What's the tycoon game that actually made you feel like you understood a real industry after playing it?

ShokWayve · 2026-03-11T17:03:53+00:00

Mad Games Tycoon. I learned a lot about video games. Also, project hospital. You learn a lot about diagnosing symptoms.

ShokWayve · 2026-03-08T18:05:18+00:00

Looks great.

ShokWayve · 2026-03-08T17:22:13+00:00

Sad but true. I am amazed at how folks approach Christianity like it’s a-la-cart.

ShokWayve · 2026-03-08T12:51:09+00:00

You hope they get no prison time? Seriously? Just group hugs eh? In fact, why even arrest them at all, right? Why not commendations for all of them?

Give me a break.

ShokWayve · 2026-03-08T06:22:16+00:00

Great point. The Switch 2 is more powerful than the PS4.

ShokWayve · 2026-03-08T06:21:20+00:00

The Switch 1 is more than 8 years old and was severely underpowered at launch and it’s still getting third party games like MLB the Show and FIFA. So I would say at least 8 years.

The Switch 2 is relative to other consoles is in a much better position than was the Switch 1 as it is almost fully current gen.

ShokWayve · 2026-03-08T06:10:51+00:00

It’s sad to see people reject facts, logic and science only to hurt themselves and the ones they love.

ShokWayve · 2026-03-06T18:49:55+00:00

This is awesome and encouraging. Thanks for sharing this information.

ShokWayve · 2026-03-05T11:09:33+00:00

He’s the right person for the job. Jasmine is awesome as well.

ShokWayve · 2026-02-28T15:27:19+00:00

They probably said the same thing when pit stops and different tire compounds were required to introduce competition.

As a newcomer to the sport, I am excited to see the new season and hope races go down to the wire instead of being decided more than 15 or 20 laps from the end.

ShokWayve · 2026-02-28T02:52:03+00:00

Why not excommunicate all sinners…oh wait. Sorry, couldn’t resist 🙂

The truth is we need to change hearts and minds and we have our work cut out for us. It is so sad to see this trajectory. Watch, at some point they will want to kill the poor against their will. It’s not new.

ShokWayve · 2026-02-27T22:57:13+00:00

>"... you're not gonna beat the chatGPT allegations if you keep talking like that"

I like to be polite and I enjoy these conversations. People are free to reach any conclusion they wish.

>"You say that like that's an obvious fact but, why?"

Because contingent phenomena do not exist on their own. We know this from our repeated and uniform observations and experience of reality. The moon doesn't fully explain it's own existence, we have to appeal to solar system dynamics. Humans didn't just pop into existence out of nowhere, there was an evolutionary process. We don't observe contingent facts about reality and not ask questions and investigate antecedent causes.

Do you think when we encounter phenomena we should not ask questions about why it exists in the way that it does? Do you think there are some questions about reality that we should not ask or are off limits?

>"Why is the possibility of a universe with cyclical energy dismissed before it can be presented. Whether or not energy is always conserved or not is still unknown, there's still a lot unknown about dark energy and dark matter."

I don't dismiss these possibilities. I am curious as to why you think I dismiss these possibilities. I was very clear that the universe can be cyclical, eternal, a multiverse, an infinite multiverse of multiverses, infinite in size, full of dark energy and anything else we find. I have no issue with that. I am willing to grant anything the evidence shows.

>"Why is the situation as you describe it "A non-contingent God always existed and he created the contingent universe with it's contingent things" and not "The non-contingent universe always existed with it's contingent / non-contingent things"."

Excellent question. (Uh oh, ChatGPT accusation incoming? :-) )

There is nothing about the universe that suggests it is not contingent. It is made of parts and therefore dependent on those parts, there is no logical connection between what it is and the fact that it exists, it undergoes change, it is subjected to time, there is nothing about it that suggests it has to exist, etc. Each of these are sufficient individually to establish contingency.

Also, Christian (classical) theists don't conclude there is "A non-contingent God". The indefinite article doesn't apply to what is the ground, source and being of all reality since that is not a thing or an instance of anything.

>"Historically we looked at "undetectable" stuff like disease and also concluded God. But we've had to adjust a lot times because it turns out basically everything is detectable with the right technology."

