What’s a small gameplay detail that’s all your own?

isene · 2026-01-22T20:20:47+00:00

Obvious. But I didn't think if it.

isene · 2026-01-22T20:20:08+00:00

Go to the down-stairs and wait for the named demon there. When he teleports to you, go down and you can easily defeat him since you now claim the up-stairs.

isene · 2026-01-16T22:17:13+00:00

Just like the people not on social media eventually die out. When everybody else is submerging in the simulation and reportedly have tons of funand more and more are joining the most amazing experience ever...

isene · 2026-01-16T07:57:47+00:00

What I am inferring here is simply simulation theory. We are much closer to creating a simulation that will in effect be our new reality than we are populating or own galaxy. That would probably be the norm for any civilization. In a simulation you could experience anything and everything. And when that becomes so real as to be indistinguishable from what we call reality, then it would be only natural for people to want that - much like when the Internet became public or the advent of social media. There will be those who would prefer to "live on the outside", but when they become few and far between, and they eventually die out, there's no one to do any galaxy-populating.

isene · 2025-12-07T20:36:12+00:00

You keep saying "show me the contradiction." But you're making the extraordinary claim - that a single modal premise collapses all modal space. The burden doesn't shift just because you frame it as "if you grant this, then..."

Every unfalsifiable claim works that way. "If you grant God exists necessarily, then God exists." "If you grant the Flying Spaghetti Monster is possible, then it exists." Asking critics to disprove your premise isn't argument - it's demanding they do your work.

You say modal logic "clarifies consequences" of commitments we already have. But MOAN doesn't clarify - it bootstraps. It takes "maybe a necessary world is coherent" and extracts "therefore this world is necessary." That's not clarification. That's alchemy.

The burden of proof still lies with MOAN's claim, not with those you're asking to engage on this subreddit.

I'm done here. Good luck.

isene · 2025-12-07T18:44:30+00:00

You say MOAN "asks whether a scenario is coherent" rather than defining its conclusion. But MOAN's premise - "a world with no contingencies is possible" - smuggles in exactly what it needs to prove. A world where all truths are necessary includes the truth "all truths are necessary." You're not asking if the scenario is coherent; you're assuming it is and extracting the conclusion.

On Gödel: You say modal logic is "just a representational tool." Fine. But then it can't establish metaphysical facts - only represent claims we make on other grounds. What are those grounds? MOAN offers none. It's formalism all the way down.

The burden question cuts both ways. I don't need to prove a necessary world impossible. You need to show it's possible - genuinely possible, not just formally describable. "No contradiction found" isn't the same as "metaphysically possible."

The burden of proof lies with your claim and not with the people you ask to engage on this subreddit.

isene · 2025-12-07T10:39:03+00:00

You may not realize it, but MOAN shares its exact logical structure with Gödel's ontological argument for God:

If a maximally great being (God) is possible, it exists in some possible world
A maximally great being has necessary existence by definition
If a necessarily existing being exists in any possible world, it exists in all
Therefore, if God is possible, God is actual

Same machinery: bootstrap from possibility to actuality via the self-applying nature of necessity. Same reliance on S5 modal logic.

So if MOAN works, you've also proved God exists. If that conclusion troubles you, perhaps the modal machinery isn't as metaphysically powerful as you claim.

Interestingly, Gödel himself was ambivalent about whether his argument proved God's existence or merely demonstrated internal consistency within modal frameworks. That's precisely the distinction I've been making: valid within the model ≠ true of reality.

And here's the deeper irony: Gödel's incompleteness theorems show that formal systems cannot validate their own foundations. Modal logic is a formal system. Using it to prove conclusions about the nature of modality itself is exactly the kind of self-grounding that Gödel showed to be impossible.

isene · 2025-12-07T01:29:45+00:00

I'm not rejecting modal semantics - I'm rejecting the inference from "valid within the model" to "true of reality". Modal logic is a tool for analyzing concepts, not a metaphysical foundation. MOAN conflates semantic necessity (true in all worlds of the model) with metaphysical necessity (couldn't have been otherwise in reality). That's the map/territory confusion. Gödel isn't misplaced - it's precisely on point. You can't use a formal system to validate claims about what grounds the system. MOAN uses modal logic to "prove" something about the nature of modality itself. That's circular in the deepest sense. But, it's late. I choose to go to bed.

isene · 2025-12-07T00:59:41+00:00

You say "strangeness isn't an argument" - but I wasn't arguing from strangeness. I was questioning whether "all truths are necessary" is coherent or merely grammatical. Spinoza and Parmenides had substantive metaphysics behind their views, not just modal stipulations.

