Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[codezero]

Alright I won't read it.

[LumenPlacidum]

Oh dear.

Both axioms and postulates are taken to be statements that do not need to be proven.  An axiom is something so basic that it forms the very structure of the field in question and is "common sense."  A postulate is something that is assumed within a field of study in order to split that field into cases where that postulate is true and isn't true.  Postulates tend to be less "obvious" than their axiom relatives.  Example: Axiom - The law of non-contradiction: P AND -P is false (i.e. nothing can both be and not be).  Postulate - The speed of light in a vacuum is constant regardless of your inertial frame of reference.

Logic describes the rules inherent in thought.  Classical logic is governed by Aristotle's Axioms of Thought (of which, the law of non-contradiction is one).
Mathematics takes more axioms and constructs a structure on top of those that is somehow useful.  Mathematics uses the laws of logic, and is therefore a part of logic.
Science takes observations and relies on one particular logical inference (modus tollens) to show when things are false.  Science uses the laws of mathematics and is therefore a part of mathematics, and, transitively, is a part of logic.
Religion does not necessarily claim to follow the rules of logic, and is therefore separate from logic entirely.  This implies that it is not related to mathematics and that it is not related to science.  Since there are quite different rules forming the foundations for their structures, it is not contradictory to consider both fields to be true as far as those fields extend.

Thus, you cannot use science to explain religion, and you cannot use religion to explain science (unless you consider religion a super-field of logic, mathematics, or science directly...).  Each can be conditionally "true" when working in the system related to it.

[Sunday]

I'm going to stay out of the religion/science thing that I helped start. .  codezero, I think we're just going to have to disagree with each other.  I can live with that if you can.

On the .999r=1 thing.  I always thought the confusion arose because 1/3 of one equals .333r.  So .333r+.333r+.333r should equal 1, but it actually equals .999r.  I'm not a mathematician, so I don't know if that means .999r=1 or what.

ANYWAY!  I'm not sure that atheism as it is today should be implemented in DF - I think that it is kind of a product of our culture.  Of course, dwarves seem like pretty pragmatic creatures, perhaps there are certain dwarves that (without going the whole nine yards to nihilism/solipsism/existentialism) would probably find thinking about anything not directly tangible useless frippery.  Hmmmm.

You could also have insanities/strange moods, where certain dwarves start to think too philosophically or abstractly (which is really pretty undwarven).  Perhaps they'd write books, and what dwarves read them might follow that philosophy - which might mean not working.  Or working themselves to death!  Or something else!  I don't know!  Then we would have an excuse to kill the philosophers!

[Servant Corps]

The point of this thread is to implement atheism in DF in a unique manner. I don't want to turn this into an argument over if atheism is correct or not.

Regarding your idea Servant, there is a lot of reason behind religion too. What is Theology for instance? And what about the works of Thomas Aquinus and Pascal? etc.

In any event, religion can in fact be based on 'logic' and 'reason', but the non-religious "Philosophies" themselves would disagree and claim that they are reasonable and logical while their opponents make fatal errors in judgement. Are they right? Are they wrong? What I care about is this: Does it matter in the Drawf Fortress game if the philosphies are correct or not? And to me, the answer is "No". See, er...to me, this is a thought experiment, to see if I can implement 'atheism' without resorting to calling 'atheism' a religion.

Plus, there are many philosophies based on logic and reason within religion themselves, who would disagree. There are those who claim that God can be determined via logic, and there are those who claim that God cannot be determined by logic...and both people belong to the same religion and worship the exact same God. So, meh. If you like to call some religious schools of thought 'logical', you can just create different philosphies within the same religion.

On the .999r=1 thing.  I always thought the confusion arose because 1/3 of one equals .333r.  So .333r+.333r+.333r should equal 1, but it actually equals .999r.  I'm not a mathematician, so I don't know if that means .999r=1 or what.

Divide 3 by 3. You'll get 1. This is because 0.999... repeats all the way to infinity, so eventually, they'll all add up to 1. I haven't wrapped my mind around it, but I know it's true within the Math system because 3/3=1.

