FrankTrollman
Aug 14 2007, 02:50 AM
OK, as we know the
Movement power allows a critter to increase or decrease a target's apparent speed by a multiple (or divisor) of the critter's Magic attribute. Once the power has been turned on, visual contact need not be maintained (which is great news fort the rest of the thought experiments). While it is maintained the additional speed does not cause untoward effects to the target other than getting to its destination sooner or later - a person's limbs don't get torn off from th sudden rush of speed, a car doesn't burn through fuel at some horrendous rate, and a bullet does not hit its target any harder (just sooner).
And that's great for velocities much greater than zero and much smaller than the speed of light. But let's consider the fact that physics is constrained by a minimum speed and a maximum speed. Magic is, as far as I know
not so constrained. Nevertheless, I am forced to ask what precisely
happens when you make such an attempt?
Let's say that you have something that's moving extraordinarily fast. Say, half the speed of light. Now, with a mere Force 3 Earth Spirit you can use Movement to about 50% more than the speed of light. Or can you? At the speeds that Shadowrun normally is played at, special relativity isn't called for at all. Instead, we consider velocities to simply add like they do in a classical Newtonian world. But at very high speeds, that's an invalid assumption (at least for non-magical movement). The particle accelerated to three times its velocity would have a speed well less than the speed of light.
So that brings us to the question:
- When Movement doubles, triples, or dodecuples a target's speed, is that merely creating a time dilation sufficient to get it to its destination in a time consistent with having that many times the energy, or is it creating a physics-defying time dilation sufficient to get the target to its destination in a fraction of the time, speed of light be damned?
Of course we likewise have problems at the low end as well. If an object is already as close to absolute zero as it is possible to be, can you use Movement to make its effective speed even less? What happens when those precious Planck Times click by and the object hasn't gotten to the next interval of Planck Space?
-Frank
Thomas
Aug 14 2007, 03:00 AM
QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
[...] Of course we likewise have problems at the low end as well. If an object is already as close to absolute zero as it is possible to be, can you use Movement to make its effective speed even less? What happens when those precious Planck Times click by and the object hasn't gotten to the next interval of Planck Space?
-Frank |
Umm, an Bose-Einstein condensate?
odinson
Aug 14 2007, 03:42 AM
It's magic. It breaks the laws of physics. You don't have to worry about going 50% over the speed of light or how it's not possible because magic just throws all that other scientific mumbo jumbo out the window.
mfb
Aug 14 2007, 04:16 AM
well, you kinda do have to worry about it when it happens. speeding an object up past light speed or down so low that Planck Times start coming into play are unlikely to happen... but like Frank said, you don't need to reach those extremes to start obviously violating physics--speeding up a bullet with Movement doesn't increase its energy on impact, for instance. sure, "it's magic" is why that happens--but "it's magic" doesn't explain the ramifications of such an impossible occurrence.
Solomon Greene
Aug 14 2007, 04:27 AM
Somewhere, there's a term paper for MMIT&T in this post.
hyzmarca
Aug 14 2007, 04:58 AM
I believe that this question can only be solved by determining the relationship between quantum physics, the physical constants, magical operations, and metaphysical Platonic Forms.
Earthdawn metaphysics shows us that the universe is a tapestry of interconnected metaphysical Platonic Forms called Patterns made of Karma through which mana can flow.
All physical laws and constants are derived from these metaphysical Patterns. The speed of light is among those laws.
The nature of magic is such that it cannot be used to directly alter the flow of time or the shape of space, though objects created by magic can.
I take this to mean that the Movement cannot cause time-dilation or bending of space.
But the important thing to remember about Movement is that it alters the terrain around the target rather than the target itself, which is why it is only effective in terrain that the Movement user "controls".
Remember that the speed of light in a vacuum is only one value of the speed of light. In other substances, such as water, light moves slower.
The speed is light in a vacuum divided by the speed of light in a material is that material's refractive index. The speed of light in a vacuum divided by material's refractive index is the velocity of light in that material. c/n=v
There exist some materials at some temperatures that have refractive indexes less than 1. The speed of light in these materials is greater than c, though this is an impractical parlor trick that cannot be used to transmit information faster than light.
Let us assume that the current energy state of the vacuum is not the only energy state that the vacuum can have. Let us also assume that the basic physical constants of the universe are related to the energy state of the quantum foam, in the same way that the refractive index of a material is related to its energy state.
Now, if one were to alter the state of the quantum foam, either through the abuse of zero-point energy or by temporarily altering its metaphysical Pattern through the application of mana, one might alter many physical constants, including the speed of light in a vacuum.
