2010-07-12: Collapse

[ChunLing]

I think that the WOT indicates that the plasma dissolution problem is not directly connected with ability to interface with the psionic waveform. In other words, it doesn't seem to indicate that the problem has any fundamental connection to diminishing magical power, but is a structural problem with the "bodies" of the gods, analogous to a conventional terminal illness for a corporeal being like a human or half-elf. I might be reading in more than is said, though.

I imagine that the dwarves still cared enough about the fate of their gods to build that giant human-killing robot to guard Senilis, for all the good that did. It could even be that the dwarves have been arranging things from behind the scenes, if they're so smart and all. That robot was there for no other reason than to make sure that Meji got into the complex, for instance. Or it's possible that the dwarves had a strictly mercenary relationship with their creators, and started working on their own plans as soon as the gravy stopped flowing. It's hard to say given how little we know about them.

Luminosita was a construct of magical energy funneled into it by the Veracian priesthood over the course of several generations. That magical energy was released as a massive explosion when Luminosita was dispelled. Presumably, given time and idiocy enough, the Veracians could remake their pokegod, but I think that they are under enough pressure that they are going to go with a simpler and cheaper illusion that is enough to fool the (non-magically adept) masses. Presuming they have enough time left for even that.

Doing science only requires that the scientist be rational (or have some idea what that means). Saying that the universe is definitely rational means only that you express a clear theory of how the entire thing works. Whether or not the universe itself has any rules, a definable theory of how the universe works, as a matter of simple logic, cannot resort to the "it's elephants all the way down" explanation for anything, because that is essentially saying that it cannot be defined.

That doesn't imply that any definition is true (and we'll leave alone the issue of how to define "true" for now), just that any definition which doesn't define the object of definition fails as a definition. It's all well and good to say that the universe defies definition, which is what I personally accept. But you need to accept that that's what your saying when you say that the universe cannot be defined.

[mindstalk]

Why did the mecha kill only the human? Human was in front? It didn't fire at elves? Elves were able to shield themselves but not their human?

[Forrest]

a definable theory of how the universe works, as a matter of simple logic, cannot resort to the "it's elephants all the way down" explanation for anything, because that is essentially saying that it cannot be defined.

There was a time when saying the Earth didn't rest on anything was considered just as crazy; it's not falling, so it MUST be resting on something! It wasn't until we revised our notion of up and down and consequently of what it is to be falling before we realized that the Earth very well can be just floating there effectively still (as far as things on its surface are concerned) in space without resting on anything.

Likewise, it's only if you look at the events of the universe as somehow metaphorically stacked on top of prior events in the universe, resting on them (figuratively speaking), that you come to the conclusion that an initial event is necessary or else the whole thing "falls through". But time doesn't have to work like that. The laws of physics identify patterns in sequences of events; we have no problem saying that those patterns go on forever in the direction of the sequence we call "forward", and fundamentally there is no problem with saying they go on forever in the direction we call "backward".

The basis of this confusion seems to be the conflation of causes and reasons. Saying that there is an infinite series of events is not necessarily saying that the rational argument for why the universe is how it is leads to an infinite regress; maybe there's some non-causal reason why that infinite series of events has to exist. And conversely, saying that there was some first cause does not solve the infinite regress problem, because someone can always ask "well why did that thing exist?"

If you can give some non-causal reason for why that first event had to happen happened, why couldn't you give some non-causal reason for why any other event later happened? The earlier moments would then exist for the reason that the later one (the one there is some non-causal reasons for) exists, and the earlier ones are necessary conditions for it existing.

On the other hand, if you're happy saying that that first event occurred for no reason, then what's wrong with saying all events occurred for no reason, and the only thing there is any rhyme or reason to is what events occur before and after each other. In other words, that certain patterns have to hold in the sequence of events (the laws of physics), but that the sequence doesn't depend on any first event for its existence.

