 The Limits of Movement, Planck, Einstein, and Howling Coyote |
  |
 Aug 14 2007, 06:15 PM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence  Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715  |
Very cool thread.
1) I want to agree with Frank regarding the limits of sorcery, not the limits of magic. 2) To my complete and utter amazement, I understood every word of hyzmarca's first post. Good stuff! 3) Regarding Plank length. Isn't there also a Plank time? You don't have to divide the distance and risk fractions, you just multiply the number of Plank times it takes to traverse that distance. At any given time in the middle, the position will have to be rounded to the nearest length, but in the end it'll get there at the right time. True, you get an odd granularity there with it seeming to sit still and then jump 1 length in 1 time, but if you're looking at objects moving on those space/time scales there's going to be the same odd granularity without movement power, so the magic isn't really adding any new weirdness. Right? |
 |
 
|
|
Aug 14 2007, 06:20 PM
Post
#27
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Just because there are an infinite number of different realities does not mean that everything that is possible exists in one of them. A simple example: Assume that there are an infinite number of planets. Give each of them an integer designation. There is a planet #1, a planet #2, and so on, infinitely. The set of positive integers is an infinite set, and idea for numbering an infinite set of planets. In this example, there will never be a planet #1.5 So an infinite number of possibilities does not necessarily imply that everything possible exists. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 14 2007, 06:21 PM
Post
#28
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
I'm going to tear your arguement appart and I only need two words to do it, Avengers Disassembled.
Avengers Disassembled, House of M, and related Marvel storylines pretty well show how treating magic as quantum-scale reality adjustment can go horribly, horribly, wrong. When developing universal magical theories for shared fictional universes, it is very important to make those theories dickweed proof. If you don't, then he is pretty much guaranteed that some dickweed will come along and screw everything up and some other dickweed will think it is a brilliant idea and make it canon. Note: This isn't intended as personal insult directed at any specific Marvel writers or staff members. They all do some really good work. But no one can deny that Avengers Disassembled was a pretty dickweeded abuse of poorly-defined reality alteration powers. It is, in fact, the single most dickweedy abuse of reality alteration powers since the invention of killing everyone off and then hitting the reset button. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 14 2007, 06:32 PM
Post
#29
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Who are you talking to? Which argument? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 14 2007, 06:43 PM
Post
#30
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 94 Joined: 27-March 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 4,341 |
[[Citation Needed]] please. I know they're hypothesized by certain iterations of GUT (notably string theory). if actual particles have been 'found'; I want to see the paper and the journal that published the paper, because this is a huge fucking deal. for physics. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 14 2007, 06:44 PM
Post
#31
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Sorry for hitting a sore spot with my general comment in response to someone else's general comment. Flying off the handle over said comment is actually exactly the thing I was talking about. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 14 2007, 06:46 PM
Post
#32
|
|||
|
Old Man Jones Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,415 Joined: 26-February 02 From: New York Member No.: 1,699 |
This of course means that somewhere in multiversal space-time, someone's cheeseburger has mysteriously disappeared. Making that person very very angry. :D -karma |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 14 2007, 06:50 PM
Post
#33
|
|||
|
Deus Absconditus Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,742 Joined: 1-September 03 From: Downtown Seattle, UCAS Member No.: 5,566 |
Only because you've artificially limited your example. In fact, your example does not follow what you are saying at all. What your argument is saying is "Okay, there are infinite realities. But there's no reality and a half!" That's not part of the original argument. It's the equivalent to 'Can god create a rock so big he can't lift it?" The logical answer to which is "If god is omnipotent, the rock is both too big and not big enough at the same time, because you are trying to limit a quantum being with your linear notions of ability and possibility." Just because there are an infinite number of different realities does not mean that everything that is possible exists in one of them. Yes. It quite specifically does. Putting aside the issue that I don't think there are infinite realities and all that junk... If there are an infinite number of permutations of the possible, then all possible combinations of existence can be said to exist somewhere. The universes, if they are truly infinite, has any combination that is possible to imagine. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 14 2007, 06:54 PM
Post
#34
|
|||||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
That would be magic is relality manipulation argument, hence the about Avengers Disassembled and how easily and horibly reality manipulation can be abused, even if limited. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 14 2007, 06:59 PM
Post
#35
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Look, there are different levels of infinity. Let's try another example. You have an infinite number of universes. In each universe, the probability that a flipped coin lands head up ranges from 0.4 to 0.6, and all real numbers between 0.4 and 0.6 are represented. There is an uncountably infinite set of numbers between 0.4 and 0.6, so we have an uncountably infinite number of different universes represented here. And yet, in this uncountably infinite set of universes, there still isn't a universe where the probability is 0.7. Just because a set (of number, of universes, of whatever) is infinite, that doesn't mean that it includes everything. You can have an infinite set that has real elements outside of it. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 14 2007, 07:01 PM
Post
#36
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 327 Joined: 28-January 06 Member No.: 8,209 |
Dude, why do you think the Horrors are so dead set on destroying (or at least eating) the world? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 14 2007, 07:06 PM
Post
#37
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 327 Joined: 28-January 06 Member No.: 8,209 |
Forgive me here, but it seems like your counterargument starts by putting an artificial restriction onto the universes and then using the restriction you placed on them to say they don't include everything. Having infinite possibilties doesn't mean everything that could possibly happen happens in one, in and of itself. Defining your inifinite universes as the set of universes covering all possible outcomes does. You can have an infinite set that very pointedly doesn't include possiblities; but that doesn't mean you have to. You introduced that restriction. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 14 2007, 07:06 PM
Post
#38
|
|||||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
And Planck mass, and Planck pressure, and Planck... look, it a system of units, defined only on natural constants. Nothing more, nothing less. There are other systems like it.
