[geeks] Games...

[Mark]

On 7 Aug 2007, at 11:15, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

> Hence the difference between Flight Simulator '98 and Combat Flight
> Simulator.
> FS98 could teach you to fly, but there was nothing to do, except fly.

That's not necessarily a bad thing though. People enjoy that kind of  
thing. I know I do - especially flying large or fast aircraft, or  
even just flying over the scenery near my home and spotting  
landmarks. :)

> At this point FS 10 is real enough to learn to fly a real airplane,
> complete with videos, AI based training etc. If it is a game or
> a tool is up to you to decide. The distinction blurs, but the
> bottom line is that when you crash and burn with FS 10 instead
> of a real airplane, you walk away from it unhurt.

But... you don't bounce off the ground (well actually you can turn  
the ground collisions off but,,,). Hitting the ground still imparts  
an end to your flight.

>> Second Life does not have a general sense of realism. The fact that
>> 'anything is possible', despite being really cool and all is
>> generally what ruins it for me, and a lot of other people. Then again
>> it makes it what it is to those who enjoy it.
>
> I think that's an important point, it allows you to go beyond your
> real life limitations, however does that affect whether it's a
> game or a similation?

It is not a simulation, as it is not simulation something real, I  
think that was my point (I was only on my first cup of coffee an at  
the time so even I'm not totally sure ;)).

> I tend to agree with you, but I'm not sure that is correct. Our  
> reality
> is based upon our perception of things, a universe with less "realism"
> may be a different race's perception of reality and therefore a
> simulation not a game.

Of, course one persons perception of reality is different, but there  
are boundaries all the same. Reality, as a function of the world in  
which we exist is really a set of brackets, not a defined set of  
rules. While I appreciate that a reality that is different to what I  
experience is tangibly different, a reality that is outside of what  
everyone experiences, which I believe Second Life is, so different as  
to be 'unreal'.

>> Refer to Agent Smith's speech in The Matrix (if you haven't seen it
>> skip the paragraph, this is a spoiler! ). Smith, while interrogating
>> Morpheus talks bout the first iteration of The Matrix. He states that
>> it was a 'perfect human world'. He also states that it was a total
>> failure.
>
> Knowing you are in a virtual reality, does affect humans, but will it
> affect people who are programed not to notice it.

According to conventional wisdom, invariably not, because, unless  
they are influenced by what occurs outside their so-called reality,  
they have no concept that what they are experiencing is not real.  
Reference again the Matrix and people from the Real World, hacking  
the Matrix to show people trapped in it the truth, of which they were  
totally unaware until that point in time. However the same point in  
the film raises the same issue that Neo knew something 'wasn't right'  
right from the start, and other too had the same experience. It was  
those that knew this that were able to contact the Real World and get  
free. The theory goes in The Matrix that a few people would not  
accept the program because of a function of mathematical probability.  
That probability suggested, possibly in relation to Heisenberg's  
Uncertainty Principle, that they could never reach a point where 100%  
of people could accept the program, ergo they realised they were in a  
non-reality and attempted to escape from it.

It's only one take on the theory, but it's one I know like the back  
of my hand (I bet yo can't tell ;) ).

Going back to my theory of 'brackets' of reality - the majority of  
people accept a 'reality if it falls within those brackets. Where  
those brackets lie are a function of who you are, and you past  
experiences of life. More open minded people are capable of widening  
this brackets. Some are even capable of establishing multiple sets of  
brackets in different contexts - take the worlds of Star Wars, Star  
Trek, D&D, Dune or Middle Earth for example. All have enough  
supporting evidence and back-story to make them almost believable.  
That makes games, films and stories based in those 'Universes'  
believable and tangible to a the people that enjoy them despite them  
being not remotely related to the 'real' world as we see it in  
everyday life.

Going back to my original example. The 'perfect world' that failed.  
The reason it failed was it fell outside the brackets of all human  
reality. Smith states that our reality seems to be 'defined by misery  
and suffering'. That is true in a lot of ways. You wouldn't accept a  
world where nothing bad happened as anything other than fantasy,  
purely because humans are human, and by their very nature a balance  
of good and evil. Upset that balance and you start to move towards  
the edge of those brackets.

The concepts of 'heaven' and 'hell' (taken purely in a non-religious  
context, although I acknowledge their origins in religion, before you  
all start) are similar. We can accept so much good and so much evil  
as tangible but beyond that we see worlds of intangible good or evil.

> Look at the movie
> "The Thirteenth Floor", where there are multiple layers of simulation.
>
> However if you choose to ignore that you are in a simulation, does  
> that
> make it less real?

All I can say to that is "What is real, how do you define 'Real'?",  
and I guess that's what this argument is all about.

-- 
Mark Benson

My Blog:
<http://mdblog.68kmac.org>
68kMac.org:
<http://www.68kmac.org>
Visit my Homepage: <http://homepage.mac.com/markbenson>

"Never send a human to do a machine's job..."