[Align]

Consider also the turtle outrunning the arrow.

[Soadreqm]

The game takes place in a fantasy world modelled after medieval Europe, right? I admit that my knowledge on the subject is mostly based on Sid Meier's Civilization, but didn't most of the research back then take place in very theistic monasteries?

Anyway, I'm not sure if atheism needs to be implemented at all. We already have personality traits to differentiate between the ardent and dubious worshippers. I guess it would have something to do with how the churches are organized and whether the gods actually exist or not. The atheists could easilly get killed in the early stages of worldgen by either the inquisition or lightning bolts. Or converted to dragon worship.

[LumenPlacidum]

On the .999r=1 thing.  I always thought the confusion arose because 1/3 of one equals .333r.  So .333r+.333r+.333r should equal 1, but it actually equals .999r.  I'm not a mathematician, so I don't know if that means .999r=1 or what.

You have the gist of it.  1 = 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = .333... + .333... + .333... = .999...

More precisely, you have .999... = the sum as n goes from 1 to infinity of 9*10^-n = 9* the sum as n goes from 1 to infinity of 10^-n.  That sum is a power series with a ratio of 1/10 and a starting point of 1/10.  It converges because 1/10 < 1, and so it converges to a/(1-r) = (1/10)/(1-1/10) = (1/10)/(9/10) = 1/9.
Returning to the original statement, .999... = 9 * (1/9) = 9/9 = 1.
It's kind of weird, but rational numbers have two ways of being written.  If it helps, you could think of writing 1 instead as writing 1.000...0001 with an infinite number of zeroes between the 1. and the 1.  So, rational numbers are essentially defined to be the limit from above and the limit from below of those two decimal expansions.

Back to on-topic, why not just have atheist dwarfs not have a Worships entry at all?

[MMad]

How about we let Toady actually implement theism in a meaningful manner before discussing how to handle unbelievers? The core question is really whether or not it'd be societally acceptable to not believe in the gods, and that depends on what kind of religious systems Toady intends for the different races. Quite possibly they'll eventually be randomly generated with all kinds of variables, allowing everything from fundamentalism and stoning of unbelievers to very secular societies where atheism is the norm and belief a personal matter.

Personally I like the depiction of atheists in the Discworld novels. They do exist, but usually not for very long unless they're lightning-proof. The gods don't take kindly to being denied. :p

[Tormy]

The game takes place in a fantasy world modelled after medieval Europe, right? I admit that my knowledge on the subject is mostly based on Sid Meier's Civilization, but didn't most of the research back then take place in very theistic monasteries?

Anyway, I'm not sure if atheism needs to be implemented at all.

Modelled after medieval Europe? Why do you think so? This is an unique fantasy game. DF dont have to borrow ideas from anywhere.
..as for your other sentence I agree, Im not sure either that atheism needs to be implemented. Basically we can say that all creatures who do not worship any Gods are atheists. Its not necessary to add "atheist" as a description, especially since it would be weird to see anything like that in this game.

[Soralin]

In DF, it seems like this would just end up as being Flat Earth Atheist.  i.e. :

"It was all very well going on about pure logic and how the universe was ruled by logic and the harmony of numbers, but the plain fact of the matter was that the Disc was manifestly traversing space on the back of a giant turtle and the gods had a habit of going round to atheists' houses and smashing their windows."
    — Terry Pratchett, The Colour of Magic

It's hard to be an atheist in a world where the gods can come and smack you around a bit for not believing they exist.

[Bryan Derksen]

Returning to the original statement, .999... = 9 * (1/9) = 9/9 = 1.

There's a whole passle of other proofs at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999..., if the ones presented here are hard to wrap one's head around there might be something better there as well.

[G-Flex]

No matter how many proofs you layer on top of an axiom, it's still going to be based on faith at the lowest level, and what scares me is the belief people will put in anything 'proven' by such scientific means. In the modern day world, religion is far more tolerant of criticism to itself than science - aka 'fact'.

