Is this the end?

[Famine]

And who defined that?

Why would someone need to define it? The word you're looking for is "discovered".

Ah, Man of course. Man's definitions are not absolutes.

No, but his discoveries are. We have a specific, objective process for discovering information that rules out the fact we are the ones discovering it. It's called "the scientific method" and it works on any scale.

The reason you're able to communicate this to us on the internet is the scientific method and it makes little sense to quite happily accept that but randomly pretend it doesn't work for other things.

The "conclusion through evidence" you smugly refer to, i.e. the ludicrous Big Bang theory is just that. A theory.
It is not a fact, nor has it ever remotely come close to being proven.

"Theory" does not mean "guess". It means "explanation for all known facts". Theory is above fact in the hierarchy of truthfulness, not below it.

In any case, we have an excellent Opinions forum where you're welcome to discuss things like this.

 

[XxHighWayStarXx]

Why would someone need to define it? The word you're looking for is "discovered".
No, but his discoveries are. We have a specific, objective process for discovering information that rules out the fact we are the ones discovering it. It's called "the scientific method" and it works on any scale.

The reason you're able to communicate this to us on the internet is the scientific method and it makes little sense to quite happily accept that but randomly pretend it doesn't work for other things.

In any case, we have an excellent Opinions forum where you're welcome to discuss things like this.

You said "by definition" in your previous post. I responded to your assertion by asking *who* defined the definition you brought up.
Please. The scientific method. Do not equate the use of the internet with asserting that we *know* how the Universe started yada yada yada.

Anyway, I did not introduce this cosmic debate into this topic. Believe what you will & more power to you.

 

[bremics]

For me, it's impossible to return to GT5. Impossible.

GT6 is better on all points or almost.....

GT5 is better on all points or almost.....

Better B-SPEC mode.
Has a course creator.
Better music.
Premium cars can be sorted out automatically.
Menus actually have life to them.
Career mode is better.

The only thing GT6 does better than car count/quality is the lack of level locked cars and you don't have to pray that non-premium car you want will be one of the 20 cars that show up at a time in the used car dealer.

I spent more time the last month on GT5 then GT6.

Them shutting down the servers was and still is BS by the way. I can still play Forza 2
online.

 

[Famine]

You said "by definition" in your previous post.

That doesn't mean that someone defined it. It is a definition we discovered.

Please. The scientific method.

Yes, the objective method of discovering all knowledge.

Do not equate the use of the internet with asserting that we *know* how the Universe started yada yada yada.

Why not? Computers and the internet are only possible through the scientific method - by hypothesis, objective testing, observation, discovery and theory. They only exist due to the application of the scientific method in chemistry and physics - indeed the internet only exists due to the CERN experiment, the cutting edge of particle physics and discoveries about the fine structure of the universe through... the scientific method.

Incidentally, you seem to be conflating the Big Bang Theory, which is an explanation for all known facts, data, laws and observations about cosmology and very specifically covers the state of the universe from the moment that the four dimensions of time and space arose through to the very early few million years of the universe, with knowing how the universe started. It's a bit odd that you reject the theory on the basis of something it doesn't actually cover - it's like rejecting evolutionary theory because it doesn't explain Jupiter.

Anyway, I did not introduce this cosmic debate into this topic.

Oh really? This was your response to the question of if you would like the universe to be quantifiable by a number:

As for the universe, that has never been quantifiable & never will. Any scientific claim to the contrary is pure folly.
You cannot quantify infinity. There is no mathematical equation that can explain something that never had a beginning and will never have an end. No matter what any "professor" says.

And that's the start of "the cosmic debate"...

Believe what you will & more power to you.

The beauty of the scientific method is that it doesn't matter what you believe or don't believe. It returns an objective description of reality through theories (which, again, are higher than facts, laws or proofs - as they are explanations that cover the sum total of facts, laws and proofs) that no amount belief can make untrue and no amount of belief can make true. You are by all means welcome to believe that this is incorrect if you like, but that doesn't really matter.

As I mentioned before, we have an excellent Opinions forum where you can deny cosmic knowledge because you think it's "just a theory" all day long if you like. It's a topic that comes up over and over again, usually in one of the religiously-oriented threads like "Do you believe in God?", so you'd fit right in.

 

[TJC_69]

You said "by definition" in your previous post. I responded to your assertion by asking *who* defined the definition you brought up.
Please. The scientific method. Do not equate the use of the internet with asserting that we *know* how the Universe started yada yada yada.