Let us assume that there exists a single photon and a single spirit for force 6 with astral senses of such fidelity that it can "see" photons using astral sight and sharp enough that it can "see" this photon clearly several for several lightseconds. As the photon leaves the atmosphere, the spirit uses Movement on it. The Movement Power channels mana into the quantum foam around the photon in such a way that c itself is multiplied six times in the space around the photon and only the space around the photon, which causes the photon to move six times faster without any sort of time dilation. To the outside world in all frames of reference the photon appears to be traveling at 6c.
Draconis
Aug 14 2007, 05:48 AM
uh.......cheeseburger?
odinson
Aug 14 2007, 06:22 AM
QUOTE (Draconis) |
uh.......cheeseburger? |
In half the time.
virgileso
Aug 14 2007, 06:45 AM
From what I'm aware, the slowing down aspect of movement affects only the gross displacement of macroscopic objects, and doesn't make items colder, so its interaction with Plank's Constant should be nonexistant; unless you're trying to move and observe an object moving at speeds on the Plank scale, and thus the thermal energy from the scientist in the other room might knock the object to the side.
As for trying to exceed the speed of light...breaking the speed of light creates effects that breaks causality (information in one frame of reference is received before the original frame of reference actually transmits the information). And since magic can't break/bend certain laws, I'd consider causality to be in the same boat as the rule against teleportation, and just have that movement increasing spirit hit a proverbial 'wall' in attempting to break the light barrier.
Rotbart van Dainig
Aug 14 2007, 06:49 AM
Only to an observer external to the system.
Planck units are not minimal steps - they are just a one unit system defined by natural constants.
Which in turn means that if those natural constants change, no-one will notice it: If both mesurement and reference change alike, the quantity is still the same.
But if that phenomen is limited, there will be external and internal observers.
And as those affected by movement don't notices a significant factor in flow of time between each other, it looks like movement does not touch natural constants.
Red
Aug 14 2007, 11:30 AM
Shadowrun, if you draw from the Earthdawn universe, is at its roots a symbolic universe. For everyday life when symbols aren't in play physics are fine. But there are times when magic or patterns are involved that the universe simply operates in a more literary manner.
I'd say that a target at 1/2 the speed of light with F3 movement simply gets there 50% faster than light. One could say that it never really goes faster than light no more than it would become more difficult to steer at such a speed. It is just simply /there/ faster.
Blade
Aug 14 2007, 12:13 PM
In France, we've got an acronym for such cases: TGCM ("Ta Gueule C'est Magique !"= "Shut Up It's Magic!").
I mean, magic can make food appear: creating mass/matter out of nothing. Magic can make dragons fly by flapping wings, which would be physically impossible. Magic can make people run fast without being tired, breaking the legs, etc. You can even suddenly slow down the target without it suffering the effect of the deceleration.
What's happening physically? I guess that trying to run test will return unusable data, just like when trying to analyze the composition of orichalcum. A scientific might explain it by stating that the universe's constants are changed by magic but it won't be more valid than any other explanation someone might come up with.
Ol' Scratch
Aug 14 2007, 01:44 PM
QUOTE (Blade @ Aug 14 2007, 06:13 AM) |
In France, we've got an acronym for such cases: TGCM ("Ta Gueule C'est Magique !"= "Shut Up It's Magic!"). |
They don't take too kindly to thems kind of opinions 'round these here parts. It's one that I personally advocate, but most of the people here insist on treating magic as a form of physics, rather than the physics-defying phenomenon that occurs within its own rules and limitations.
As this thread demonstrates, creating sentient life, huge bolts of thunder and lightning, or banquets of food out of thin air is perfectly acceptable. Making things completely disappear, healing mortal wounds in seconds, and turning people to goo and back at will are equally fine and dandy. But make someone or something move a bit faster or slower and, for the love of God, you've just broken a cardinal-fucking-sin.
It'd be humorous if not for the absolutely mind-boggling aspect of the perspective...
Wakshaani
Aug 14 2007, 02:12 PM
Don't forget that lightspeed isn't an absolute. Not only is it slower in water, for example, but we've chilled light to slow it down so much that a person could walk faster than the beam was going.
Plus, we found Tachyons, which go faster than light at base speed.
Who knows what else is out there and we just haven't found it, yet?
DireRadiant
Aug 14 2007, 02:14 PM
Mass X Velocity we learned in 1st or second grade, it got beaten into us... all that fancy thunder and lightning and food and life stuff wasn't till later, so we don't worry about it so much since it never really became anything more then magical to begin with.
But that mass x velocity, we can measure that result with every time your hand got hit with that ruler, a spit wad smacked in the back of the head, or the chalk duster hit your nose. It's hard to change that experience.
Aaron
Aug 14 2007, 02:51 PM
It's easy enough. Just stop thinking of the added positional change granted by Movement as velocity.
Aaron
Aug 14 2007, 03:06 PM
QUOTE (Solomon Greene) |
Somewhere, there's a term paper for MIT&T in this post. |
Maybe it's something like this.