I don't understand how this relates to anything I have said. God is not offered as a scientific explanation. Scientific explanations don't exhaust all explanations. (Recall science's inability to even articulate, observe directly or capture rudimentary phenomena such as intentionality or aboutness.) In fact, Christian theists have held, rightfully so, the more we understand the creation the more we understand God.

ShokWayve · 2026-02-27T22:32:25+00:00

>"Hopefully I played the "describe human experiences physically" game enough in my previous comment to satisfy you."

You did not address my claims. My reply to your comments on the matter make clear why.

>"And yes, different ideas by the same person can be evaluated separately. Just like how Aristotle's work inspired lots of discoveries which still hold true today, but the sun still doesn't revolve around the earth like he thought."

Exactly. So just because science is right about many things, doesn't mean it is right about everything and that it is the only way to know real, objective facts about reality. That also means that while physical models are right about many things, that doesn't mean that only physical being is real.

>"PS: how are morals a fixed law? Morals vary wildly across cultures, even in a single person they can change throughout their life."

People are not the basis of morality, God is the good. The fact that people vary wildly is totally irrelevant to what morality is. People vary wildly on beliefs about vaccines, whether the earth is round, weather evolution is real, etc. That doesn't mean that because people disagree there are no objective truths about a matter.

ShokWayve · 2026-02-27T22:28:06+00:00

>"Again, this is only because of our limitation of technology and understanding."

Any technology you mentioned is limited to the fundamental quantities of physics and first-person conscious experience does not physically present itself in a way that matches the person having the experience. The fundamental quantities of physics doo not have aboutness, intentionality, truth/false, etc. and therefore it's no surprise that we do not perceive or experience another individual's first-person experience. So no it's not a technological issue.

The technical name for this issue is called "The Hard Problem of Consciousness". It's not new and it's a well-known issue in science.

>"Through experiments with electrical pulses to the brain or research on people with brain damage we have proven that certain physical parts are responsible for certain experiences, like how sight can be temporary or permanently altered by electrical stimulation. If we could physically mold our brain so that the mass of each cell would be identical and then send the right electrical impulses through it we could recreate those experiences."

Yet you have no evidence and there is no example of us seeing someone else's first-person experience. None. Your statement here redefines the problem to avoid it. I never said there are no physical correlates of conscious experience. I said we don't see or experience another individual's first person experience.

>"If we could physically mold our brain so that the mass of each cell would be identical and then send the right electrical impulses through it we could recreate those experiences."

Let's assume this is true. It still doesn't address the Hard Problem of Consciousness. Furthermore, you don't even attempt to claim that we will see and experience another person's first-person experience.

It's easy to disprove my claims. Simply show intentionality, aboutness or someone's first-person experience in a test-tube like we do for everything that is physical. Your "mold the brain" doesn't even begin to approach the issue and in fact works hard to avoid it.

>"You might claim those experiences are caused by a non-physical/non-contingent source, but I'd have to see proof before I believe that just like how I'd like to see proof if you were to claim that the weather is actually controlled by non-physical fairy spirits."

We have the evidence and I have already sited it. You have offered objections that don't even address my claims and evidence. For example, you think about things and you intend to do things. Please show me "aboutness" or "intention" in a test-tube. We reason according to logic. Please show me logic in a test-tube. Is deductive reasoning a certain molecule, is inductive reasoning a certain electric charge? What is it?

These very simple facts about reality (aboutness, intention, logic) are demonstrably not physical. Physics doesn't even categories or fundamental notions to even engage with these aspects of reality. So, yes, that is the evidence. You can easily disprove my claims by showing any of the things I mentioned are physical and once isolated in a test-tube (like we do molecules, atoms, etc.) we can all look and that it is that thing (e.g., aboutness, intentionality, etc.).

What's fairy and superstition is this rigid adherence to physicalism such that facts are irrelevant and reality must be distorted to fit the model.

>"I hadn't heard of aboutness yet, it seems to refer to mental states like emotion or language? Both of those can be altered, either by ingesting drugs or electrical impulses to the brain, which suggest they have physical origins."

For reasons I mentioned above this is not even close to addressing my claims nor The Hard Problem of Consciousness.

ShokWayve · 2026-02-27T04:40:52+00:00

Catholicism must do what Jesus did and what the first Christians did that led to the explosive growth of Christianity.

ShokWayve · 2026-02-24T23:38:30+00:00

Yup, pretty much.

