quirks

[turin]

However, there's another critera of falsifiability - if an experiment cannot be proposed that, with a certain outcome, would prove quantum mechanics (the theory) false, it doesn't make sense to say it is true... I don't know if there is such a theory.

String theory. (so far)

Err, the last word in that quote should have been "experiment", not "theory". My mistake.

Anyway, assuming string theory does fit the available data, it still doesn't have any experiment that could be done that, if it turned out a certain way, would prove string theory false. So I don't think string theory is verifiable. Now, quantum mechanics may not be either - although IIRC there have been some experiments done where quantum mechanics predicted the outcome better than traditional physics, which makes quantum mechanics seem pretty trustworthy.

[UDD]

(Though, and I'm asking just because I know, isn't quantom physics currently a theory rather than a proven [atleast empirically] science?)

What is not 'only a theory'? How do you prove how 'reality works'?

Turin already answered your question quite nicely, but I'd still like to point out the part in bold in my message.

[Soliton]

String theory. (so far)

Err, the last word in that quote should have been "experiment", not "theory". My mistake.

Anyway, assuming string theory does fit the available data, it still doesn't have any experiment that could be done that, if it turned out a certain way, would prove string theory false. So I don't think string theory is verifiable.

That was my point.

Now, quantum mechanics may not be either - although IIRC there have been some experiments done where quantum mechanics predicted the outcome better than traditional physics, which makes quantum mechanics seem pretty trustworthy.

It's the theory that fits all the available data best afaik.
The problems with quantum mechanics are more of philosophical nature I believe. Well and that it doesn't go together with relativity.

Anyway this is getting quite off-topic.

[Soliton]

What is not 'only a theory'? How do you prove how 'reality works'?

Turin already answered your question quite nicely, but I'd still like to point out the part in bold in my message.

Right. Then again proving something empirically makes no sense.. (Well, that whole statement makes not much sense to me, hence my questions.)
Disproving something on the other hand is most easily done empirically of course.

[UDD]

Turin already answered your question quite nicely, but I'd still like to point out the part in bold in my message.

Right. Then again proving something empirically makes no sense.. (Well, that whole statement makes not much sense to me, hence my questions.)
Disproving something on the other hand is most easily done empirically of course.

So what you're saying is that the whole of physics is not proven.
In that case, so is quantom physics, and I continue to claim that you could theoretically calculate the result of a dice-throw.

[turin]

Hm... the title of this thread is becoming more relevant by the second. Perhaps it is just a typo. After all, "quirks"... or "quarks"?

[kshinji]

Count how many posts are connected with both options, and you will have probability for each. Whol thread, however, is superposition.

[sagacity]

THAT IS COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY FALSE.

Reloading a savegame will not make the game give the same random numbers! I've seen several (intelligent) people state this "fact" on these forums, but it isn't true. I don't see what the confusion is.

The confusion is that if the saved game is storing the random number seed, then you will always get the same number on the next attack when you re-load the saved game.

I read in the manual that, way back, you could only save a game at the end of a scenario - to prevent cheating. They then added the ability to save mid-game; but cited the specific example of restarting a save-game to get a good roll on an attack (to save your White-mage, i.e) as something that the mid-game save shouldn't ve used for. They suggested that saving is something you should do when you need to continue another day - if you made a bad choice, you should restart from the beginning of the scenario. Therefore, the devs very well have made the random seed save with the game to prevent this kind of cheating.

[sagacity]

How so?

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: the better you know the position of an object, the worse you know the velocity and direction, and vice versa. It is actually stated

I dont know code of BfW, but isnt srand invoked only once for each game and stored in savegame? Cause if one does:

1. save
2. do acion and sees results
3. loads
4. does the same action

results will be the same. Thats my expierience.

STEP 4 IS FALSE.

It will, of course, occasionally do the same thing. Especially if the chance of it doing that was high - for example, if you are trying to saveload so that your guy with 30% defence doesn't take a single hit. And even if it is unlikely, it will still occasionally happen the same way. But Wesnoth does not store the seed.[/code]

Oops, I jus read this

[Sly]

Therefore, the devs very well have made the random seed save with the game to prevent this kind of cheating.

Didn't you mean "could" ? I don't thing the seed is currently saved with the game

[sagacity]

Therefore, the devs very well have made the random seed save with the game to prevent this kind of cheating.

Didn't you mean "could" ? I don't thing the seed is currently saved with the game

Yes, I did mean to say could have. I simply forgot to type could. Sorry.

[tadpol]

on save/reload cheating
I have found saving while an attack is being animated ignores the attack when loaded, I was wondering if this is a glitch on my copy or a 'feature'

Would saving the random seed prevent save/reloading? and if so is there a reason why this is not currently done?

on physics
Does quantum phisics offer anything better than Laplace's rule of succession? [chane of something = (nuber of times it's happend + 1)/(number of times you've checked + 2)]

[irrevenant]

on save/reload cheating
I have found saving while an attack is being animated ignores the attack when loaded, I was wondering if this is a glitch on my copy or a 'feature'

That's true, I've noticed the same thing (albeit a few versions back).

If this still happens it is a genuine bug that should be fixed, because it can result in people 'cheating' when they prefer not to...

[Ranger M]

on save/reload cheating
I have found saving while an attack is being animated ignores the attack when loaded, I was wondering if this is a glitch on my copy or a 'feature'

That's true, I've noticed the same thing (albeit a few versions back).

If this still happens it is a genuine bug that should be fixed, because it can result in people 'cheating' when they prefer not to...

It still happens, I've sometimes used it (although only in 1.1.1) when I need to test scenarios to see if certain events are firing in my campaign, and haven't been able to use debug mode for whatever reason (lack of internet to check the commands, etc).