Consider, for analogy, a discrete mathematical curve where each point is defined as, say, the negation of double the previous point. The "current" point has a value of 256, and one before that had a value of -128, and before that 64, -32, 16, -8, 4, -2, 1, -1/2, 1/4, etc. Where was the first point? What do you mean, no point is "first"? Then how the heck can the current one have gotten to 256, starting from nothing?

Of course it's all rather moot contingently, because there is a huge event in the distant past obscuring any information that might exist from before it occurred, if there is such a time as "before it occurred". But purely a priori, there's no need for a first event to explain the rest of the history of the universe rationally, any more than there is a need to answer what, ultimately, the Earth rests on.

[wrog]

Doing science only requires that the scientist be rational (or have some idea what that means). Saying that the universe is definitely rational means only that you express a clear theory of how the entire thing works. Whether or not the universe itself has any rules, a definable theory of how the universe works, as a matter of simple logic, cannot resort to the "it's elephants all the way down" explanation for anything, because that is essentially saying that it cannot be defined.

That doesn't imply that any definition is true (and we'll leave alone the issue of how to define "true" for now), just that any definition which doesn't define the object of definition fails as a definition. It's all well and good to say that the universe defies definition, which is what I personally accept. But you need to accept that that's what your saying when you say that the universe cannot be defined.

Not only would I accept this, but it seems to me a statement bordering on tautology; I'm not sure anyone in the history of science has ever claimed otherwise, i.e., that there is a way to define the universe, let alone actually attempting to provide a definition (though historically there has been no shortage of misunderstandings about this...)

The problem here may be confusion between statements about the universe and statements about our models thereof -- the map is not the territory -- which is understandable seeing as models are rather pointless if they don't relate to the real world somehow and most scientists are probably not inclined to expend much time on the distinction.

To be sure, models have to be well-founded, i.e., the chains of reasoning that used to (attempt to) predict what's going to happen have to be finite/constructable, because that's the only way we can wrap our heads around them and draw useful conclusions. The price is that there will inevitably be axioms that we have no choice but to take as given (at least for now). Every model is like this. Which does not rule out our eventually getting a better model that explains these axioms in terms of deeper axioms, and there's no saying how deep this might eventually go.

Or even getting to a model that explains everything we care about (which might actually be easy if we don't, in fact, care about a whole lot....

But these are all still statements about ourselves and our models; the only thing the universe has to do to be "rational" is behave consistently enough that it be possible to construct usable models. Which it apparently does in spades.

[ChunLing]

I favor prediction over explanation as a measure of the utility of a theory. But that's a personal preference, one has to admit.

Anyway, that is pretty much what I was getting at, that sometimes people confuse some particular theory about how the universe works with the universe itself.

[Spinell]

I think that the WOT indicates that the plasma dissolution problem is not directly connected with ability to interface with the psionic waveform. In other words, it doesn't seem to indicate that the problem has any fundamental connection to diminishing magical power, but is a structural problem with the "bodies" of the gods, analogous to a conventional terminal illness for a corporeal being like a human or half-elf. I might be reading in more than is said, though.

If that was correct the collectives should have been able to repair the problem in the elves as it shouldn't be a drain on their resources, just a time problem. It looks to me like the loss of plasma is a body and psionic waveform problem.
Plus, future Meji and Ian don't give the impression as if they could design or create entire races. And according to future Meji (yes i know she might be lying but i think that part wasn't a lie, as Meji wouldn't be able to tell a lie and the truth apart), the plasma (power) dissolution isn't finished after merging with Meji, as she explained that the she (future Meji) doesn't has the power to travel through time (and present Meji the power but not the knowledge).

[ChunLing]

It's clear that the psionic abilities of the gods were decreasing with time, but not clear that they are using their powers up out of a fixed pool of resources.

Rather like a car that is decreasing in power output, not because it is running low on gas, but because the air filter is getting clogged.

[ptrix]

...But we KNOW the story... we've seen another version of it many years ago...

http://www.errantstory.com/2003-01-06/42