All equations describing position x with respect to time t have an implicit displacement due to magic m that had not previously appeared in mundane physical experimentation because before the Awakening, m was zero. Thus, in a falling body, we get something along the lines of ...
x = -4.9t^2 + m
... and therefore m neatly falls out of the derived equations for velocity and acceleration ...
v = -9.8t
a = -9.8
This also does not change the formulae involving things like gravity, inertia, kinetic energy, etc.
Alternatively, we can go with the shamanic tradition: it just works that way.
PlatonicPimp
Aug 14 2007, 03:59 PM
Except that by observation of the movement power, M is a multiple, and that would imply that pre-awakening M=1.
It's a but of a conundrum it is, because it's been specifically stated that magic cannot warp time or space. This means that either the movement power specifically increases velocity, or it violates the basic rules of magic. If it increases velocity, howeever, there are all kinds of physics questions that pop up, the least of which is increasing kenetic energy.
In other words, it's either teleportation, or it's an effective force multiplier. The first violates the laws of magic. The second causes all kinds of headaches.
hyzmarca
Aug 14 2007, 04:21 PM
This, of course, brings up the complete and total useless of a Force 1 spirit with Movement.
FrankTrollman
Aug 14 2007, 04:28 PM
QUOTE (PlatonicPimp) |
Except that by observation of the movement power, M is a multiple, and that would imply that pre-awakening M=1.
It's a but of a conundrum it is, because it's been specifically stated that magic cannot warp time or space. This means that either the movement power specifically increases velocity, or it violates the basic rules of magic. If it increases velocity, howeever, there are all kinds of physics questions that pop up, the least of which is increasing kenetic energy.
In other words, it's either teleportation, or it's an effective force multiplier. The first violates the laws of magic. The second causes all kinds of headaches. |
Technically it is only Sorcery which cannot warp space time, cannot be intelligent, and cannot conjure things. Movement is a Spirit Power. It comes off of Conjuring, a discipline which moves things around and invokes intelligence all the time.
So I don't think there's any particular laws of magic that would keep Movement from dilating time or contracting distances.
-Frank
Big D
Aug 14 2007, 05:07 PM
I. Love. This. Thread.
mfb
Aug 14 2007, 05:12 PM
QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
QUOTE (Blade @ Aug 14 2007, 06:13 AM) | In France, we've got an acronym for such cases: TGCM ("Ta Gueule C'est Magique !"= "Shut Up It's Magic!"). |
They don't take too kindly to thems kind of opinions 'round these here parts. It's one that I personally advocate, but most of the people here insist on treating magic as a form of physics, rather than the physics-defying phenomenon that occurs within its own rules and limitations.
As this thread demonstrates, creating sentient life, huge bolts of thunder and lightning, or banquets of food out of thin air is perfectly acceptable. Making things completely disappear, healing mortal wounds in seconds, and turning people to goo and back at will are equally fine and dandy. But make someone or something move a bit faster or slower and, for the love of God, you've just broken a cardinal-fucking-sin.
It'd be humorous if not for the absolutely mind-boggling aspect of the perspective...
|
dude. read the fucking thread. nobody's saying "zomgz teh movements r impossable". nobody's denying that magic violates physics. but that doesn't make magic unknowable, or even unmeasurable--if you use a radar gun on a car that's under the influence of the movement power, the radar gun doesn't fritz. it just reports an improbably high speed. the question being asked is, what are the measurable effects of using the movement power?
Aaron
Aug 14 2007, 05:32 PM
QUOTE (PlatonicPimp) |
Except that by observation of the movement power, M is a multiple, and that would imply that pre-awakening M=1. |
The calculation of the magnitude of m does not need to have anything to do with the formula itself. In fact, the evidence (e.g. no increase in inertia or kinetic energy) would suggest that it doesn't. Thus, while m is related to the derivative of x with respect to t, it is still only an addend and not a multiplicand.
neko128
Aug 14 2007, 05:49 PM
QUOTE (Blade) |
I mean, magic can make food appear: creating mass/matter out of nothing. |
Actually, I have to admit that I always just thought of it as kindof a "magical replicator" - it's not being formed out of nothing, it's being formed out of mana.
So here's a question - we already know the Astral plane and Metaplanes are alternate... Dimensions or realities, as a good enough term. So what about magic simply being, instead of necessarily altering reality, the fine-tuning of which reality we're in? Some physicists are proponents of the multiverse theory, wherein everything that is possible is real in some quantum reality, and we just happen to exist in one such quantum reality in the infinitely-expanding tree of possibilities between the beginning and end of time.
So when magic "creates" that cheesburger that Draconis wants (and dammit, now I want one too!), what if what's actually happening is that the quantum reality of the area is being shifted to an adjacent one where the hamburger is already there, or the pulling of the hamburger from an adjacent reality to this one?