Anyway, I did not introduce this cosmic debate into this topic. Believe what you will & more power to you.

No disrespect meant by this, but you really have no idea what you're talking about.
If you don't believe the scientific method is applicable to how the Internet functions then I suspect that in your world that electricity is witchcraft, the internal combustion engine is run by magic etc... I don't know where people receive such unfounded self belief systems thesedays... But anyway.

GT5 is better on all points or almost.....

Better B-SPEC mode.
Has a course creator.
Better music.
Premium cars can be sorted out automatically.
Menus actually have life to them.
Career mode is better.

The only thing GT6 does better than car count/quality is the lack of level locked cars and you don't have to pray that non-premium car you want will be one of the 20 cars that show up at a time in the used car dealer.

I spent more time the last month on GT5 then GT6.

Them shutting down the servers was and still is BS by the way. I can still play Forza 2
online.

+1. Fully agree Bremics. Kinda wish my PS3 still played GT5, loads I haven't finished in there still.

 

[JKgo]

...

Better B-SPEC mode.
Has a course creator.
Better music.
Premium cars can be sorted out automatically.
Menus actually have life to them.
Career mode is better.

1. You're right about that one. Not by much though.
2. Has one, but used once and promptly forgotten. Yep, I'm one of those guys.
3. ...Used my own stuff off HDD (and still do), so not sure what to say here...
4. GT6 has more premium cars. I'd say it's split decision. Instead, you should've mentioned the no-limit garage...
5. I HATED GT5's menu. It was clunky, unintuitive and I was glad to hear GT6's menu was designed by someone else.
6. This point is wholly debatable. Actually y'know what, both games have b-o-r-i-n-g careers.

 

[XxHighWayStarXx]

No disrespect meant by this, but you really have no idea what you're talking about.
If you don't believe the scientific method is applicable to how the Internet functions then I suspect that in your world that electricity is witchcraft, the internal combustion engine is run by magic etc... I don't know where people receive such unfounded self belief systems thesedays... But anyway.



+1. Fully agree Bremics. Kinda wish my PS3 still played GT5, loads I haven't finished in there still.

No disrespect but can you comprehend what you're reading?? You brag on like you have some higher intellect but you betray yourself once again.
I didn't say it wasn't applicable to how the Internet functions, I said not to *equate* that with the assertion that we *know* how the Universe started.
In other words, just because we started the Internet doesn't mean that therefore we know how everything started.
I think it's you that needs to expand your narrow mindedness. Just a tad.
But anyway, carry on & twist away.

 

[TJC_69]

No disrespect but can you comprehend what you're reading??

Yes fully, you? Interesting how you are trying to refute my points, but none of Famines I notice..

You brag on like you have some higher intellect but you betray yourself once again.

Really? Where? Have I betrayed myself through your lack of understanding, or through your casual dismissal of the scientific method?

I didn't say it wasn't applicable to how the Internet functions, I said not to *equate* that with the assertion that we *know* how the Universe started.
In other words, just because we started the Internet doesn't mean that therefore we know how everything started.

And Famine fully explained that to you.

I think it's you that needs to expand your narrow mindedness. Just a tad.
But anyway, carry on & twist away.

Me? Narrow minded?

XxHighWayStarXx said

The universe, just keep believing whatever you're told.

The ludicrous Big Bang Theory is just that. A theory.

The pictures you refer to *prove* nothing.

Man loves to speculate and hypothesize. That's about it.

Life doesn't get anymore narrow minded than that. 👍

Anyway, GT6 thread....

 

[Quakebass]

The lack of Gran Turismo information has brought a GTPlanet thread to arguing heatedly over the complexities of the universe and the functions of the scientific method.

The end is nigh.

 

[FoRiZon]

The lack of Gran Turismo information has brought a GTPlanet thread to arguing heatedly over the complexities of the universe and the functions of the scientific method.

The end is nigh.

Looks like the "Do you believe in Course Maker?" thread.

Oh wait.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

The course maker will come to pass, you only need to read the ancient texts and have faith. The end of GT6 is not near.

 

[05XR8]

...meaning, the end of this thread? Maybe. 3... 2... 1...

 

[TiZzla]

Maybe they are working on a release title for Playstation 5

 

[Zlork]

GT5 is better on all points or almost.....

Better B-SPEC mode.
Has a course creator.
Better music.
Premium cars can be sorted out automatically.
Menus actually have life to them.
Career mode is better.

