Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion General Discussion => Topic started by: stechafle on April 03, 2020, 03:34:39 pm
-
I miss playing Dominion in person. :-\
-
You can play dominion in person? :o
-
right after i sleeved everything too :/
-
Jokes on you guys, the only person that ever plays with me irl lives with me.
-
Oh wow. The world is in such a state that the title of this thread made me fear a far darker subject matter. /-8
-
Jokes on you guys, the only person that ever plays with me irl lives with me.
Not the only person for me, but I do play with my family.
-
I shudder at the thought of truly randomize a card for Way of the Mouse without help of a computer.
-
I shudder at the thought of truly randomize a card for Way of the Mouse without help of a computer.
Just draw a card from a shuffled randomizer deck; repeat until the card you draw costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) or (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png).
The thought that should make you shudder is trying to get a computer to do true randomization...
-
I shudder at the thought of truly randomize a card for Way of the Mouse without help of a computer.
Just draw a card from a shuffled randomizer deck; repeat until the card you draw costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) or (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png).
The thought that should make you shudder is trying to get a computer to do true randomization...
Why do people only bring this up with computerized "randomization"? Technically, shuffling a deck and rolling dice aren't true randomization either, but we call them close enough.
-
Indeed. Modern hardware, and modern OSes, have extremely good random number generators.
When we question their quality, we're wondering whether someone collecting a terabyte of their output and feeding it to a supercomputer could spot it wasn't truly random. That it's better than a human shuffling a deck of cards is not in question. (-8
-
I shudder at the thought of truly randomize a card for Way of the Mouse without help of a computer.
Just draw a card from a shuffled randomizer deck; repeat until the card you draw costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) or (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png).
It's not like Mouse's "card costing 2 or 3" is new either. Young Witch's Bane already had the same requirement, and I don't remember hearing anyone complain about that being particularly difficult
-
Anyone I'd play with IRL has since gotten married (not to me) and I no longer have as frequent contact with them or they've moved away so online dominion has really taken over as the main way I play, even if I do play it with someone I know and/or am related to.
I have all the expansions IRL except Menagerie and a few of the Promos. This includes the first edition base game/intrigue (although my 1st edition Intrigue box is not in good shape because somewhere between when Dark Ages and Adventures were the most recent expansions, I'd experimented with carrying all my Dominion cards in that box and that ended ...badly for the box, as evidenced by it being held together with duct tape now) with the replacement 2nd edition cards. I'm sure I'll probably get Menagerie IRL at some point just so I can have a complete collection of boxes at least.
-
This quarantine - and not being able to play tennis - has made me rediscover old hobbies. According to this board, I haven't logged on here since 2014.
I see there's this new dominion.games thing. Goko's gone.
I wonder if any old forum names I still remember are around. I see -Stef- is a moderator on some board here.
There's so many new expansions.
-
This quarantine - and not being able to play tennis - has made me rediscover old hobbies. According to this board, I haven't logged on here since 2014.
I see there's this new dominion.games thing. Goko's gone.
I wonder if any old forum names I still remember are around. I see -Stef- is a moderator on some board here.
There's so many new expansions.
Stef is the guy who makes dominion.games.
-
This quarantine - and not being able to play tennis - has made me rediscover old hobbies. According to this board, I haven't logged on here since 2014.
Tennis is literally one of the last things you can do! Because it’s played at such distance.
At least, it’s still permitted in LA.
-
This quarantine - and not being able to play tennis - has made me rediscover old hobbies. According to this board, I haven't logged on here since 2014.
I see there's this new dominion.games thing. Goko's gone.
I wonder if any old forum names I still remember are around. I see -Stef- is a moderator on some board here.
There's so many new expansions.
Stef is the guy who makes dominion.games.
No wonder it's good! I just started playing there, just played some bot games to remember the cards. It's pretty neat. Looking at their boards, it's by Stef and werothegreat? Awesome stuff. I remember those guys were really cool people and really good at dominion, probably both still true.
-
Yes, Stef doesn't appear on the leaderboard anymore, but if he did, he'd be somewhere near the top.
-
Oh wow. The world is in such a state that the title of this thread made me fear a far darker subject matter. /-8
The republic of Ireland is dead. :P
-
I shudder at the thought of truly randomize a card for Way of the Mouse without help of a computer.
Just draw a card from a shuffled randomizer deck; repeat until the card you draw costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) or (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png).
The thought that should make you shudder is trying to get a computer to do true randomization...
hey buddy the dominion paradox's thread is over here http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20243.0 (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20243.0)
-
I shudder at the thought of truly randomize a card for Way of the Mouse without help of a computer.
