something, it falls to the ground (isolated observation).
LAW: All falling objects fall according to the equation you posted.

Even still, the Newtonian "Law of Gravity" has been superseded by relativity, because that fits the facts better.

113

Religion / Re: Does God Exist?

« on: March 22, 2010, 10:04:15 pm »

how does those religious groups able to make such detailed books about gods and creation of the world such as the Bible?

Pen and paper.

Actually, no.  Most scripture began as an oral tradition.  In fact, with respect to the Christian tradition, scripture was only spoken for hundreds of years, and spoken word was considered divine.  It was only written down when the Jews were conquered (by the Persians, if I recall correctly) and they were forced to.  In Islam, many consider it to be blasphemy to translate the Qur'an into foreign languages.  Just to name two examples.

It is without a doubt that those religious text originates from our own imaginations.

Without a doubt you say? Hmmm.... then why do so many people not doubt them? It seems to me that if something is without a doubt, everyone and their mother would see it the same way.

Why do Americans drive on the right side of the road and the British on the left?  It's an ingrained behavior given by society.  In general (and I'm not saying you), religious people are some of the most ignorant people with respect to history.  They believe what their parents did because it is convenient.

Do you know what the oldest surviving version of the Bible is?  Do you know what language it's in?  Do you know when the New Testament was written?  Do you know in what order the gospels were written?  Do you know about Zoroaster/Mithras/Bacchus/etc and how the story of Jesus is directly plagiarized from them?  Do you know what role Constantine played in church history?  Do you know how the Bible was compiled, or why the Catholics have extra books?  Do you know why Catholic priests can't marry?

When I sit down and explain things to people, the response I normally get is "it's a good thing I don't really know all that, because then Christianity wouldn't really make sense".  As long as people will accept and embrace their ignorance, religion will persist.

So, if there is a god, we haven't had any conscious encounter with him/her

But in religious texts, people have had plenty of encounters with gods. And you haven't really proven that religious texts are false, so they might be true.

This is just idiotic.  Do you even understand what the burden of proof is? 

And I said this before, but you apparently need to hear it. Conflict between groups is a part of human nature, not a part of religion. But the larger differences between groups means there is a greater chance of conflict, so religious beliefs which are beliefs that really define a person's life are easily a factor in the conflict. Even if you get rid of religion, conflict will still go on because it's human nature.

Yes, violence is part of human nature, but religion takes it to a whole new level.  Wars will happen with or without religion, but at the end, people will go home.  When religion is introduced, and the reward is not on this earth or in this life, everything on earth and everyone living may be sacrificed to bring about "another world".  The stakes are raised exponentially.

If I told you to go blow yourself up to make the big invisible sky wizard happy and then he'll make you king of the playground in the sky, would you do it?  I'd hope not, because there is no reason to in this world.  But people do it for religion everyday.

114

Game Suggestions and Feedback / Re: Would sound become an element potentially

« on: March 12, 2010, 09:16:27 pm »

Sound should be included in air.

I'd say Light, since it is also a wave.  Air is just a medium sound travels through.

115

Religion / Re: Does God Exist?

« on: March 12, 2010, 09:05:31 pm »

There is no way to either prove or disprove god.

E.G:

LOOK!  This fact disproves god!
No it doesn't, it was put there by god as a test of faith.

or

LOOK!  This fact proves god exists!
Erm, that fact needs more scientific study, I'm sure there's a logical explanation for it.

Actually, what you're presenting is more the idea of "the God of the gaps", i.e., anything that cannot be explained by current science is then pawned off on a higher being.  Given enough time (read: if we don't blow ourselves up first), I think science will advance far enough to end what we know as traditional religion.  I'd go so far as to say the only reason religion persists so strongly today is because of an ingrained ignorance and a nostalgia for tradition that permeates the political atmosphere.

But to your intended point, even if you consider religious debate fruitless, it is a forced necessity.  Even if you can't say without certainty if a god exists, the fact remains that people have enough conviction in their beliefs to act on them.  Let's not beat around the bush: religious zeal has a way of accompanying violence.  Not one major world religion is free from fanaticism that results in the death of innocent people.  If someone is willing to kill a complete stranger based on some conviction, isn't it natural to question the validity of that conviction?

Ignoring the violence issue, religion is an expression of some fundamental dimension of our humanity.  Humans have always asked why they are here and what their purpose is.  This impulse is what Tillich called our "ultimate concern", because how you answer these questions will dictate how you live your life (refusal to confront the questions is an implicit answer itself).  The traditions of religion are a very mainstream outlet for this impulse, but we must each answer it for ourselves.  Thus, although we may never be able to say if god exists or not, the question (and debate) is inevitable.

116

Religion / Re: Does God Exist?

