Playstation 5

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Post Reply
User avatar
mrdim
New Trial Member
Posts: 7
Joined: March 18th, 2020, 4:10 pm

Playstation 5

Post by mrdim » March 18th, 2020, 4:16 pm

Now that the PS5 has been discussed by Sony, I would like to focus philosophically on its capabilities.

It is capable of faster loading times, better Ray tracing (for lighting effects), and more immersive audio.

But the same question comes up in my studies: What more exists incrementally? Is this enough? Because the current mindset is that technology is incremental and evolutionary, and we simply 'stumble' upon the answers because of changes that slowly occur over time.

I have previously mentioned and tried to discuss the implications of expanding the capabilities or properties of the 3rd dimension, (exploiting the 3rd dimension beyond what it can currently do for us) or perhaps viewing the 4th dimension or beyond. This is currently impossible, but I am absolutely certain that in order to stimulate variation, we need 'extra' dimensions, which the PS5 would no doubt lack.

Now, let me explain. We all perceive some form of the 3rd dimension. Some may say we can only see in 2D, but that's a technical argument.

If we assume that progress occurs incrementally, then one day there must exist some alternative counterpart to the 3D objects that currently preoccupy us, such as, television sets preoccupy us. By counterpart, I mean that the object would fill a needed function in a similar way to any aforementioned invention, even though it could be totally different.

Within the confines of the 3rd dimension, incrementally these counterparts do not seem to appear in our minds for us to devise or construct using our imagination, and I can say this universally speaking.

Take for example Euclidean geometry. Euclid performed many proofs using angles and sums, and one thing that he demonstrated was that the same rules apply to any 3 dimensional shape. For example, no matter what the object is, we can prove whether it contains a 90 degree angle within.

This I think, if I am not mistaken, demonstrates forms of invariance. Nothing changes.

And it is this lack of variety that we naturally want to avoid.

To give you another example, let me point out that if you were to write a list of potential advancements that the Human race would benefit from over the next 100 years, it would fall into two categories:

1. Absurd, or
2. Common sense.

Why? Well it is clear. The imagination takes you to places such as 'faster than light geometry' or '4d tech,' while common thinking says: Faster connectivity speeds, or cure for cancer.

But as I have stated, current objects of use must eventually either totally become obsolete, or have some counterpart. Is it really not so common sense to say that our imaginations won't hint at these counterparts, which go beyond the 'ordinary' third dimension?

To conclude: Can you think of an incremental list in your mind that is totally common sense and describes our greater existence or purpose? Can you think of radically different counterparts that still belong to the invariance of the 3rd dimension?

Therefore, maybe the PS5 is not really much of an advancement based on our need as a species for variation? I think that people will start to wake up and see that with new console generations, there is less and less to offer until a revolution takes place. People will tire of the same activities and perceptions.

Thank you.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2185
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Playstation 5

Post by Terrapin Station » March 18th, 2020, 7:11 pm

We have moderators screening for the quality of content and this made it past them? Seriously?

User avatar
mrdim
New Trial Member
Posts: 7
Joined: March 18th, 2020, 4:10 pm

Re: Playstation 5

Post by mrdim » March 18th, 2020, 7:38 pm

Thank you for allowing my topic. Let me introduce to you a bullet point style summary.

1. The current thinking is that incremental advancement is sufficient to solve our problems.

2. We cannot yet see beyond the current confines of our 3rd dimension. If we dismiss incremental thinking, we can invent ways of going beyond an 'ordinary' 3d world.

3. The confines of the 3d environment that we live in, mean that we would have to go the extra mile for desirable variation in our existence.

4. Euclid and others show that there are definite boundaries that underlie the construction and form of all 3d shapes. This may be called invariance, and it contains sets of repeatable proofs that demonstrate the intangibility for variety, if we stick to our current 3d 'world.' This is because if all operations of proof are the same for any 3d shape, then there appears to be a lack of adequate variety.

5. To demonstrate the point regarding the problem with incremental thinking: Is it possible to devise or imagine, or construct a brand new inventive solution to the problem of variation in this world, by using common sense, or should we instead be more open to a broader perspective in order to supply more meaning to our existence?

6. Therefore, are the advancements of the PS5 enough to satisfy the needs of human beings?

Thank you for your time.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2185
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Playstation 5

Post by Terrapin Station » March 19th, 2020, 7:33 am

mrdim wrote:
March 18th, 2020, 7:38 pm
1. The current thinking is that incremental advancement is sufficient to solve our problems.
Incremental advancement of what?