Just draw a card from a shuffled randomizer deck; repeat until the card you draw costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) or (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/32/Coin3.png/16px-Coin3.png).
The thought that should make you shudder is trying to get a computer to do true randomization...
Why do people only bring this up with computerized "randomization"? Technically, shuffling a deck and rolling dice aren't true randomization either, but we call them close enough.
because Nerds :P
-
Only previously unknown digits of pi are truly random.
-
Only previously unknown digits of pi are truly random.
I feel like those are totally not random, they're just unknown to us.
The most random thing I can think of is using something like the rate of decay of a radioactive substance. Depending on your view of quantum mechanics, this is either as good as random or it is truly random.
-
Randomness is about a lack of feasible means of predicting outcomes. Even in these quantum reactions, I believe there's a tiny undiscovered coppersmith-quark or scout-quark that all along would have dictated a certain rate of radioactive decay by its presence, we just don't have a way of observing it and understanding it.
If you are three and watching your first Disney movie of your whole life, whether the villains will cruelly end the plucky protagonists' life or fall to the protagonists' ingenuity and bravery can be equally random, it's a matter of perspective.
My comment about pi, based on its circular logic that renders it useless from any sort of application with utility, seems philosophically correct to me.
-
Randomness is about a lack of feasible means of predicting outcomes. Even in these quantum reactions, I believe there's a tiny undiscovered coppersmith-quark or scout-quark that all along would have dictated a certain rate of radioactive decay by its presence, we just don't have a way of observing it and understanding it.
The laws of quantum mechanics, if they are right (and they seem to be), show that it is literally impossible, even if we knew every single thing about the quantum state, to know what the outcome will be. Like I said, this is either as good as random or it is truly random. In either case, it's as good as random.
-
Randomness is about a lack of feasible means of predicting outcomes. Even in these quantum reactions, I believe there's a tiny undiscovered coppersmith-quark or scout-quark that all along would have dictated a certain rate of radioactive decay by its presence, we just don't have a way of observing it and understanding it.
The laws of quantum mechanics, if they are right (and they seem to be), show that it is literally impossible, even if we knew every single thing about the quantum state, to know what the outcome will be. Like I said, this is either as good as random or it is truly random. In either case, it's as good as random.
I don't think that's true. Not that I'm a physicist, but I think the laws of quantum mechanics say there is a spectrum of outcomes that all happen. (Under the MW interpretation, which is almost certainly correct.)
-
Randomness is about a lack of feasible means of predicting outcomes. Even in these quantum reactions, I believe there's a tiny undiscovered coppersmith-quark or scout-quark that all along would have dictated a certain rate of radioactive decay by its presence, we just don't have a way of observing it and understanding it.
The laws of quantum mechanics, if they are right (and they seem to be), show that it is literally impossible, even if we knew every single thing about the quantum state, to know what the outcome will be. Like I said, this is either as good as random or it is truly random. In either case, it's as good as random.
I don't think that's true. Not that I'm a physicist, but I think the laws of quantum mechanics say there is a spectrum of outcomes that all happen. (Under the MW interpretation, which is almost certainly correct.)
I also am relatively uneducated here; but as I understand it, the spectrum of outcomes that all happen only all happen until the event is observed. Once we observe it; a specific outcome happens, and which one it will be is fully unpredictable even if we knew everything about the starting inputs and the rules that govern what happens based on those inputs.
-
Randomness is about a lack of feasible means of predicting outcomes. Even in these quantum reactions, I believe there's a tiny undiscovered coppersmith-quark or scout-quark that all along would have dictated a certain rate of radioactive decay by its presence, we just don't have a way of observing it and understanding it.
The laws of quantum mechanics, if they are right (and they seem to be), show that it is literally impossible, even if we knew every single thing about the quantum state, to know what the outcome will be. Like I said, this is either as good as random or it is truly random. In either case, it's as good as random.
I don't think that's true. Not that I'm a physicist, but I think the laws of quantum mechanics say there is a spectrum of outcomes that all happen. (Under the MW interpretation, which is almost certainly correct.)
I also am relatively uneducated here; but as I understand it, the spectrum of outcomes that all happen only all happen until the event is observed. Once we observe it; a specific outcome happens, and which one it will be is fully unpredictable even if we knew everything about the starting inputs and the rules that govern what happens based on those inputs.