« on: March 11, 2010, 11:58:47 pm »

I guess I asked the wrong question... if they know the existing equation is true and that they can never find the missing piece to the equation, then what? That's a theoretical question, not a realistic one. If they knew they could never find the rest of the equation but weren't sure the equation were true, they'd probably look for a new equation. I don't know if they know or believe the equation is true.

I think your definition of truth is leading you astray here.  In religious matters, most people assert that a truth is universal and infallible, but science is much more pragmatic.  The truth of a theory is dependent on its ability to explain observations and to be verified.  A good way to think about truth in this case is "has not yet shown any significant contradictions with observations".

The standard model equation is currently accepted because it can explain our observations provided the Higgs boson is observed.  If the Higgs boson is not found, the equation is flawed and must be rethought.  But they won't have to start from scratch, because something will have to appear in the LHC instead of the Higgs that explains how particles have mass.  If absolutely all else fails, a new paradigm will be established to replace the old model.

I think a further thing to keep in mind here is a sense of scale of time with regard to this.  Recorded history has been around for what, 5,000 years, and our current atomic model is only just over 100 years old.  Of the 12 known elementary particles, the last quark was first observed in 1995 and the last neutrino in 2000, despite being theorized about 30 and 70 years earlier, respectively.  Even if it takes a a few decades to get an answer, the pace of modern science has been remarkable.

117

Religion / Re: Does God Exist?

« on: March 11, 2010, 06:34:23 pm »

Ok, if science has proved religion wrong every time, list every time, or we can't really accept your statement as true can we?

If you say, "I have to breath every moment of my life to live", is it any less true if you can't recall every last moment you've lived?

Not saying I agree with what he said, but your defense is equally faulty.

The fact is, I can't prove God's (or any god's) existence just as much as you can't prove to me that you exist. Sure I may be communicating with you, but how do I know I'm not dreaming right now? How do I know that there are actually atoms, or even the space to make them up? And that's the beauty of it. You can't know that there is anything other than yourself. All you really have to go on is belief. You don't know if you have a hand, but you believe you do. It's the same with religion. You don't know in a sense that can be written out logically or proven scientifically, but you still believe, and belief is just as powerful as knowledge.

Scientists are guilty of believing something they don't know exists as well. Unless I've been out of the loop, they are still searching for the Higgson-Boggs particle... what if they never can prove or disprove it's existence? What if they've reached a complete dead end. Of course they may never know they reached a dead end. But knowing that with current technology it can't be proven or disproven, will they support one side over the other? The answer is no. They would say "at this moment, we aren't capable of knowing."

So isn't it feasible that "at this moment, we aren't capable of knowing" is true of religion too? Even if it is at a dead end epistemically?

No, because you're comparing two very different things.

In your example of religion, you're suggesting a very extreme skepticism (pretty much Kantian Idealism).  In this case, nothing can be proven because only mental abstractions can be known with absolute certainty.  In your second paragraph you're asking for proof, which means that you can no longer embrace that skepticism.

Science has reasons it postulates things.  They are looking for the Higgs boson because it is the only unknown in an equation that spans more than a page in length and unifies nearly all of standard particle physics.  It's not like they are arbitrarily looking around space hoping to find an answer.

This is another vital flaw in your comparison: "... what if they never can prove or disprove it's existence?"
In the case of religion, short of some global miracle and/or some higher being exposing itself to everyone on the planet at the same time, you're correct to say you can never know for sure about the existence of a higher being.

In the case of science, by definition, something will always be able to be proven or disproven, with the only condition being we have the adequate technology for it.  This is because science does not deal in pure conjecture.  You can't just say "I think X exists because I feel it."  To be taken seriously, you have to say something like "Due to a previous experiment, I have reason to think X exists.  Further, we may test for X's existence by performing experiment Y."  For example, the question of whether or not the Higgs boson exists can be answered when CERN's large hadron collider becomes fully operational.  Nevertheless, it is a question we can answer in the future, unlike the question religion poses.

118

Issue Archive / Re: You lost ...

« on: March 11, 2010, 01:24:49 pm »

In the first case, it sounds like you decked out.  You automatically lose if you have no more cards to draw and attempt to draw one more (either at the start of your turn or using an hourglass/sundial/precognition/etc).  That is why a lot of rainbows use Eternity on one of their own creatures, so they can draw it again next turn and not be out of cards.  The amount of Quantum you have doesn't matter.

Not sure what happened with the Otyugh.  What else was going on at the time?

119

General Discussion / Re: rare card farming

« on: March 10, 2010, 02:46:13 am »

First of all,  there is a difference between rares and upgraded cards (you probably know that, but just to be clear).

You can't win anything from lvl 0, because you get no spin.

