What you expect and want to see in a modern 2025 and forward high end demo?
category: general [glöplog]
Quote:
You seem to equate existence with definability, but they are not the same (both philosophically and mathematically).
Well, which philosophy? Some deny existence as a whole, of everything. Also, mixing ontology with mathematics makes little sense.
Real numbers cannot be defined, yet they exist, is that what you meant? That's mathematically true. But ontology can still define real numbers. They have a definition. If you couldn't define what a real number was, in an ontological sense, then you could say they didn't exist.
But this takes us to another apparent fallacy. Fictional, nonexistent things can also be defined, yet they definitely don't exist. For example, Darth Vader or Sherlock Holmes are very well defined, but they don't exist. Philosophy offers a couple of solutions to this paradoxon.
- The Meiningian school proposes that things can exist without actual existence, by their definition.
- Russel opposes this, and states that "Darth Vader" isn't a single definition, but a collection or summary of various definitions which describe existing things.
- Then there is Kripke, who would say Darth Vader ontologically exists in the Star Wars universe, which is a different ontological context than the real world we live in.
To twist the whole matter further: did real numbers exist before they were discovered, or did Darth Vader exist before George Lucas made him up? See, this is why philosophy and mathematics don't mix.
Quote:
Wouldn't you need to answer what is "art" in the first place to tell?
I just proposed an objective definition.
Quote:
do you think "art" as a concept requires prior instances of artworks, or can it be defined independently?
If this was the case, then art wouldn't exist. The very first artwork ever to exist wouldn't be artwork, if the condition is prior instances to exist. Then every other, later piece also wouldn't be art, for the same reason. So this proposal is a logical fallacy.
I love how this got way out of hand again hehe :)
We'll see each other in gentlemanly competition. But I won't be even remotely fancy oh and I never had a scene career.
Maar iemand moet die Nederlandse vlag dragen als de rest 't er bij laat zitten.
xxx
We'll see each other in gentlemanly competition. But I won't be even remotely fancy oh and I never had a scene career.
Maar iemand moet die Nederlandse vlag dragen als de rest 't er bij laat zitten.
xxx
Quote:
An AI creates "art" by mimicking the way humans do it.
You mean an LLM. No, it doesn't. It certainly doesn't learn the craft, and it does not mimic the process, it only mimics the combined end results of a gazillion past human efforts. But, please, please, let's not go there here in this place. And I apologize for this hopefully brief hijack.
Quote:
Quote:You seem to equate existence with definability, but they are not the same (both philosophically and mathematically).
Well, which philosophy? Some deny existence as a whole, of everything. Also, mixing ontology with mathematics makes little sense.
Real numbers cannot be defined, yet they exist, (...)
Fictional, nonexistent things can also be defined, yet they definitely don't exist.
Do I have to add anything, you pretty much also said existence and definabilty are not equal and one doesn't necessarily imply another, so what are we debating here?
Quote:
See, this is why philosophy and mathematics don't mix.
Nobody said they do. I enumarated "both philosophically and mathematically" precisely to emphasize that they shouldn't be taken as one view.
Quote:
Quote:Wouldn't you need to answer what is "art" in the first place to tell?
I just proposed an objective definition.
Just because you believe that objective definition exist and moreover, your definition is the objective definition doesn't make it any more objective.
Quote:
Quote:do you think "art" as a concept requires prior instances of artworks, or can it be defined independently?
If this was the case, then art wouldn't exist. The very first artwork ever to exist wouldn't be artwork, if the condition is prior instances to exist. Then every other, later piece also wouldn't be art, for the same reason. So this proposal is a logical fallacy.
Which proposal? This was a question whether or not "art" can be defined independently. You seem to lean towards the view that "art" can be defined independently and pressuposes artworks.
It's not wrong or even uncommon - it's just a different view.
My view is that artworks pressuposes "art" or even more so, both goes hand in hand so to say. And to break the circular dependency the initial artwork was only called "artwork" in retrospect. That's why in my view the definition of "art" is fluid and not strictly definable. You can create something that can redefine what is "art" and therefore, it will become a new type of artwork.
Quote:
Do I have to add anything, you pretty much also said existence and definabilty are not equal and one doesn't necessarily imply another, so what are we debating here?
If you strictly want to stay on mathematical grounds, then this is correct. If you bring in any other perspective, the point fails. There is no yes or no answer.
Quote:
Just because you believe that objective definition exist and moreover, your definition is the objective definition doesn't make it any more objective.