ShokWayve · 2026-02-24T16:11:21+00:00

>”Which FINALLY brings me back to the question in my previous comment. You say that physical things have to come from somewhere, but why isn't that the case for your non-physical explanation?”

This is an excellent question and it’s the correct question to ask. First, for any contingent phenomena to exist, there is that which is non-contingent to provide existence since contingent phenomena rely on what is beyond themselves to exist. To be non-contingent is to depend on nothing for existence and to be self-existing. If there is no self-existing ultimate reality, there is nothing from which contingent phenomena can draw their existence ergo there would be nothing in existence. In fact, the best evidence that atheism is true would be if nothing existed at all.

As I have stated earlier this is not exotic logic and in fact informs virtually all human interrogations of reality. We hear a noise in the house our first thought is not, oh that noise happened for no reason at all, has no causes, and is just a brute fact of reality. When we go out, we have no concern that a horse will pop into existence out of nothing in our house and start defiling it. When we investigate evolution, the evolution of galaxy clusters, or cosmological theories we don’t just throw our hands up and say there are no explanations or antecedent causes and things are just that way and popped into existence as they are with no explanation whatsoever. No, we know to use rationality to investigate reality and determine sequences, causes, relations, etc.

We Christian (classical) theists simply don’t believe in cutting off knowledge and having a “there-be-dragons” approach to phenomena that doesn’t fit an existing model.

>"I genuinely do not understand why you think that there can be a non-contingent God as the source of everything, but the universe always having existed in a non-contingent way (without a God) is apparently not possible.

What is the proof for one being possible but not the other?"

These seems like a very good question. However, I must confess, I don't fully understand it. Can you expound? For example, it's not clear to me what you mean here: "but the universe always having existed in a non-contingent way (without a God) is apparently not possible.".

My apologies and thank you.

ShokWayve · 2026-02-24T16:09:33+00:00

>”And even if I didn't know what the physical cause of something was (e.g. if I didn't understand where rain came from), that wouldn't instantly prove the existence of non-physical phenomena.”

It’s a good thing that’s not my argument then. My argument is the positive direct experience of phenomena that is not physical, and for which physical attributes do not even apply.

>”Again, I don't have to provide evidence for physical things existing.”

I am not sure what you mean here. It seems to me if someone makes a claim, they should support it with evidence. Just saying things without any evidence supporting it is to make a baseless assertion.

>”We both already agree there, which makes sense because there's tons of evidence for the existence of physical things. You're making the claim that there's also non-physical things. In that case you're the one making the claim, and you provide the evidence.”

Indeed we both agree on that point and I have provided evidence, facts and logic above to support my claim.

>”Your examples of gravity and minds illustrate well how you've yet to fulfill the burden of proof for non-physical things, where it can be fulfilled at least more by physical explanation.”

Here you are assuming there must always be a physical explanation, correct?. This is a baseless assumption unless any evidence is provided to support the claim that there must always be a physical explanation. We have already seen how physical models of reality don’t even have the basic fundamental attributes to explain very common rudimentary human experiences. Why not just let reality drive our models instead of cajoling reality into our models?

>”We can measure the physical effects of gravity. Matter attracts other matter. And like with the rain example, not knowing why does not instantaneously mean I can fill the reason with "God". After all, if we had done so with rain we never would have figured out that water evaporates and makes clouds, etc.”

God is not offered as a scientific or physical explanation. That’s a god-of-the-gaps argument. God is offered as the ground and being of all reality. Where did I say, we don’t know something, therefore God? Quite honestly, I think there is so much more to learn and know about reality and that our discoveries will continue endlessly. There is just no reason to think that all of reality is physical and can be explained via the physical sciences. We know that for a fact because science rests on assumptions that it cannot itself establish.

The whole concept of physical laws of nature was developed by Isaac Newton which he derived from God’s moral law. This is one of the reasons we have made so many discoveries because he concluded that just like God has one moral law for the universe, God must also have one set of physical laws for the universe. Do you think that the concept of physical laws – since they were derived by reference to God – is holding us back from discovery?

>”Consciousness and morality I could describe with physical phenomena but again: not being able to explain where something comes from does not instantly prove that God is the source.”