I'm pretty sure lvl 1 and 2 use rares (weapons), which means technically you should be able to win them, but you only get to spin once or twice per win, respectively.

The reason most people grind AI3 to start is because you get 3 spins (3 chances to win a card) per win, and speed decks can get through matches quickly (thus giving you a lot of chances to win cards in a short time).  You can win weapons, Miracles and Squids from AI3.

You also get 3 spins for winning a match against the Top 50.  You can win any card from the deck you played (weapons, shards, etc) except Nymphs, and you cannot win upgraded cards.

You get 3 spins for AI5 as well.  You can win weapons, Miracles and Squids but not shards.  You have a small chance (like 2%, if I recall) to win upgraded cards.

You get 3 spins for False Gods.  You can win all the same cards as AI5, but ALL cards won are upgraded.

You can only get Nymphs from the Oracle.  Also, I think the odds of winning a weapon may be better in AI3 because their decks are smaller than AI5 (30-40 cards for AI3 vs 60 cards for AI5).  Therefore, they have a better chance to be selected for a spin.

120

General Discussion / Re: just adding 2 cents on card draw

« on: March 09, 2010, 05:39:10 am »

Randomness does not have a memory, nor is it as uniform as you seem to think it should be.

But computers cannot generate truly random numbers, so there is a possibility that the draw algorithm is getting stuck in a rut.

I noticed this as well.  In fact, it was getting so annoying that I started keeping track of how many pillars were coming up on my initial draws.  After about 100 games, I realized I hate statistics and gave up on the project.  Here's a bit of what I came up with (pics are thumbnails to keep load time down):

My deck: (http://www.screenshotdumpster.com/view/m7Gbd51292/deck2)

The deck I played varied a little from time to time, but nothing that should have affected too much (e.g, I switched out 2 Eternities for 1 Eternity and a Protect Artifact, I traded a Bone Wall for a Dissipation Shield, I upped some cards, etc).  The number of pillars/towers and deck size were constant throughout my trial.

With 17 pillars/towers, and a 47 card deck, I had:
~ 2% chance to draw 0 pillars
~ 11% chance to draw 1 pillar
~ 26% chance to draw 2 pillars
~ 31% chance to draw 3 pillars
~ 21% chance to draw 4 pillars
~ 8% chance to draw 5 pillars
~ 0.2% chance to draw 7 pillars
~ 0.008% chance to draw 8 pillars
(These add to slightly more than 100% due to rounding)

Like I said, I played about 100 games with this set up.  I can tell you for sure that I drew 0 pillars in more than 2 of them.  I didn't go much further than that, because, as I said, I hate statistics/probability and I didn't feel like doing distribution functions.  However, I did notice a few things worth mention.  I tended to draw the same few cards over and over:

(http://www.screenshotdumpster.com/view/m7Gbd51297/e1)
13/47 cards drawn (~28%)
1/17 pillars drawn (~6%)
2/2 Bonewalls drawn (when I had two bonewalls in the deck)
2/3 Quints drawn

(http://www.screenshotdumpster.com/view/m7Gbd51298/e2)
15/47 cards drawn (~32%)
3/17 pillars drawn (~18%)
2/3 Dimensional Shields drawn

(http://www.screenshotdumpster.com/view/m7Gbd51299/e3)
14/47 cards drawn (~30%)
2/17 pillars drawn (~12%)
2/3 Dimensional Shields drawn

(http://www.screenshotdumpster.com/view/m7Gbd51300/e4)
8/47 cards drawn (~17%)
0/17 pillars drawn (0%)
2/3 Dimensional Shields drawn
2/3 Quints drawn

(http://www.screenshotdumpster.com/view/m7Gbd51301/e5)
10/47 cards drawn (~21%)
2/17 pillars drawn (~12%)
2/3 Dimensional Shields drawn

(http://www.screenshotdumpster.com/view/m7Gbd51302/e6)
9/47 cards drawn (~19%)
1/17 pillars drawn (~6%)
4/6 Sundials drawn

(http://www.screenshotdumpster.com/view/m7Gbd51303/e7)
9/47 cards drawn (~19%)
0/17 pillars drawn (0%)


(http://www.screenshotdumpster.com/view/m7Gbd51304/e8)
16/47 cards drawn (~34%)
3/17 pillars drawn (~18%)
2/3 Dimensional Shields drawn
3/3 Steals drawn (one was just used to avoid discarding)

(http://www.screenshotdumpster.com/view/m7Gbd51305/e9)
15/47 cards drawn (~32%)
3/17 pillars drawn (~18%)
3/3 Quints drawn

I have more, but I'm sure we all get the point.  Say what you want about my deck design/pillar-ratio-and-deck-size, I find it extremely hard to say decks are "well shuffled" when I can consistently draw clumps of cards in the first third of my deck.