1- I much prefer this B-Spec Mode : optional and most complete in the guidelines.
2- Course maker will arrive on GT6.
3- GT6 has taken some music of old episodes. If only for that, it's better. Then, it's possible to use our own songs.
4- GT6 has more premium cars
5- GT5's menu? Yuck! It was clunky and unintuitive
6- The career mode of GT6 is much better. More courses, more diversity.... License mode became mandatory.
And especially the disappearance of XP system ! I prefer star system, much less frustrating. The only problem is endurance races that have disappeared.

GT6 have too : better physic, better track list with more day/night cycle and dynamic weather, Sierra rally mode, community more intuitive and more complete, etc.

GT6 has imperfections but clearly with this episode, PoDi handed series back on track. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Imari]

Looks like the "Do you believe in Course Maker?" thread.

That would probably be a good thread.

 

[XxHighWayStarXx]

That doesn't mean that someone defined it. It is a definition we discovered.Yes, the objective method of discovering all knowledge.Why not? Computers and the internet are only possible through the scientific method - by hypothesis, objective testing, observation, discovery and theory. They only exist due to the application of the scientific method in chemistry and physics - indeed the internet only exists due to the CERN experiment, the cutting edge of particle physics and discoveries about the fine structure of the universe through... the scientific method.

Incidentally, you seem to be conflating the Big Bang Theory, which is an explanation for all known facts, data, laws and observations about cosmology and very specifically covers the state of the universe from the moment that the four dimensions of time and space arose through to the very early few million years of the universe, with knowing how the universe started. It's a bit odd that you reject the theory on the basis of something it doesn't actually cover - it's like rejecting evolutionary theory because it doesn't explain Jupiter.Oh really? This was your response to the question of if you would like the universe to be quantifiable by a number:
And that's the start of "the cosmic debate"...The beauty of the scientific method is that it doesn't matter what you believe or don't believe. It returns an objective description of reality through theories (which, again, are higher than facts, laws or proofs - as they are explanations that cover the sum total of facts, laws and proofs) that no amount belief can make untrue and no amount of belief can make true. You are by all means welcome to believe that this is incorrect if you like, but that doesn't really matter.

As I mentioned before, we have an excellent Opinions forum where you can deny cosmic knowledge because you think it's "just a theory" all day long if you like. It's a topic that comes up over and over again, usually in one of the religiously-oriented threads like "Do you believe in God?", so you'd fit right in.

I replied to a question regarding the Universe. Hence I did NOT introduce it to this discussion.
You can regurgitate all the scientific explanations & theories all you like. They are very interesting, but they *prove* nothing. You think they do, great, as I said more power to you.
Let's leave it at that.

Yes fully, you? Interesting how you are trying to refute my points, but none of Famines I notice..



Really? Where? Have I betrayed myself through your lack of understanding, or through your casual dismissal of the scientific method?



And Famine fully explained that to you.



Me? Narrow minded?



Life doesn't get anymore narrow minded than that. 👍

Anyway, GT6 thread....

Forgive me, if Famine says it is so then I should have known my place. I bow to your complete knowledge of all things Man claims to know.
Far be it for lowly me to refute such indisputable truths.
Whatever floats your boat.

 

[Famine]

I replied to a question regarding the Universe. Hence I did NOT introduce it to this discussion.

But you did start "the cosmic debate" by asserting some things about the universe that aren't true, thanks to your complete misunderstanding of the scientific method, the specific application of the word 'theory' in the scientific method and what the Big Bang Theory is actually about.

The question was if you'd like the universe to be quantified by a single number, not what you think about some areas of science you know less about than you think you do.

You can regurgitate all the scientific explanations & theories all you like. They are very interesting, but they *prove* nothing. You think they do, great, as I said more power to you.

No, I don't. That's because theories are explanations that cover proof. A theory cannot prove anything. A theory explains the proofs that we see, along with all other data, evidence and laws. If a theory cannot explain part of the evidence seen, it is not a theory any more.

Let's leave it at that.

Let's not leave it at you telling other people what they think despite them clearly articulating previously a different position.

Let's also not leave it at you double posting. Use the Edit button to add information if you are still the most recent poster, the +Quote button to queue quotes into a single response, hit the Reply button on each post to have it added to the Reply box or highlight individual text and click the popup Reply button to do the same with shorter sentences. I have merged your posts for you (again).


If you wish to continue to discuss your assertions about the scientific method, do so in the Opinions forum, not here.

 

[XxHighWayStarXx]

But you did start "the cosmic debate" by asserting some things about the universe that aren't true, thanks to your complete misunderstanding of the scientific method, the specific application of the word 'theory' in the scientific method and what the Big Bang Theory is actually about.