Your argument is faulty on many points. Primarily because you do not argue against the definition itself, but the concept that I may be able to provide one. What makes you think I couldn't? If I can't, then who can? If "art" is a special thing that's beyond definitions, then why anything else isn't?
But if you're dissatisfied by my definition, on the principle that I'm just some lowly peasant on an internet forum, we can call in some experts.
Aristotle's definition of art: "to make something according to rules". This is certainly the most classic and conservative of them all. But avantgarde did not exist in Aristotle's times.
George Dickie would agree with me: "A work of art in the classificatory sense is (1) an artifact (2) upon which some person or persons acting on behalf of the artworld confer the status of candidate for appreciation."
And then there is Arthur Danto, also pretty much on my side: "Art is embodied meaning.”
Morris Weitz, on the other hand, would side with you: "Art is an open concept. Any attempt to rigidly define it will fail, because new forms of art constantly arise."
Good luck sorting it out.
Quote:
My view is that artworks pressuposes "art" or even more so, both goes hand in hand so to say. And to break the circular dependency the initial artwork was only called "artwork" in retrospect. That's why in my view the definition of "art" is fluid and not strictly definable. You can create something that can redefine what is "art" and therefore, it will become a new type of artwork.
That's what Weltz said. I disagree with Weltz, and therefore with you too. The way I see it, you're arguing against what quality of substance elevates an artifact to the status of art, while I am proposing an ontological definition, detached from substance and subjection.
So you admit that even critically acclaimed philosophers like Morris Weltz and Arthur Danto fundamentally disagree what is "art" and if "art" can be even defined or is it an open concept.
That actually completely supports my point that nobody really knows what is "art" and it's up for endless debates.
BTW I would rather not go into a rabbit hole of deconstructing your "objective" definition. We would have to delve into more seemingly vaguely defined terms, like what is "information", what makes information meaningful etc...
That actually completely supports my point that nobody really knows what is "art" and it's up for endless debates.
BTW I would rather not go into a rabbit hole of deconstructing your "objective" definition. We would have to delve into more seemingly vaguely defined terms, like what is "information", what makes information meaningful etc...
Quote:
So you admit that even critically acclaimed philosophers like Morris Weltz and Arthur Danto fundamentally disagree what is "art" and if "art" can be even defined or is it an open concept.
Apparently so. But a conclusion that therefore the one favored by you is right is illogical, therefore incorrect. The only thing we can safely establish is that others are having the same debate.
Quote:
BTW I would rather not go into a rabbit hole of deconstructing your "objective" definition.
That's because you can't. :D It's objective.
Quote:
But a conclusion that therefore the one favored by you is right is illogical, therefore incorrect
It's fair to say that favoring one view over another (which you also do!) doesn't automatically make it right, but it doesn't imply it's incorrect.
Quote:
Real numbers cannot be defined, yet they exist, is that what you meant? That's mathematically true.
Shouldn't that be the other way around?
Quote:
It's fair to say that favoring one view over another (which you also do!) doesn't automatically make it right, but it doesn't imply it's incorrect.
This only holds true if you ignore the difference between objective and subjective. If we had two scholars, one would say "2+2=4" and the other "2+2=5", I would say the first is correct. This is an objective decision, because his answer is objectively true. But if I said I agree with the first one because I like his t-shirt, that's subjective, even if the result is actually correct. See also: correlation vs causation.
Quote:
Shouldn't that be the other way around?
Admittedly, the analogy would work better if I said imaginary numbers, because they indeed are, well, imaginary. What I meant that numbers have no substance. What is "five"? You can have five of something, but not five itself. It's an abstract concept.
Sure but in mathematics all of those things have definitions, in the sense of mathematical definition. Whether they exist or not is irrelevant when it comes to maths.
[
I would say you rather defined criteria to evaluate the truth of this statement, that's why you can decide wrt. those criteria, but not universally. Such criteria are a consequence of choosing a formal system, e.g., in this case it might be Peano arithmetic, where "2+2=4" can be proven to be true.
Idk your definition of the word "objective", but it seems a bit suss to me.
Quote:
If we had two scholars, one would say "2+2=4" and the other "2+2=5", I would say the first is correct. This is an objective decision, because his answer is objectively true.
I would say you rather defined criteria to evaluate the truth of this statement, that's why you can decide wrt. those criteria, but not universally. Such criteria are a consequence of choosing a formal system, e.g., in this case it might be Peano arithmetic, where "2+2=4" can be proven to be true.