What problems?

And what is the evidence of people saying this re calling it "the current thinking"?

User avatar
mrdim
New Trial Member
Posts: 7
Joined: March 18th, 2020, 4:10 pm

Re: Playstation 5

Post by mrdim » March 19th, 2020, 9:28 am

It is the incremental advancement in many technological fields that is the issue. In the games industry, for three generations nearly now, it has been the case that two major companies, Microsoft and Sony, have simply upgraded the specifications of their home consoles by some increment each time, and they still continue with this thinking.

5G is another example. Industry leaders are relating to this as the fourth industrial revolution, believing that somehow if you incrementally make connectivity faster, it can revolutionise industry or even domestic lifestyles.
This isn't a suitable way to address the real needs of the population and problems of society, how we live our lives, in general.

It is the current thinking because wherever I search, I observe that there is hardly any or no talk about technology that can help people see beyond the confines of the 3d world that we see today. People appear to be satisfied pursuing technological goals that are simply incremental to what we currently have.

To solve our needs for new visual stimulus, we need to go beyond what we currently have by some great milestone.

Thank you this time for your constructive feedback.

User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 550
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Playstation 5

Post by Pattern-chaser » March 19th, 2020, 12:32 pm

mrdim wrote:
March 18th, 2020, 7:38 pm
Therefore, are the advancements of the PS5 enough to satisfy the needs of human beings?
Nothing is "enough to satisfy the needs of human beings". That's the problem. Our greed is without limit.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

User avatar
fionaimmodest
New Trial Member
Posts: 5
Joined: March 23rd, 2020, 11:57 pm

Re: Playstation 5

Post by fionaimmodest » March 24th, 2020, 12:01 am

Pattern-chaser wrote:
March 19th, 2020, 12:32 pm
mrdim wrote:
March 18th, 2020, 7:38 pm
Therefore, are the advancements of the PS5 enough to satisfy the needs of human beings?
Nothing is "enough to satisfy the needs of human beings". That's the problem. Our greed is without limit.
Can't argue with this. I'm sure there are still advancements to happen next year, and we'll be talking about PS6.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2185
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Playstation 5

Post by Terrapin Station » March 24th, 2020, 8:26 am

mrdim wrote:
March 19th, 2020, 9:28 am
It is the incremental advancement in many technological fields that is the issue. In the games industry, for three generations nearly now, it has been the case that two major companies, Microsoft and Sony, have simply upgraded the specifications of their home consoles by some increment each time, and they still continue with this thinking.

5G is another example. Industry leaders are relating to this as the fourth industrial revolution, believing that somehow if you incrementally make connectivity faster, it can revolutionise industry or even domestic lifestyles.
This isn't a suitable way to address the real needs of the population and problems of society, how we live our lives, in general.
So gaming systems and cell phone communications protocols are meant to "address the real needs of the population and problems of society, how we live out lives"?

Or are you assuming that if we tackle x in y way, then we must be tackling everything in y way?

You're still not being very specific about what the supposed problems are. You seem to just be assuming that we'd all agree about what's a problem or not.

User avatar
mrdim
New Trial Member
Posts: 7
Joined: March 18th, 2020, 4:10 pm

Re: Playstation 5

Post by mrdim » March 24th, 2020, 11:47 am

So gaming systems and cell phone communications protocols are meant to "address the real needs of the population and problems of society, how we live out lives"?

Or are you assuming that if we tackle x in y way, then we must be tackling everything in y way?

You're still not being very specific about what the supposed problems are. You seem to just be assuming that we'd all agree about what's a problem or not.
No. It appears to be a paradox that people don't yet see the problem, considering that peoples' lives should already be exhibiting signs of stagnation (within the confines of our current 3D existence). If you ask someone, they will most likely say that their time would be filled with activities such as Sudoku or golf, and that those kinds of activities are enough to sustain at least a tolerable lifestyle.
But I would argue that we are 'running out of space' and that we will be covering similar or same grounds in future iterations of 3D exploration and design; be it engineered devices or commodities, or 3D simulated environments like a Holo Deck. It will all start to look the same, unless there is some underlying principle that prevents 'sameness' after so many million or billion iterations, whatever.

So the question would be; either this has to be proven mathematically, that our space is 'running out' because it is finite, or people would simply have to come around to the idea inevitably.

So when I look at technology companies talking big about things like 5G and how it can drastically improve our lives. I feel this to be false under the current paradigm of life as we know it. While it seems odd to say that these companies are offering the future to us in their minds, when it comes to, as you say, telephone communications (faster networks) ; current evidence suggests that they firmly believe heavily in this investment for the future and that it is the case that it is all in their mind.

As for 'real' advancements. Well, that's an odd sort of assertion to make, because in fact I think that the research should prioritize squarely in the area of enabling apparatus to see beyond the confines of our current 3D world. Better health care systems are important; better food supplies, things like that. But we need to see beyond our current paradigm of our current lifestyle. It needs to be a radical shift, not just satiating our current example of existence, which is how things appear to be at the moment.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2185
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Playstation 5

Post by Terrapin Station » March 24th, 2020, 7:23 pm

mrdim wrote:
March 24th, 2020, 11:47 am
But I would argue that we are 'running out of space' and that we will be covering similar or same grounds in future iterations of 3D exploration and design;
Are you literally talking about video game design here? (I'm still struggling to figure out what the topic even is, exactly.)

User avatar
mrdim
New Trial Member
Posts: 7
Joined: March 18th, 2020, 4:10 pm

Re: Playstation 5

Post by mrdim » March 25th, 2020, 10:44 am

Terrapin Station wrote: Are you literally talking about video game design here? (I'm still struggling to figure out what the topic even is, exactly.)
The problem that I think we all face, collectively, the human race, is that when we see any 3D object, it must be sufficiently unique, independent, or different from some other 3D object in order to be believable as part of reality. And if the object is a reproduction or a carbon copy of another, it must contain the context to say that no two objects, even if the same, will necessarily undergo the same actions or behaviours, or even circumstances.
Take for example an identical mirror, but the light hits it at a different angle to another mirror which is exactly the same.

The point is, if this assertion of things having to be different in some form, fails, then what are we left with?

I observe that 'space is running out' in our 3rd dimension, unless we improve it using new techniques, and this can apply to video games, but also real life.

We don't want a situation where we are stuck with the sense that our environment is too finite to live with, or too finite to generate new possibilities. This makes me wonder; in graphics and in real life: how many million or billion etc iterations of 3D are there before we cannot create or see any further meaningful spatial iterations?

We don't want life to stagnate and objects and environments to be relatively the same for thousands of years. This will offer us nothing new to explore or discover apart from perhaps minor differences in things.
Human beings need variety, otherwise we run out of options.

So that is the explanation for the basis for my thinking.

I have found this difficult to discuss, and I admit that my initial post isn't very coherent. I become frustrated at the number of ways that I have to attempt to explain the problem, so I end up putting something together which is unpalatable or unclear. But I have tried to clear this up through further explanation.

Also, as much as I would like to spread the message, say, on the Physics forums, they have disallowed one of my topics because it was a personal theory.
So when it comes to trying to invent new physical ways of viewing the world, I am left with little option for discussion.

Maybe for another topic:
If we are to see reality differently with our senses; what steps would need to be taken?

Currently, I am thinking that graphics and visuals, and the way we see ordinary existence, might be changeable if we can engineer and alter the inverse square law.
Or perhaps, if we wish to change the way that humans distinguish between things, real or fake, then we might want to look at what constitutes 'real' visual/perceptual experiences so that we can tap into 'indistinguishable' reality - - something artificial that has indistinguishable qualities from reality.

I think that maybe one way of achieving this, might be to look at the fact that if something is sufficiently real, then it can be warped in different ways. So if we manipulated fields of light and therefore images, then we could, by some degree, alter the way that the light or the image is warped so that it undergoes warping as some trait of reality. But quite possibly, this warping might only be a potential of the produced visual/image; that is to say that anything that is sufficiently real has the trait of being potentially warpable, without actually warping it.

Thanks,

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2185
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Playstation 5

Post by Terrapin Station » March 25th, 2020, 7:07 pm

mrdim wrote:
March 25th, 2020, 10:44 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Are you literally talking about video game design here? (I'm still struggling to figure out what the topic even is, exactly.)
The problem that I think we all face, collectively, the human race, is that when we see any 3D object, it must be sufficiently unique, independent, or different from some other 3D object in order to be believable as part of reality. And if the object is a reproduction or a carbon copy of another, it must contain the context to say that no two objects, even if the same, will necessarily undergo the same actions or behaviours, or even circumstances.
Take for example an identical mirror, but the light hits it at a different angle to another mirror which is exactly the same.