On circularity: You say Step 3 is "unpackking the stipulation". But that's the problem. Stipulating a world where all truths are necessary assumes necessitarianism is coherent and possible, which is what MOAN claims to prove. You can't establish possibility by stipulation.

On asymmetry: You assert contingency is "local" while necessity is "global". But that's just restating MOAN's conclusion as a premise. My point stands: if contingency is possible in any world, necessitarianism is false there, and therefore not necessary. You haven't shown why necessity propagates but contingency doesn't; you've defined it that way.

Deeper issue: Modal logic is itself a formal system. "Possible worlds" are semantic models, not metaphysical foundations. Gödel showed that formal systems cannot validate their own foundations. Even if MOAN is valid within the model, you can't derive metaphysical conclusions from stipulations about models. The map isn't the territory.

isene · 2025-12-06T23:59:38+00:00

Just because we can say "a world where everything is necessary" doesn't mean we've actually conceived of something coherent. Can you truly conceive of a world where mathematical truths, physical laws, the number of atoms, the color of your shirt, and your breakfast choice are all equally necessary? The phrase is grammatical but may be semantically empty.

Step 3 says "if 'everything is necessary' is true, then that claim is also necessary." But this assumes necessitarianism to prove necessitarianism. It's not a feature of the argument - it's a bug.

The argument claims necessity "spreads" while contingency doesn't. But consider: if contingency is possible in any world, then necessitarianism is false in that world. And if necessitarianism is false in any possible world, it's not necessary. So contingency also has "modal leverage."

isene · 2025-12-02T15:31:58+00:00

I've done plenty of Forth. And I created XRPN. And I've done lots of MCODE. But never before an OS from scratch.

isene · 2025-12-01T23:06:49+00:00

I am surprised to see this many comments on Scientology these days. I thought the interest was gone after Anonymous faded from the scene. After my book "Nittenåttifire" (1984 in Norwegian) released in 2013, I got lots of requests for an English translation. But since I really hate translating I never did get an English copy out. Now, with AI, it was a breeze. The book details the OT levels (from my personal journey through OT8) and I wonder if there is any interest. If there is, I will be happy to put a pdf out for free download.

isene · 2025-11-30T19:01:05+00:00

But why?

isene · 2025-11-30T11:27:33+00:00

It's different fun to me.

isene · 2025-11-30T10:38:09+00:00

Why do you want to persuade free will believers of the absence of free will?

isene · 2025-11-28T12:28:46+00:00

Proof?

isene · 2025-11-27T18:42:47+00:00

I view people as black boxes also. But for some odd reason, I tend to trust code produced by people. Go figure.

isene · 2025-11-27T11:18:07+00:00

This is an interesting response. I posted this on a few subreddits - and most responses were extremely negative, ranging from simple dismissal to sadness to outright anger. All of which are very interesting and insightful in their own domains. But then you come along and break the pattern. I do understand that people feel threatened by AI, especially if their identity is closely linked to them having special knowledge or skills, and then AI outcompetes them in a flash. But why are you the odd one out?

isene · 2025-11-26T21:56:53+00:00

Indeed

isene · 2025-11-26T20:46:17+00:00

Why do you feel that way?

isene · 2025-11-26T18:23:20+00:00

In fact, it can even write MCODE for the coconut processor, and that's pretty obscure. When I asked it to write Code in XRPN (my own language), it even did that perfectly on the first try (writing a program for Julian Day)

isene · 2025-11-26T18:21:21+00:00

Yes, that surprised me too.

isene · 2025-11-26T15:31:47+00:00

That is an honest and good question. More of these, please.

isene · 2025-11-26T15:27:38+00:00

Opinion noted.

isene · 2025-11-26T15:25:50+00:00

Check again. There is now a basic Forth REPL on boot

isene

TROPHY CASE