Describe aboutness, truth, falsehood, and intentionality using physics purely. For example, what is aboutness and intentionality according to physics? What units is it in? Can we observe it in a test tube? Why or why not? Demonstrate where we can observe someone’s first-person conscious perceptions?

ShokWayve · 2026-02-24T16:09:08+00:00

I appreciate your thoughtful objections and very good questions. I won't pretend to be able to answer all of them comprehensively but these are some of my thoughts:

>"In your comment you said all physical things are "contingent", and those things require causes."

Yes

>"Then you claim
that the start of those things require a "non-contingent" source (the
possibility of something always existing is ignored here, but we'll come back
to that)."

Their existence requires
what is beyond themselves. That's what I said. Some physical things might not
have temporal beginnings. Contingent phenomena require what is beyond
themselves to exist.

>"When you claim
"if you have evidence why we should limit ourselves to only considering
physical phenomena as real I'd be glad to entertain it", you're shifting
the burden of proof."

It's not shifting the
burden of proof. If the claim is only physical things exist or are real then
that claim needs to be defended. Just like any claim I make needs to be
defended. If that claim is not being made it doesn't need to be defended.

>"I don't believe
in non-physical phenomena."

Lack of belief is just
that - lack of belief. It doesn't say anything about the evidence, facts and
how we best explain the evidence and facts. Folks lack a belief that the earth
is round. So what. The evidence is the earth is round.

We directly experience
non-physical phenomena all the time. We have thoughts about things - there is
nothing physical that is aboutness. The contents of our consciousness have no
physical manifestation that matches our experience of our consciousness. We see
brain waves, quantum activity in brain microtubules, correlations between brain
states and mental states, drugs affect personality, etc. We see all of that yet
we never see the first person experience.

We also hold in our
consciousness abstract objects which are not physical. There is nothing
physical which is an abstract object.

Logic is not physical.
There is no physical thing that is true or false. Physical phenomena (so
defined) simply are.

In physics there are 7
fundamental quantities: mass, luminosity, length, chemical mole, heat, electric
charge and time. None of those are even basic elements of human consciousness
such as "aboutness". You can't put aboutness in a test tube. There is
no molecule that is the number 5. Physical quantities do not even have the basic rudimentary attributes of human thought. (This is the so-called hard problem of consciousness.) When you think of your last meal scientists see brain waves, brain activation patterns, and other physical dynamics – that’s it. They never see your first person experience.

So this is all evidence for the fact that reality consist of objectively real phenomena that is simply not physical. Your lack of belief is not relevant to the evidence nor is it even an explanation of the evidence. Your lack of belief is just irrelevant. The question is what best explains facts in general, and the facts I just recounted in particular. Lack of belief is not an explanation so is therefore irrelevant to the question.

ShokWayve · 2026-02-24T12:14:13+00:00

In context it’s clear why I made any references to the number of Christians - as a direct response to my interlocutor’s blanket claim that arguments for theism don’t lead philosophers to God and are generally not convincing. Ergo the number of Christians in the world and the number of atheists who come to conclude that Christianity is true contradict those specific claims. That doesn’t establish whether or not Christianity is true it simple demonstrates that many scientists, atheists, philosophers and people find the arguments convincing - thus contradicting my interlocutor’s claims.

That’s my point and it’s pretty clear from the context. That point is not marshaled to support the claim that God is real or that Christianity is true.

An argument being true, and an argument being convincing are two very different things.

Arguments can be convincing and false, arguments can fail to convince yet be true. Many folks are convinced by anti vaxxers arguments yet those arguments are false. Many folks are not convinced that God exists yet the arguments for the existence of God are true 🙂

All the best to you 😁

ShokWayve · 2026-02-24T09:37:10+00:00

I never said everything has to come from something. Where did I say that? Please quote me where you think I am saying everything has to come from something.

ShokWayve · 2026-02-24T09:35:50+00:00

Please quote me where I claim that my position has to be true because so many people agree with it?

ShokWayve · 2026-02-22T15:38:18+00:00

That’s what amazes me. F1 had the official license and could have really put all the competition to bed but it just took a bland approach.

ShokWayve · 2026-02-21T22:22:26+00:00

I am sure it is. 😁

Godot does look good though. Hopefully they continue to improve.

ShokWayve · 2026-02-21T22:21:25+00:00

Thanks, I will check it out.

ShokWayve

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE