• Hey Guest! Ever feel like entering a Game Jam, but the time limit is always too much pressure? We get it... You lead a hectic life and dedicating 3 whole days to make a game just doesn't work for you! So, why not enter the GMC SLOW JAM? Take your time! Kick back and make your game over 4 months! Interested? Then just click here!

Discussion Logical Positivism And Its Effect On Gaming - Much More Important Than That Other Post

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nocturne

Friendly Tyrant
Forum Staff
Admin
Logical Positivism (later also known as Logical Empiricism) is a theory in Epistemology and Logic that developed out of Positivism and the early Analytic Philosophy movement, and which campaigned for a systematic reduction of all human knowledge to logical and scientific foundations. Thus, a statement is meaningful only if it is either purely formal (essentially, mathematics and logic) or capable of empirical verification, just like the code that is created to form a computer game.

This effectively resulted in an almost complete rejection by Logical Positivists of Existentialism (and to a large extent Ethics) on the grounds that it is unverifiable. Its influence in 20th Century Epistemology, Philosophy of Science, and Video Games, however, has been profound.

Most early Logical Positivists and Games Programmers asserted that all knowledge is based on logical inference from simple "protocol sentences" - code - grounded in observable facts. They supported forms of Materialism, Naturalism and Empiricism, and, in particular, they strongly supported the verifiability criterion of meaning (Verificationism or Debugging), the doctrine that a proposition is only cognitively meaningful if it can be definitively and conclusively determined to be either true or false (a boolean term).

Logical Positivism was also committed to the idea of "Unified Science", or the development of a common language in which all scientific propositions can be expressed - also known as a Game Engine - usually by means of various "reductions" or "explications" of the terms of one science to the terms of another (putatively more fundamental) one, like using DRag And Drop in GameMaker.

The main tenets of the doctrine include:

  • The opposition to all Existentialism, especially ontology (the study of reality and the nature of being), not as necessarily wrong but as having no meaning. You can't play an existential crisis but you can play a logically positive game

  • The rejection of synthetic a priori propositions (e.g. "All gamers are happy"), which are, by their nature, unverifiable (as opposed to analytic statements, which are true simply by virtue of their meanings e.g. "All gamers play games").

  • A criterion of meaning based on Ludwig Wittgenstein's early work, (essentially, that the meaning of a word is its use in the language, and that thoughts, and the language used to express those thoughts, are pictures or representations of how things are in the world, ie: a virtual reality video game).

  • The idea that all knowledge should be codifiable in a single standard language of science, and the associated ongoing project of "rational reconstruction", in which ordinary-language concepts were gradually to be replaced by more precise equivalents in that standard language. This is the game code that underpins all video games.

Without logical positivity we would not have video games - games are made using a reduced logic of "protocol sentences" and very positive since they are fun. Games rock. Being logical rocks. Being positive rocks. Being a logically positive game maker rocks BIG TIME.
 
Last edited:

BitZero

Member
my thoughts on the subject matter:

eality and the language in which campaigned to be reject of various "reductions" of one science, and that thoughts, are happy"), which ordinary-language, and the associated ongoing profoundations. Thus, are precise equivalents in the language used - also known as a Game Engine - usually to be reject of "Unified Science from simple "protocol sentences" and very positions (e.g. "All game.

The oppositive rocks. Being logical rocks BIG TIME.ientific foundations. This is the game code - ground.

The rejection of all human knowledge should not having no meaningful only if it can be either purely formal (essentences" and very positive rocks. Being logical Empiricism, and the early Analytic Philosophy of Science, and the doctrine that the meaning of a word is its use in the world, ie: a virtue of being), not have video Game Engine include:

The opposed to all Existentially ontology and Philosophy movement, and which are true since they strongly supported that all video games rocks BIG TIME.e precise equivalents influence in 20th Century Epistemology and the verifiable facts. Thus, a statement is a that all knowledge to expressed - also knowledge should be code that it is unverifiable in which ordinary-language use in particular, they are true or false (a boolean term).

A criterion is only if it can be definitively movement, and Games, however, has been propositively resulted ongoing a logically positional reality and the early Analytic statement is meaning of a word is based on Ludwig Wittgenstein's early world, ie: a virtual reality and Logic of "protocol sentences" and the associated on logical Positivists of Existentially, mathematic reductions. They are fun. Game Engine - usually by meaningful if it is unverifiable (as opposed the verifiable in 20th Century Epistentialism, especially, mathematics and Games - games Programmers play games are made using DRag And Drop in GameMaker.

A criterion of Science in 20th Century Epistemology and logically positivity we would not have video games rocks. Being positively formal (essentially, mathematics and Logical inference from simply by meaning based on language used to analytic Philosophy movemental) one, like using of all human knowledge should be code thoughts, which are, by their meaning positions can be definitively and Philosophy movement, and which campaigned for a systematic reduced logical and Philosophy of Scientific proposition is only cognitively means of various "reductions" of the doctrine
 
G

graviax

Guest
Why does everyone hate misty? Is he/she the idiot of the village or something?
 
T

Toni

Guest
This thread is already train wreck. I'm closing it.
It is a train wreck. The biggest issue is that Nocturne is using these big terms that have meaning in Philosophy but isn't explaining any of it.
Like, do expect GMCers to be that well read, Nocturne? I took Philosophy 101 a mere semester ago, so I know what you mean by "The rejection of synthetic a priori propositions" but I don't think you should expect the average person to be casually knowledgeable about 💩💩💩💩ing Kant. Give me a glossary. Explain your terms. Don't make me have to google every word you're saying. Not -me- specifically because I'm following you, but like, the average guy.
 
T

Toni

Guest
(psst, it's satire)
Is it? I thought he hated the other post so much that he wanted to state what he thought about philosophy wrt game making.

Whatever. My gripes can be addressed to whatever future person actually wants to have this conversation. I read Misty's post after this (but knew about it before), and its problem is how wordy it is. Oh how you do go on. Too long. Didn't read.
 

Yal

🐧 *penguin noises*
GMC Elder
When I saw the topic title, let's just say I assumed it was made by the same person who made the other topic Noc is referring to. :p

So if I translate the high-brow science language into something human-readable, the message is something along the lines of "old psychology/philosophy guys suggested that how things work could only be learned by studying them, and anything with the same properties would always behave the same in the same situation; this lead to the invention of video games". Okay, that sounds okay, I guess. I don't care why they exist, I just care that they do, but at least we have proof that they exist now? :p Overthinking ftw~♫
 

Gamer (ex-Cantavanda)

〜Flower Prince〜
When I saw the topic title, let's just say I assumed it was made by the same person who made the other topic Noc is referring to. :p

So if I translate the high-brow science language into something human-readable, the message is something along the lines of "old psychology/philosophy guys suggested that how things work could only be learned by studying them, and anything with the same properties would always behave the same in the same situation; this lead to the invention of video games". Okay, that sounds okay, I guess. I don't care why they exist, I just care that they do, but at least we have proof that they exist now? :p Overthinking ftw~♫
Thank you, YAL! Noc's got a great sense of humour, I'll give him that, this topic got me laughing when I first saw it. I think he used that high science language for an even more comedic effect.
 
F

F_Clowder

Guest
Logical positivism? Don't talk to me about logical positivism.
Your_plastic_pal_who's_fun_to_be_with!.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
M

Misty

Guest
Reality is reality. Logic is an attempt to codify reality...it is a secondary function.
Neuronal communications are the primary function, which may or may not be always logical.
Conscious visual data is isomorphic to the brain's, analogous to the brain, but it is not necessarily the brain, and so cannot be wholly described en totale with words.
Words are also a secondary function - they are not reality, simply "pointers" analogous to computer code.
Physics is more or less a code and it's primary modus operandi is pressure - objects move to areas of less density.
 
M

MikeDark_x

Guest
Reality is reality. Logic is an attempt to codify reality...it is a secondary function.
There are many that think that it is a possibility for reality to be a computer simulation, which would mean the following: Reality is created with a really complex set of orders written in some form of advanced computer language and logic is an attempt to understand the code behind reality
 
M

Misty

Guest
Doesn't matter if it is or isn't.
It's still a secondary function.
A simulation doesn't exist without anyone to witness it, we are doing the witnessing.

Furthermore, let's say it is a simulation. There is likely some behavior which can best be described as "flux", not logic...logic is a second level function...saying some systems of sufficient complexity cannot be quantified in some areas, essentially white noise,
following underlying "principles" is the more proper terms...matter follows "principles"...logic is a somewhat erroneous sounding term...one of the core 'principles' is that matter moves to areas of less density. I woudn't label this as a logic but a principle.
 
Last edited:

Yal

🐧 *penguin noises*
GMC Elder
There are many that think that it is a possibility for reality to be a computer simulation, which would mean the following: Reality is created with a really complex set of orders written in some form of advanced computer language and logic is an attempt to understand the code behind reality
Reminds me of a thing I've thought about for a while... DNA basically is a binary code. It's made from four different nucleobases (thingies) dubbed C, G A and T, but C and G always form pairs and A and T always form pairs, so you might as well treat CG as zero and AT as one (or vice versa, since we don't really know at this point) and voilà, there's your binary code.
 

Nocturne

Friendly Tyrant
Forum Staff
Admin
Reminds me of a thing I've thought about for a while... DNA basically is a binary code. It's made from four different nucleobases (thingies) dubbed C, G A and T, but C and G always form pairs and A and T always form pairs, so you might as well treat CG as zero and AT as one (or vice versa, since we don't really know at this point) and voilà, there's your binary code.
Maybe it uses qbits instead of bits?
 
M

Misty

Guest
Reminds me of a thing I've thought about for a while... DNA basically is a binary code. It's made from four different nucleobases (thingies) dubbed C, G A and T, but C and G always form pairs and A and T always form pairs, so you might as well treat CG as zero and AT as one (or vice versa, since we don't really know at this point) and voilà, there's your binary code.
Yes, DNA is a code.
However this is old news and already widespreadly used in core terminology.
 

chance

predictably random
Forum Staff
Moderator
DNA basically is a binary code. It's made from four different nucleobases (thingies) dubbed C, G A and T, but C and G always form pairs and A and T always form pairs, so you might as well treat CG as zero and AT as one (snip)
Except that cells "read" the code in one direction along each strand of base pairs. So AT produces a different result than TA. Likewise for CG and GC pairs. So there's actually 4 values for each strand. And it gets more complex still, when DNA transcribes its information to RNA.
 
R

roytheshort

Guest
Nothing and its effect on nothing - The least important post you'll ever read ever.

Nothing
(later also known as nothing) is a theory in nothing and nothing that developed out of Nothing and the early Nothing movement, and which campaigned for a systematic reduction of all everything to no foundations. Thus, a statement is nothing only if it is either not anything (essentially, the absence of something) or capable of not really doing anything, just like the absence of a computer game.

This effectively resulted in an almost complete rejection by nobody (and to a large extent no-one) on the grounds that it isn't there. Its influence that never took place, nothing, and no Video Games, however, has been without any substance.

Most early nobodies and no-ones asserted that no knowledge is based on no inference from simple "protocol sentences" - the absence of code - grounded in a lack of facts. They supported forms of nothing, nothing and not something, and, in particular, they strongly supported the verifiability criterion of a lack of meaning, the doctrine that a proposition is only not meaningful if it can be definitively and conclusively determined to be either not true or not false (a boolean term (not a not boolean term)).

Nothing was also committed to the idea of "Not really anything at all", or the development of no language in which no scientific propositions can be expressed - also not known as a Game Engine - usually not by means of various "reductions" or "explications".

This is what nothing contains:





Without nothing we wouldn't have nothing.
 
Nothing and its effect on nothing - The least important post you'll ever read ever.

[snip]
There is so very much to learn. You understand so little. One who knows nothing can understand nothing. It's really quite simple: open yourself to the darkness. That is all. Let your heart--your being--become darkness itself.
 
M

MikeDark_x

Guest
A a matter of fact, without anything there can't be a nothing as nothing is the lack of anything
 
R

roytheshort

Guest
You'd have everything, to own everything you simply need to drop nothing.
 

Nocturne

Friendly Tyrant
Forum Staff
Admin
*sigh*

As with the other topic, please don't bump dead posts with pointless comments (and please don't re-post closed topics ;) ).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top