Thus, this is completly and utterly wrong. You are not limited to natural multiples of Planck Units. It's just a reference. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 14 2007, 07:07 PM
Post
#39
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,219 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lofwyr's stomach. Member No.: 1,320 |
Right, see, in an infinite number of universes, every thing possible exists. There are still things which are impossible, and no matter how many universes there are, the impossible will not happen.
You're arguing different arguments. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 14 2007, 07:16 PM
Post
#40
|
|||||||
|
Deus Absconditus Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,742 Joined: 1-September 03 From: Downtown Seattle, UCAS Member No.: 5,566 |
Are/were you a math major? Because I've noticed math majors have a tendancy to use quantifiable infinities as 'equally valid' with unquantifiable infinities in metaphysical arguments with philosophy majors. Just to head that off at a pass, philosophically you cannot use quantifiable/bounded set infinities to mean 'infinite'. You run into too many problems.
This is because in the definition of 'flipping a coin', such a thing is impossible. We're speaking only of the possible arrangements of stuff within universes.
Alright. Here's really where we're running into problems. We have a collection of blocks. Like a huge-ass collection of legos. Then there are an infinite number of places where this collection of legos has been copied identically and played with by ADD-addled children. Given that there are an infinite number of permutations to the lego blocks, it is logical and expected that somewhere within these playplaces, every possible arrangement of blocks has been created by the ADD Gods. Much the same with truly infinite universes, all possible arrangements of universal 'stuff' can be said to exist in somewhere, if universes are truly infinite. However, much like you can't mix Duplo and Lego because the dots just won't fit, you can't have stars made of ice and you can't have two planets occupying the same space at the same time yet not interacting. At least if we want to retain any definition of the word 'possible' at all. I don't see how one can argue that in a limitless system of permutations, certain permuatations are not going to occur. It is counter-intuitive, against deductive logic, or possibly rooted in examining such a system and artifically imposing boundaries on it. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Aug 14 2007, 07:20 PM
Post
#41
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 524 Joined: 12-April 06 Member No.: 8,455 |
With magic, you can make the coin land on edge. Every time. :rotate:
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 14 2007, 08:12 PM
Post
#42
|
|
|
Bushido Cowgirl Group: Members Posts: 5,782 Joined: 8-July 05 From: On the Double K Ranch a half day's ride out of Phlogiston Flats Member No.: 7,490 |
...now where did I put that Infinite Improbability Drive operator's manual? :grinbig:
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 14 2007, 08:28 PM
Post
#43
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 42 Joined: 25-July 07 Member No.: 12,354 |
For the people advocating rounding off when you try to divide the Plank units, I think they meant from our perspective/measurements, since we can't really see it on a smaller scale.
Good point on the Sorcery vs. Conjuring argument, I'll have to dig through my books a bit more to find the reference again. Speaking of which, is this in Street Magic or the core book (don't have the books on me)? My counterargument, does conjuring actually break those laws against space/time & sentience? From my understanding the sentience behind whatever spirit you summon is already existant and it just comes to you from the metaplanes, and distance in the astral is almost meaningless. Are there other powers a spirit has that can be used on the material realm that would truly break those laws of magic (actual question)? The thermodynamic laws are already being broken with sorcery, just by virtue of fireball and similar effects, so I'm not concerned about that. So the ancillary effects of these reality-defying acts of magic might be more easily dealt with, and thus the speed increase would work perfectly fine until it started hitting the light barrier (assuming they're limited by such things in the material). As for these feats of science where we slowed down light, that's already accepted. What you're doing is taking the energy of a beam of light and trapping it & releasing it, almost like a hall of mirrors (very simplified terms). And we haven't found tachyons, only gave them a name (like gravitons). Even then, the experiments where we made light go faster than c are only sorta accurate, and it's still impossible to actually transmit information faster than c. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 14 2007, 08:34 PM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
I think that we're missing something in the jump from a pink elephant may exist to a pink elephant does exist. That something is that the universe is not required to be nondeterministic.
Even quantum uncertainty does not require that the universe be non-deterministic, it only requires that it not be fully quantifiable. In a deterministic multi-verse, there may indeed by an infinite number of universes but there is no need for those universes to have any differences at all, nor is there any need for those universes to be remotely similar. In a deterministic universe, there are no maybes and no probabilities; there are only things that are, things that are not, and uncertainty due to incomplete data. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 14 2007, 08:36 PM
Post
#45
|
|||||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
No, engineering. Engineering majors and math majors use infinity very differently. The counterpoint to this being: Philosophy majors tend to define their infinities very poorly. You cannot assume that the universes are "infinite" and then conclude that therefore they includes all things possible, because there are smaller versions of infinity that are much smaller than everything. You CAN assume that the universes are infinite such that all things that are possible are included in them, and then move on from there. But the "all things possible existing" has to be in your assumed definition of infinity, not as a conclusion drawn from it. But just saying "infinity" does not imply "everything", unless you define infinity to do so in the first place. One side says I'm placing unnecessary restriction on infinity. I say you're assuming infinity is bigger than it necessarily is. And that's fine, but it's part of the assumption, not the conclusion. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 14 2007, 08:39 PM
Post
#46
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Good point. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 14 2007, 08:43 PM
Post
#47
|
|||||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
No. Imagine for the moment that you roll an infinite set of dice. It is possible that all of them (every single infinite one of them) will come up "3". That does not mean that this will actually happen. Indeed, I can flatly guaranty that it won't happen since I have a better chance of being struck by lightning or eaten by pigs than being shown up incorrect (despite the fact that all three events are possible, I'm willing to bet my life that they won't happen - infinite universe or no). Just because you have an infinite set doesn't mean everything is represented in that set. Just because you take infinite chances does not mean that you hit every infinitesimal probability under your curve.
Sorcery cannot affect anything to which the user does not have a magical link. Spirits can hit you with a board with a nail in it. Sorcery cannot alter the space/time continuum. Spirits can metaplanar shortcut in your face. Sorcery cannot divine the future with any certainty. Guidance spirits get Diination as a standard power. Sorcery cannot summon or Banish spirits. Conjuring... yeah. Sorcery cannot raise the dead. Cybermancy is an advanced Metamagic off of Invoking. Sorcery cannot create magical items. Spirits can aid enchanting. Sorcery cannot create complex things. The Wealth power just gave me a new persian rug. Magic is not Intelligent. My Ifrit beats me at chess all the time. -Frank |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 14 2007, 08:47 PM
Post
#48
|
|
|
The Dragon Never Sleeps Group: Admin Posts: 6,924 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,667 |
The infinite argument shall never end....
I don't have to explain why do I? |
|
|
|
|
Aug 14 2007, 08:47 PM
Post
#49
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 524 Joined: 12-April 06 Member No.: 8,455 |
Spirits get very handwavy. Are they sentient? I think that many folks would consider free spirits (particularly powerful ones) sentient and self-aware, but different traditions have different viewpoints on what exactly a spirit *is*. Some traditions say they're just mana formed into a vessel by the mage. Others say they're independent actors yanked from their homes and forced into slavery. Neither of these viewpoints does a great job of explaining both free and ally spirits, again, especially powerful ones.
The same goes with how a spirit's powers work. So, can spirits bend or even break some of the laws of sorcery? Well, some things (interplanar shortcuts) look close enough for government work, so, while the answer may technically be "no", I wouldn't use the laws of sorcery to outright declare that a spirit can't be used as a FTL drive. EDIT: Well, Frank beat me to it (and went point by point, no less). I'm going to say there's no reason a spirit can't use its powers to do anything that falls within the definition of its abilities, no matter how insane. I think I'll make a really warm cup of tea now. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 14 2007, 08:51 PM
Post
#50
|
|||
|
Bushido Cowgirl Group: Members Posts: 5,782 Joined: 8-July 05 From: On the Double K Ranch a half day's ride out of Phlogiston Flats Member No.: 7,490 |
...but, are there an infinite number of infinities? Or just a finite number? ...then again, even a finite number of infinities would be infinite due to the nature of it's contents wouldn't it? ...och! my cerebral booster hurts again. Waiter, a barrel of Naproxen Sodium and a glass of water please? :scatter: |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 30th January 2025 - 08:12 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.