Under that assumption, movement wouldn't necessarily be a bending of physics - it'd be an alternate physical reality where the moving object is already at its destination, physical laws be damned (since they've already been fulfilled in the alternate reality).
I'm sure I'll have several people rip apart my argument, but...
eidolon
Aug 14 2007, 06:03 PM
You won't see me doing it. That's as plausible to me as trying to wrap magic up in our physics, and I like it a lot better thematically.
Moon-Hawk
Aug 14 2007, 06:15 PM
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?
Moon-Hawk
Aug 14 2007, 06:20 PM
QUOTE (neko128) |
Some physicists are proponents of the multiverse theory, wherein everything that is possible is real in some quantum reality, and we just happen to exist in one such quantum reality in the infinitely-expanding tree of possibilities between the beginning and end of time. |
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.
hyzmarca
Aug 14 2007, 06:21 PM
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.
Moon-Hawk
Aug 14 2007, 06:32 PM
QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
I'm going to tear your arguement appart and I only need two words to do it, Avengers Disassembled. |
Who are you talking to? Which argument?
Slash_Thompson
Aug 14 2007, 06:43 PM
QUOTE (Wakshaani) |
Plus, we found Tachyons, which go faster than light at base speed.
|
[[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.
Ol' Scratch
Aug 14 2007, 06:44 PM
QUOTE (mfb) |
dude. read the fucking thread. |
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.
KarmaInferno
Aug 14 2007, 06:46 PM
QUOTE (neko128) |
So when magic "creates" that cheesburger that Draconis wants (and dammit, now I want one too!), what if what's actually happening is that the quantum reality of the area is being shifted to an adjacent one where the hamburger is already there, or the pulling of the hamburger from an adjacent reality to this one? |
This of course means that somewhere in multiversal space-time, someone's cheeseburger has
mysteriously disappeared.
Making that person
very very angry.
-karma
Adarael
Aug 14 2007, 06:50 PM
QUOTE |
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 |
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.
hyzmarca
Aug 14 2007, 06:54 PM
QUOTE (Moon-Hawk) |
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Aug 14 2007, 01:21 PM) | I'm going to tear your arguement appart and I only need two words to do it, Avengers Disassembled. |
Who are you talking to? Which argument?
|
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.
Moon-Hawk
Aug 14 2007, 06:59 PM
QUOTE (Adarael) |
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. |
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.
neko128
Aug 14 2007, 07:01 PM
QUOTE (KarmaInferno) |
QUOTE (neko128) | So when magic "creates" that cheesburger that Draconis wants (and dammit, now I want one too!), what if what's actually happening is that the quantum reality of the area is being shifted to an adjacent one where the hamburger is already there, or the pulling of the hamburger from an adjacent reality to this one? |
This of course means that somewhere in multiversal space-time, someone's cheeseburger has mysteriously disappeared. Making that person very very angry. -karma |
Dude, why do you think the Horrors are so dead set on destroying (or at least eating) the world?
neko128
Aug 14 2007, 07:06 PM
QUOTE (Moon-Hawk) |
QUOTE (Adarael @ Aug 14 2007, 01:50 PM) | 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. |
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.
|
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.
Rotbart van Dainig
Aug 14 2007, 07:06 PM
QUOTE (Moon-Hawk) |
Regarding Plank length. Isn't there also a Plank time? |
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.
QUOTE (Moon-Hawk) |
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. |
Thus, this is completly and utterly wrong. You are not limited to natural multiples of Planck Units. It's just a reference.
PlatonicPimp
Aug 14 2007, 07:07 PM
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.
Adarael
Aug 14 2007, 07:16 PM
QUOTE |
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. |
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.
QUOTE |
And yet, in this uncountably infinite set of universes, there still isn't a universe where the probability is 0.7. |
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.
QUOTE |
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. |
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.
Big D
Aug 14 2007, 07:20 PM
With magic, you can make the coin land on edge. Every time.
Kyoto Kid
Aug 14 2007, 08:12 PM
...now where did I put that Infinite Improbability Drive operator's manual?
virgileso
Aug 14 2007, 08:28 PM
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.
hyzmarca
Aug 14 2007, 08:34 PM
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.
Moon-Hawk
Aug 14 2007, 08:36 PM
QUOTE (Adarael) |
QUOTE | 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. |
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.
|
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.
Moon-Hawk
Aug 14 2007, 08:39 PM
QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
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. |
Good point.
FrankTrollman
Aug 14 2007, 08:43 PM
QUOTE (PlatonicPimp) |
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. |
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.
QUOTE |
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? |
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
DireRadiant
Aug 14 2007, 08:47 PM
The infinite argument shall never end....
I don't have to explain why do I?
Big D
Aug 14 2007, 08:47 PM
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.
Kyoto Kid
Aug 14 2007, 08:51 PM
QUOTE (Moon-Hawk) |
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. |
...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?