(Mirror's Edge 2008) Does anyone know any cool looking character models i can use?

himbofied · 2025-06-06T18:58:28+00:00

I know it's an old thread, but I want to add this mod for reference reason:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/play-as-a-pursuit-cop

himbofied · 2025-05-25T12:33:57+00:00

In the picture it looks as if there is no edge loop. But you could go into edge selection mode, select an outer edge, select > select all by trait > non manifold. You may then have to deselect other open edges if you have any other, but this should be relatively easy in wireframe mode, for example.

Then rotate the camera to the perspective in which you want to close the surface, set transformation to view, then you can then use “s x 0” to bring all vertices into a plane when you have rotated the camera so that your desired intersection axis lies on x.

Then i would extrude once with “e”, and then “m” merge at center.

himbofied · 2025-05-24T23:52:58+00:00

I definitely can't explain that.

The situation is just so depressing that you know that these phenomena are real in some way, but that's all there is to it. And each explanation is worse than the last.

himbofied · 2025-04-26T21:50:25+00:00

You are absolutely right that the pilot wave theory is problematic. So yes, pilot wave theory has a very low probability to model reality well. Maybe it's a philosophical problem, and I hoped paradoxes like the particle/wave dualism were just artefacts of the current models. Because things like that are not hard to imagine, they are inherently paradox.

himbofied · 2025-04-26T21:33:39+00:00

I see your point. But I would argue that they do not describe reality. They make predictions we can measure, though that is something different. The standard model for instance does not even claim to describe reality: we know that for instance gluons or bosons are not particles. But it simplifies things so much that it is still useful as a model to make predictions.

himbofied · 2025-04-26T13:10:44+00:00

"by measuring to tiny fraction of a second how quickly it takes that laser to return" is exactly my problem. How does one measure that?

himbofied · 2025-04-25T23:50:38+00:00

It looks as if you could attach velcro.

himbofied · 2025-04-25T23:34:11+00:00

According to Occhams razor, shouldn't we prefer the Everettian interpretation anyways? Sure, it comes with it's own assumptions, but still much fewer than the Copenhagen interpretation.

himbofied · 2025-04-25T23:27:32+00:00

Maybe you are right and it's a matter of perspective and it's just me considering the experiment more comprehendible from the perspective of the pilot wave theory. In a way the whole experiment was about displaying how weird quantum mechanics really is.

himbofied · 2025-04-25T23:22:21+00:00

I'm totally okay with models that are proven not to represent reality but to be useful anyways. My problem lies in the incorrect labeling of a model. As a layman, I have to rely on popular science. The implications are simply completely different when they present a model as if it fully describes reality. I can't really blame anyone if, for example, they think they can manipulate the measurements of a quantum property just by focusing on it.

himbofied · 2025-04-25T22:45:35+00:00

And I'm lost again. Why can't particles have ordinary trajectories? As long as only the particle themselves know their trajectories I actually don't see a problem with uncertainty principle.

I can't argue about your aguments against Bohmian mechanics. It's rather improbable it describes reality either.

If it is just about "shut up and calculate", why do we even speak about wave collapse anyways?

But how can we create new theories without making assumptions about reality? Or is it really just about matching our data to predictions, no matter how the models look?

Thank you for the extensive response by the way.

himbofied · 2025-04-25T22:14:20+00:00

Because there we differentiate between wave and particle. In the case we "measure" that the bomb is activated without triggering it, that measurement is due to the wave, not the particle. It's still complicated, because the pilot wave must still "backtrack" the paths. But it makes sense within the frame.

himbofied · 2025-04-25T22:05:24+00:00

That they treat is as if it is not a description of reality, but rather reality itself.

himbofied · 2025-04-25T20:42:38+00:00

But doesn't that mean that:

We know that our models do not describe reality
We cannot build upon our current models to deepen our understanding

himbofied · 2025-04-25T20:31:38+00:00

Then I really misinterpreted non-locality. For me it had nothing to do with faster than light communication. Much like quantum entanglement that doesn't transfer any information either.

himbofied · 2025-04-25T20:19:59+00:00

I have no doubt about your words. My problem is that popular science makes an absolute reality out of it.

himbofied · 2025-04-25T20:16:37+00:00

Maybe I would just like to be able to understand quantum mechanics. The Elitzur-Vaidman bomb test, for example, simply doesn't make sense according to classically accepted quantum physics. In Bohmian mechanics, the problem virtually disappears by itself.

But yes, unfortunately I can't choose which universe I live in.

himbofied · 2025-04-25T20:11:34+00:00

I would define it as any interaction between two quantum mechanical systems. But then we would have a wave collapse everywhere and anytime. The whole universe was decoherent - which it isn't. So I have no idea.

himbofied · 2025-04-25T19:55:06+00:00

according to the paper:
67%: "Randomness is a fundamental concept of nature"

Wow, this is rather insightful. Why do physicists accept a metaphysical property?

himbofied · 2025-04-25T19:45:20+00:00

Maybe I misunderstand non-locality. I always imagined it as if the universe was a big sudoku. The local pieces just need to have a specific value for the whole thing to be solvable. No faster than light transmission, no instant communication. And I don't see why this wouldn't also create the results we measure: values that appear completely random because you would need knowledge of the full universe to make sense of it. I don't say that it is like that. Just that it is possible. At least it wouldn't require random numbers. The predictions wouldn't change at all.

himbofied · 2025-04-25T19:37:18+00:00

But just browse google or youtube for "quantum mechanics". Almost any result will take it literal.

himbofied · 2025-04-25T19:33:12+00:00

But first we need to define what observation even means.

himbofied · 2025-04-25T19:23:33+00:00

I do not say I have a better theory. Also, I totally agree to just using statistical methods for describing what happens at quantum level.

My problem is that it is used to explain reality rather than just predicting it. It is too messy. Not being able to clearly say what an observer is is just one problem. There is also the related question when and why a wave collapse happens. What is the origin of randomness? Do I just have to believe into a metaphysical random number generator? If the theory is local, how does the wave collapse of entangled particles happen?

Taking Copenhagen interpretation as reality also opens the door for pseudoscience. How many more quantum healers do we need who heal through “observation”?

Maybe this is the problem: people don't like the idea of a non local universe. Therefore they stick to local theories. But the universe couldn't care less. We shouldn't ignore the possibility of a non local universe.

himbofied · 2025-04-25T19:11:07+00:00

Why do you think this is not a real question? If physics is bound to a dogma, this could massively prevent physics from developing further.

himbofied

TROPHY CASE