Transport Tycoon Forums

I might write to a few local papers. If they get wind there's a Welsh language game out there, imagine the good publicity!

Mr. X wrote:

Sapphire united wrote:

Mr. X wrote:Congratulations!

Lots of breaktroughs, fixes and updates. Finally a stable upgrade from 0.6.0 which was getting pretty much to the dark ages.

If 6.0 was the dark ages, then what Micropose did would be... lets see.. prehistoric?

Nope, it would be the creation of the Earth (TTO). It actually is the creation itself.

That would make Mr Sawyer God.

can you prove that he is not?

Eddi wrote:can you prove that he is not?

sure.
Let's assume Mr. Sawyer is god.
As everyone knows, god is almighty.
Thus, Mr. Sawyer is almighty.
Being almighty means that you can do everything.
Special cases of "do everything" are "hammering a nail into a tree such that no one can remove it again" and "removing any nail that has been hammered into a tree previously".
A special case of "no one" is "not Mr. Sawyer", and a special case of "any nail from a tree" is "aforementioned nail from aforementioned tree".

Thus, Mr. Sawyer can a) hammer a nail into a tree such that he himself cannot remove it again, and b) remove aforementioned nail from the tree.
This is obviously a contradiction, which means our assumption that Mr. Sawyer is god is wrong.

Thus, Mr. Sawyer is not god.

Roujin wrote:"hammering a nail into a tree such that no one can remove it again"

the flaw is in this statement. you presume that a supposed "god" is in the set of people that is referenced by "no one [from this implicit set of people]"

Eddi wrote:

Roujin wrote:"hammering a nail into a tree such that no one can remove it again"

the flaw is in this statement. you presume that a supposed "god" is in the set of people that is referenced by "no one [from this implicit set of people]"

Surely then if you qualify it with "hammering a nail into a tree such that no one who isnt a god can remove it again" then this implies that he can't "hammer a nail into a tree such that god can remove it again", meaning that Chris Sawyer might be a god, but he is NOT omnipotent.

This means that mere mortals, say the OpenTTD developers, can hope to attain or even exceed his level of greatness, and make a better game than TTD.

Have you ever thought about the idea, you could be God yourself and you could have created everything just because you got bored? And at least you've made yourself mortal and forgot about your creation?

CU,

Don

Zutty wrote:

Eddi wrote:

Roujin wrote:"hammering a nail into a tree such that no one can remove it again"

the flaw is in this statement. you presume that a supposed "god" is in the set of people that is referenced by "no one [from this implicit set of people]"

Surely then if you qualify it with "hammering a nail into a tree such that no one who isnt a god can remove it again" then this implies that he can't "hammer a nail into a tree such that god can remove it again", meaning that Chris Sawyer might be a god, but he is NOT omnipotent.

This means that mere mortals, say the OpenTTD developers, can hope to attain or even exceed his level of greatness, and make a better game than TTD.

that's a misconception of the word "omnipotent". basically, what the above proves is that a person that is "omnipotent" in a given universe cannot be member of that universe. ergo, a person that is "omnipotent" must be member of a higher level universe [in which he is potentially not omnipotent].

instances of these are seen in the Star Trek universe, where Q is "omnipotent" from the human's point of view, but not within the Q Continuum.

Roujin wrote:Thus, Mr. Sawyer can a) hammer a nail into a tree such that he himself cannot remove it again, and b) remove aforementioned nail from the tree. This is obviously a contradiction, which means our assumption that Mr. Sawyer is god is wrong.

One point where this 'proof' goes wrong is that it is trying to describe something undescribable with ordinary, human, words. If God is really omnipotent, then he can always hammer the nail into the tree in a way that no-one can remove it, erase the current universe, start from the beginning again and not hammer the nail into the tree, and the effect would be exactly the same as if he had removed it, except that he didn't have to. Nowhere in your 'proof' is it mentioned that anyone else had to watch him doing it.

(Sorry for using he, him but English doesn't have a genderless pronoun suitable for Gods - unless it should be 'It' with a capital 'I')

AndersI wrote:

Roujin wrote:Thus, Mr. Sawyer can a) hammer a nail into a tree such that he himself cannot remove it again, and b) remove aforementioned nail from the tree. This is obviously a contradiction, which means our assumption that Mr. Sawyer is god is wrong.

One point where this 'proof' goes wrong is that it is trying to describe something undescribable with ordinary, human, words. If God is really omnipotent, then he can always hammer the nail into the tree in a way that no-one can remove it, erase the current universe, start from the beginning again and not hammer the nail into the tree, and the effect would be exactly the same as if he had removed it, except that he didn't have to. Nowhere in your 'proof' is it mentioned that anyone else had to watch him doing it.

(Sorry for using he, him but English doesn't have a genderless pronoun suitable for Gods - unless it should be 'It' with a capital 'I')

If its a different nail then he didn't remove it.
If its the same nail then he didn't hammer it in correctly.

Any idiot could burn the tree down along with the nail, and then plant it again. I'm sure a horticulturalist could explain to us how to plant the same tree twice.

I think wrangling with the proof is not the way to squirm out of this, but rather to change the definition of omnipotent.

Eddi - Does that imply then that... A) I am god of some lesser universe (rabbits, maybe), B) there is some kind of god-god higher up, C) that TNG was the best series of Star Trek.

no, it does not imply those statement, but they still can be true. e.g. you can be "god" [root] of your "universe" [computer]. but also DS9 could be better than TNG.

How much more complicated can it get when one assumes a 'godly nail'.

I find it quite amusing how fast a discussion about god changes into a discussion about star trek

DonRazzi: lol, what a funny theory. Can't say anything against it though.

I find it quite unhappy how discussion about OpenTTD 0.7.0 changes into discussion about god and then into discussion about star trek.
What about keeping the OpenTTD 0.7.0 topic?

SmatZ wrote:OpenTTD 0.7.0

What now?






Sorry, couldn't resist. Please have post removed if inappropriate.

Perhaps we misunderstood the task.

He hammers the nail into the tree such that it can never be removed from that tree iself.

He then removes the other nails by splitting parts off the tree. The nails have not actually been removed from the tree specifically, they remain as embedded in the wood as before, but by virtue of the tree itself being seperated past the physical limits of the nail it has indeed seperated from the tree.

Hey, I don't make the rules. If you kick someone from IRC after a netsplit, are they really gone?

Inane religious bumph? In a good news everyone thread? Good gravy, guys...

Hooray, an 0.7.0 has appeared...