The point is, if this assertion of things having to be different in some form, fails, then what are we left with?

I observe that 'space is running out' in our 3rd dimension, unless we improve it using new techniques, and this can apply to video games, but also real life.

We don't want a situation where we are stuck with the sense that our environment is too finite to live with, or too finite to generate new possibilities. This makes me wonder; in graphics and in real life: how many million or billion etc iterations of 3D are there before we cannot create or see any further meaningful spatial iterations?

We don't want life to stagnate and objects and environments to be relatively the same for thousands of years. This will offer us nothing new to explore or discover apart from perhaps minor differences in things.
Human beings need variety, otherwise we run out of options.

So that is the explanation for the basis for my thinking.

I have found this difficult to discuss, and I admit that my initial post isn't very coherent. I become frustrated at the number of ways that I have to attempt to explain the problem, so I end up putting something together which is unpalatable or unclear. But I have tried to clear this up through further explanation.

Also, as much as I would like to spread the message, say, on the Physics forums, they have disallowed one of my topics because it was a personal theory.
So when it comes to trying to invent new physical ways of viewing the world, I am left with little option for discussion.

Maybe for another topic:
If we are to see reality differently with our senses; what steps would need to be taken?

Currently, I am thinking that graphics and visuals, and the way we see ordinary existence, might be changeable if we can engineer and alter the inverse square law.
Or perhaps, if we wish to change the way that humans distinguish between things, real or fake, then we might want to look at what constitutes 'real' visual/perceptual experiences so that we can tap into 'indistinguishable' reality - - something artificial that has indistinguishable qualities from reality.

I think that maybe one way of achieving this, might be to look at the fact that if something is sufficiently real, then it can be warped in different ways. So if we manipulated fields of light and therefore images, then we could, by some degree, alter the way that the light or the image is warped so that it undergoes warping as some trait of reality. But quite possibly, this warping might only be a potential of the produced visual/image; that is to say that anything that is sufficiently real has the trait of being potentially warpable, without actually warping it.

Thanks,
GAH!

:D

User avatar
mrdim
New Trial Member
Posts: 7
Joined: March 18th, 2020, 4:10 pm

Re: Playstation 5

Post by mrdim » March 26th, 2020, 9:37 am

I will try once more in a shortened manner.

Basically, the 3D spaces that we live in, should provide us with enough visual variety to be relatively content that we will not run out of actions to perform.
But the more we experience the world, the more we might say or even feel that "we have seen this before."
Then, I believe, what happens is that people start to lose their ability to perform new actions. New actions can no longer be generated, because it has been seen or done before within finite 3D space.

So, how do we solve this problem?

If anyone has any suggestions, that would help.
Thanks.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2185
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Playstation 5

Post by Terrapin Station » March 26th, 2020, 6:06 pm

mrdim wrote:
March 26th, 2020, 9:37 am
I will try once more in a shortened manner.

Basically, the 3D spaces that we live in, should provide us with enough visual variety to be relatively content that we will not run out of actions to perform.
But the more we experience the world, the more we might say or even feel that "we have seen this before."
Then, I believe, what happens is that people start to lose their ability to perform new actions. New actions can no longer be generated, because it has been seen or done before within finite 3D space.

So, how do we solve this problem?

If anyone has any suggestions, that would help.
Thanks.
The easiest way to solve the problem is to realize that you can't really ever do the same action twice.

You're not going to solve it by something other than three dimensions (+ time), because there is nothing other than that.

User avatar
mrdim
New Trial Member
Posts: 7
Joined: March 18th, 2020, 4:10 pm

Re: Playstation 5

Post by mrdim » March 27th, 2020, 10:48 am

I am currently doing my own thought based investigations of how to solve this problem. I have been working on it for a year now, so I may update this topic with some of the potential findings.

On a basic level, what you say is true. However, when it comes to digital information, where you are literally storing important information, (or games perhaps), I wonder how this information can be repeatedly accessed in stimulating ways?

Secondly, what you say about the 4th dimension might be true, but perhaps there is some technique that can be applied to 3d objects to alter our perceptions.

I was looking into 'Light storage', and found an experiment that managed to store light for up to 60 seconds, I think under a cooler temperature.
This may be a step in the right direction.

Post Reply