The question was if you'd like the universe to be quantified by a single number, not what you think about some areas of science you know less about than you think you do.No, I don't. That's because theories are explanations that cover proof. A theory cannot prove anything. A theory explains the proofs that we see, along with all other data, evidence and laws. If a theory cannot explain part of the evidence seen, it is not a theory any more.Let's not leave it at you telling other people what they think despite them clearly articulating previously a different position.

Let's also not leave it at you double posting. Use the Edit button to add information if you are still the most recent poster, the +Quote button to queue quotes into a single response, hit the Reply button on each post to have it added to the Reply box or highlight individual text and click the popup Reply button to do the same with shorter sentences. I have merged your posts for you (again).


If you wish to continue to discuss your assertions about the scientific method, do so in the Opinions forum, not here.

You clearly believe I am wrong, I don't.
That's what I meant by "let's leave it at that".

 

[Famine]

You clearly believe I am wrong, I don't.

I'm pretty sure I just told you not to tell other people what they think:

Let's not leave it at you telling other people what they think despite them clearly articulating previously a different position.

Yes I did. So no let's not leave it at you telling other people what they think. Again.

For the fourth time, if you wish to continue to discuss your assertions about the scientific method, do so in the Opinions forum, not here.

 

[Nexus]

...License mode became mandatory...

I don't see this as a good thing, especially since the licence tests were easier than those in GT5.
I do agree with most of your other points, though.

 

[MatskiMonk]

That would probably be a good thread.

Please god no.

 

[ederss7]

Yes, this is the end. Our only friend is the course maker.
The only thing that keeps the game alive. When they finally deliver it, it will be completely dead. If you are still looking after VGT, then you can expect something else.

 

[TJC_69]

Forgive me...

You are forgiven. And I'd listen to Famine if I were you. He's making an excellent point, somehow you are unwilling to see it though... Which is a shame.

 

[Voodoovaj]

Since the topic is "the end" of GT6, where are the news bits on the next VGTs and this (18 months late) course creator.

And before anyone brings up the position that it wasn't promised for launch, it was a preexisting feature, therefore, it was late when it didn't ship. Just like the scaled back and not improved B-spec (which already was a step worse than the GT4 Bspec)

 

[TJC_69]

Since the topic is "the end" of GT6, where are the news bits on the next VGTs and this (18 months late) course creator.

And before anyone brings up the position that it wasn't promised for launch, it was a preexisting feature, therefore, it was late when it didn't ship. Just like the scaled back and not improved B-spec (which already was a step worse than the GT4 Bspec)

Can we Skype Kaz to find out? Pondering...

At this point only PD probably knows. If PD had a more customer friendly communication setup in place then we wouldn't have to wonder. Incidentally, if you watch Kazs' documentary ; " Pushing The Virtual Divide ", you gain an interesting look into his life. He gets up late, drives to the office, works late into the night... He has a good thing going there.

Time will tell on what's going on though. I only think Kaz and his PD team fully know what's going on.

Edit- Here's the documentary if anyone is interested.

 

[XxHighWayStarXx]

You are forgiven. And I'd listen to Famine if I were you. He's making an excellent point, somehow you are unwilling to see it though... Which is a shame.

Maybe. But that's your opinion. There are many points, I don't have to agree with them, however.
And no, I don't see any shame.
You are a good follower. I'm not.

 

[Speedracer8218]

Me clicking on this thread today

 

[FoRiZon]

Me clicking on this thread today

Just like the whole GT6 subforum then....

 

[TJC_69]

Maybe. But that's your opinion. There are many points, I don't have to agree with them, however.
And no, I don't see any shame.
You are a good follower. I'm not.

A follower of what, may I enquire? Last thing I remember following was a Nissan 350Z whilst stuck in traffic.
Although i'm asking rhetorical questions once more ... So let me just answer your train of thought before you even ask me a follow up.

No, science is not a religion. No, i'm not a follower. And finally... Just...no.

GT6 convo...

//End.

 

[XxHighWayStarXx]

A follower of what, may I enquire? Last thing I remember following was a Nissan 350Z whilst stuck in traffic.
Although i'm asking rhetorical questions once more ... So let me just answer your train of thought before you even ask me a follow up.

No, science is not a religion. No, i'm not a follower. And finally... Just...no.

GT6 convo...

//End.

Highly presumptuous of you to think you'd know what my train of thought was going to be.
But anyway, if you say so.