This is, quite simply, wrong. When evidence contrary to any scientific principle is presented, whether it's regarded as "fact", "law", "axiom", or what-have-you, it is revised. That's just how it works. Science, as I've stated, does not claim to be about absolute truth and adapts to the universe as it continues to be observed. This isn't to say that every single scientist is completely open-minded and reasonable, but science itself works on that premise.

Also, emperical science isn't useful in any way, in diluting itself of absolute truth it's saying "Ok, don't bother refuting this, it's just emperical observation, but hey look what it proves!". It's such an immature tactic to say that a theory is not open to argument before proposing it. And if it can't stand up to argument, it's worthless.

Nice strawman, but no. For one thing, theories ARE open to argument. If a theory is disproven in argument, it's unscientific to still believe it.

What I meant to say is that scientific theory is not meant to state "this is absolutely, positively, how the world works". It's more along the lines of "this is a working model of how the world seems to work, for use as a predictive and explanatory tool for understanding, based on observed patterns, subject to change if these patterns are seen to not respect observed patterns in the future." It doesn't say "don't bother refuting this"; of course you can refute it. Hell, for a theory to BE scientific it MUST be falsifiable, which is to say, there must hypothetically be some way to prove it false if it is.
[/QUOTE]

But these are my own biases, I once repeatedly questioned my friend, a mathematician, about how .999r = 1 , eventually he exclaimed, "Maths isn't 'truth'! It's just based on axioms/rules". Let's hope true scientists and mathematicians don't rely on axioms and suchlike.

The reason your biases are as such are, as I've explained, you don't understand how science works or what it is for. There is nothing wrong with founding science and mathematics upon seemingly-arbitrary rules as long as those rules are functional and sufficiently explain and predict how the world appears to work. That is their function. No more, no less.

Science (and even math) making no statement of absolute truth (outside of their own axioms and boundaries) does not make it useless or invalid. They're perfectly useful within whichever context they apply to.

[Servant Corps]

Remember: This is a thread about suggesting stuff to DF. Not about arguing over axioms and science.

I mean, hack, when gods were implemented in DF, did the Gaiaists and the Monotheists get into huge arguments over the plausiblity of having a Natural "spirit" that is a part of creation or the idea of having a God that created the world but is not a part of it? The fact is, it doesn't matter if there is a "Gaia", if there is a monotehistic God, or if science is based on axioms in our world because I care only what happens in the DF world? Understand?

Oh god no, I'm starting to regret making this thread.

EDIT: In order to try and make codezero's argument a tad understandable, I'll make some comments, but I want to stress that this should stop. Please. For the love of Urist.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

What I meant to say is that scientific theory is not meant to state "this is absolutely, positively, how the world works". It's more along the lines of "this is a working model of how the world seems to work, for use as a predictive and explanatory tool for understanding, based on observed patterns, subject to change if these patterns are seen to not respect observed patterns in the future."

Axiom: It is possible to understand the world via observed patterns and make predictions based on those patterns.

There is no proof that it is true, there is no proof that it isn't. We have to accept on faith that observed patterns can be used to determine the truth.

The reason your biases are as such are, as I've explained, you don't understand how science works or what it is for. There is nothing wrong with founding science and mathematics upon seemingly-arbitrary rules as long as those rules are functional and sufficiently explain and predict how the world appears to work. That is their function. No more, no less.

What's the point of a pretty framework if it turns out that the axioms that it is based on are wrong?

If the axioms that the framework is based on is wrong, then any conclusion that is generated from the framework may be equally flawed, so why rely then on the flawed conclusion?

[Grek]

Kobolds are atheists.

[DanielLC]

Define god. I don't know if the dwarfs believe in a creator, but if they believe it's the deity they're worshipping, they're wrong. When the gods are implimented, they will likely be comparable to megabeasts. If so, there will be nothing devine about them. They can't be considered gods in the sense you all know. Perhaps some of the dwarfs will be atheists, but others will believe there universe was created and is guided by a vastly complex ruleset created by the "Toady One" as a form of entertainment for other equally devine, but less toady, beings. Naturally, this will have nothing to do with the megabeasts, or possibly gigabeasts, the dwarfs worship.