Idk your definition of the word "objective", but it seems a bit suss to me.
Every formal system objectively exists physically.
Quote:
Every formal system objectively exists physically.
You can say that, but this doesn't say anything about universal truth values of formal statements.
Quote:
Idk your definition of the word "objective", but it seems a bit suss to me.
Are we now going to question even fundamental definitions? An interesting debate tactics, but I'm afraid it leads nowhere.
expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations (and more here)
Objective has an objective definition, and definition has a definition as well. Are you going to propose a new definition for definition?
Define propose. ;)
Quote:
Every formal system objectively exists physically.
Try to use D&D battle rules in a real fight then.
Quote:
\I expect a decent quality 4k@60 h265 video of the demo to be at least an order of magnitude larger than the binary because otherwise we might as well be entering videoplayers to the compos and the party audience wouldn't even notice.
My thought exactly.
If 4K@60 video clip of a demo is smaller than a demo, then writing a video player in 64kB that plays it and changing video file to demo.dat makes it more efficient demo than the real time engine. And... it will play on legacy hardware just fine!
I think we should consider size limit at compos and to keep it fair about 100MB maximum as a starter. 1GB is definitively not something I'd even consider downloading. I can have full featured film in 1GB. Or split engine demos and self-coded demos.. but here we risk self-coded compos will have no entries these days...
Quote:
Quote:Every formal system objectively exists physically.
Try to use D&D battle rules in a real fight then.
BTW I don't try to win the debate. Maybe you are ;) I don't care.
I stated my view, it's clearly different to your view. Even more so, both views seems to be supported by critically acclaimed philosophers, which also disagree. So there is really nothing to win here.
PS sorry, wrong quote, I meant
Quote:
An interesting debate tactics, but I'm afraid it leads nowhere.
Quote:
Objective has an objective definition (...)
Rrright :P
Quote:
Try to use D&D battle rules in a real fight then.
I'd prefer to do the opposite -- using real fight skills in D&D battle.
Quote:
I expect a decent quality 4k@60 h265 video of the demo to be at least an order of magnitude larger than the binary because otherwise we might as well be entering videoplayers to the compos and the party audience wouldn't even notice.
Exactly. I wrote this:
“I kinda got the feeling (maybe I'm wrong) the question in this thread at some point came to - how to attract newcomers by audio/visual merit of demos alone? And my answer is - You can't. On a PC, one can render something offline using software worth 100000$ into a video file, get a minimalistic video player coded, and I bet you the aforementioned newcomer will think it's the best demo ever.”
in a Pouet forum 2 years ago, got ridiculed by a certain dimwit. Well, dear dimwit, whaddya know, today “AI” can make that “expensive” video for you. It can also write that basic video player for you.
So, yes, I too agree about the video to demo size ratio.
Quote:
Quote:Objective has an objective definition (...)
Rrright :P
Just to elaborate more on this. First of all, on the deeper philosophical level objectivity is much more nuanced than simple dictionary definition, and you know this. And it's not cherry-picking from my side.
Also, if one assume "art" is an open/fluid concept, there is no way to strictly tell "what is art", so objectivity of the non-existent definition is not even a concern. But in your view, if you assume you can define "art" once and for all, then yes, I can see why there can be objective or subjective definition.
I can define "art" as a social phenomenon, as a functional activity humans do. That's what I did. It's a very broad definition. Many would agree with that definition, and actually many do (like philosophers I just referenced). Your expectation to define art seems to fall inside the context of my definition. My definition describes why we do art, what are we trying to achieve with it, and very broadly, how. It's essentially metacommunication to a broad and undefined audience.
My proposed definition identifies three requirements towards art:
1. Meaning
2. Quality
3. Content
Can we agree that if an artifact lacks any of these, it's not art? (Barring the possibility of retroactively identifying a non-artistic artifact as art, because in that process, the identification itself is the artistic process. Example: a steel factory never intended their L beams as art, but someone may dump a handful of them in a public space, call it something like "the dream of roses", and then it's somehow art.)
My proposed definition identifies three requirements towards art:
1. Meaning
2. Quality
3. Content
Can we agree that if an artifact lacks any of these, it's not art? (Barring the possibility of retroactively identifying a non-artistic artifact as art, because in that process, the identification itself is the artistic process. Example: a steel factory never intended their L beams as art, but someone may dump a handful of them in a public space, call it something like "the dream of roses", and then it's somehow art.)