No no, that's the Copenhagen interpretation. That's the theory of the-spontaneous-wave-function-collapse-that-happens-for-no-reason-whatsoever-except-that-the-alternative-is-scary. Under that interpretation, yes there is real non-determinism. But under the Many worlds interpretation there isn't.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Nature
-
I don't think that's true. Not that I'm a physicist, but I think the laws of quantum mechanics say there is a spectrum of outcomes that all happen. (Under the MW interpretation, which is almost certainly correct.)
The MW interpretation (which I am strongly against philosophically) falls under "as good as random". In the particular world we are in, we don't know which outcome will happen.
-
I don't think that's true. Not that I'm a physicist, but I think the laws of quantum mechanics say there is a spectrum of outcomes that all happen. (Under the MW interpretation, which is almost certainly correct.)
The MW interpretation (which I am strongly against philosophically) falls under "as good as random". In the particular world we are in, we don't know which outcome will happen.
All outcomes happen.
-
Unless you have an experiment in which the Many Worlds interpretation offers different results from the others, that interpretation is as good or bad as any other. In practice, the results of observing a quantum system are random (with the exception of entanglement and so on).
-
So, after the experiment happened, you don't know what world you're in, and I'm in favor of calling that uncertainty randomness. But from your pov before the experiment, there is no randomness. Every outcome happens and you're witnessing all of them.
-
This thread:
(https://sites.google.com/site/dajangbandwebsite/my-pathfinder-setting-stuff/character-classes/TrainIntotheAbyss.jpg)
-
I don't think that's true. Not that I'm a physicist, but I think the laws of quantum mechanics say there is a spectrum of outcomes that all happen. (Under the MW interpretation, which is almost certainly correct.)
The MW interpretation (which I am strongly against philosophically) falls under "as good as random". In the particular world we are in, we don't know which outcome will happen.
All outcomes happen.
Yes, but we don't know which one we will observe, and as I said before, it's as good as random, even if it is not actually random.
-
I don't think that's true. Not that I'm a physicist, but I think the laws of quantum mechanics say there is a spectrum of outcomes that all happen. (Under the MW interpretation, which is almost certainly correct.)
The MW interpretation (which I am strongly against philosophically) falls under "as good as random". In the particular world we are in, we don't know which outcome will happen.
All outcomes happen.
Yes, but we don't know which one we will observe, and as I said before, it's as good as random, even if it is not actually random.
You observe all of them.
It's easy to get trapped thinking one outcome will happen. I've noticed it with myself. Even though I think about MW all the time, at one point I was still thinking "man I hope I'll be in one of the worlds where Trump loses the election" before remembering that I'm guaranteed to be both in worlds where he does and in worlds where he doesn't. If there's a quantum experiment, there is no randomness as to which result you observe; you observe all of them. Only once the experiment has passed does it make sense to think about which one happened.
-
You observe all of them.
It's easy to get trapped thinking one outcome will happen. I've noticed it with myself. Even though I think about MW all the time, at one point I was still thinking "man I hope I'll be in one of the worlds where Trump loses the election" before remembering that I'm guaranteed to be both in worlds where he does and in worlds where he doesn't. If there's a quantum experiment, there is no randomness as to which result you observe; you observe all of them. Only once the experiment has passed does it make sense to think about which one happened.
But it's still as good as random for any purpose you would want something random.
-
I want the kind of random where I can cheat at gambling and make more money than everyone else for as long as I don't get caught. Can quantum mechanics help me do that?
Netrunner seems to think it can
-
But it's still as good as random for any purpose you would want something random.
Yes, that's true.
-
Agreed. And to amplify:
Not only can we safely consider quantum effects random for practical purposes such as Dominion shuffling, but the various contender physical models agree that there's nothing more random available.
-
Is Zach Weiner (SMBC) a Dominion player, or is this just coincidence?
(this comic posted yesterday)
(https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/1587135341-20200417.png)
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/interpretation
-
SMBC has done quantum mechanics many times, so I wouldn't look for a connection there.
Also seething chaos looks exactly like hyperdeterminism. MWI is a poor way to frame what's actually happening. There's no branching. There are just multiple universes and you don't know which set you're in yet, for a particular event that hasn't happened.
-
I miss playing Dominion in person. :-\
why? You must really like shuffling.
I own 5 sets and if in the same room I'd rather each person get on their own device and play online.
-
I miss playing Dominion in person. :-\
why? You must really like shuffling.
I own 5 sets and if in the same room I'd rather each person get on their own device and play online.
cant add your own homebrew cards to the shuffleit client
-
I miss playing Dominion in person. :-\
why? You must really like shuffling.
I own 5 sets and if in the same room I'd rather each person get on their own device and play online.
I’ve never played online. I own everything up to Renaissance.
Yes, it is difficult to find people who are interested in playing.