Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another GMC Tangent

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Nyrufa View Post
    You talk about how science is the process by which we observe and explain the world around us. But how do you apply science to somebody who can change the rules any time they want? Simple answer is that you can't. By the time you figured out how they did it; they've switched things up and now you have to start all over again!
    That just means you need a better hypothesis! We always reach a point where our limited tools of observation prevent us from learning more, but then we invent better tools and keep on trucking. It's theoretically possible that we might reach a point where we cannot develop any better tools, but that's not happening anytime soon.

    "Any sufficiently analyzed magic becomes technology."

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Nyrufa View Post



      Seems pretty straight forward on the object in motion bit. It's being carried by the momentum / kinetic energy that caused it to start moving in the first place. And the opposing object or force siphons off that energy, causing it to come to a stop once more.
      Okay, so why does energy cause something to move? Science can't explain that. All it can explain is that things move when energy is applied to it. It never can prove why, nor it has to, nor it needs to.

      You say how someone who changes the rules is outside science. That seems true... but how is that someone changing the rules? Does he have something called, say, a preference? As in, guidelines to how he will change things under what circumstances? Well, that's a rule, and science can observe that. Social sciences are a thing.

      Or does that reality warper do things completely random, without no guidelines behind his will? Okay, now that's an interesting phenomena. But the changes that reality warper brings are real, right? As in, the changes have a defined effect on the world? Then we can observe the fallout and consequences of the changes the reality warper brings. That's knowledge, acquired via science. Then we, although we'll have do jack trying to manipulate the reality warper, at least be able to prepare ourselves for the next reality warping. That's technology, acquired through practical applications of knowledge, gathered by science.


      And speaking of Mage The Ascension... If the only issue you have is that you want magic to be purely will-working, then it'll fit for you. But you also seem to have this schema that defines magic as everything non-technological. Sorry to tell you this, but even in MtAs, magic is technological. No, I'm not talking about the Technocracy and other technomancers, although they're the most explicit. Even the non-technomantic Traditions and Crafts use technology. Why? Because they study how they can change Consensual Reality with their beliefs and wills, compile the observed results, apply it to other stuff to see if what their wills and beliefs really work, and pass on that accumulated knowledge to others. It's why they have Practices and Foci, Paradigms, Rotes, and Grimoires. It's how they came up with the Nine Spheres. All of that is technology. It's just that the Mystic faction uses technology on things we modern humans don't usually think to apply technology on, such as angels and spirits and inner demons of the mind and extra-sensory perception and so on.

      Oh, but you also define technology as its most limited and narrow form: stuff we modern people use in our lives. So yeah, maybe you might perceive Mystics as not using technology and therefore "true" magic, when their traditions (and Traditions) thrive on it.

      As a side note, archamges in MtAs can seemingly manipulate reality with only Will, using none of the Practices and Foci and all such technological stuff. However, even they work with Paradigms so deeply internalized that they're able to skip the menial parts. And what is a Paradigm, but a carefully constructed theory of the world? Construction which requires observation, hypotheses, and confirmation, all of which is science?

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Nyrufa View Post
        Seems pretty straight forward on the object in motion bit. It's being carried by the momentum / kinetic energy that caused it to start moving in the first place. And the opposing object or force siphons off that energy, causing it to come to a stop once more.
        That's not an explanation it's a tautology. Energy is simply the ability to do work. What you're basically saying is that objects in motion stay in motion because they are carried by their movement. Yes, that's what motion is, but you have done nothing to further anyone's understanding of why that is.


        Onyx Path Forum Moderator

        My mod voice is red. I use it so you know when I'm speaking in an official capacity, not as an indication of tone.

        Comment


        • #94
          Hmm, well I'd say that the paradigms and rules of each sphere / arcana make sense from a logical standpoint. If you want to create a glass of water, ignite a campfire, or spy on somebody 20 miles away, then chances are you probably aren't going to use Death magic (unless you're scanning for the scene of a murder?). Death magic encapsulates magic that pertains to the forces of death. If you try to do something that does not involve death, then you aren't using Death magic, you're using something else.

          But to a true reality warper, these rules and spheres of influence would be illusions constructed by limited minds. They're labels and guidelines that somebody decided to slap onto their abilities in order to explain them easier. A true reality warper who has unlocked their full potential has no need for such preconceptions.


          "Magic is magic. Just as water is water. It matters only in how it is used." - Solas, Dragon Age: Inquisition.

          Comment


          • #95
            What does that have to do with anything at all?
            Look, you seem to be under the impression that we believe the underlying processes by which will becomes magic can be explained and turned into machines, but we're not. We're observing that will turning into magic is the process and that observation is science. As long as we can clearly see that this person can light things on fire because they want to light things on fire without going through the intervening steps it is still bloody scientific!

            Comment


            • #96
              Quick question for Nyrufa: If a sorcerer tries to practice his Fireball spell to figure out how he can make it stronger, is it science?

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Nyrufa View Post



                But how do you quantify Will and Symbology? I'm pretty sure that the scientific community doesn't accept the claim "this works because I believe that it works" when attempting to explain something. Science demands evidence and proof, not outstanding claims and baseless speculation. That very mage (or even another one, entirely) could turn around and say "now I believe that it doesn't work!" It is for that reason that Will Working and Hard Science can not mutually exist. By their very definitions, they cancel each other out.
                In mage you quantify it with mage sight, with Unveiling and Knowing Practices. It's magic because it's a hidden process, which technique might involve tools or the expenditure (ie the burning) of Mana.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Justin Sane View Post
                  Quick question for Nyrufa: If a sorcerer tries to practice his Fireball spell to figure out how he can make it stronger, is it science?


                  Don't think there's a satisfactory answer for that. I seem to have a fundamentally different understanding of what science is compared to everybody else here. For me, all the sorcerer needs to improve their Fireball is believe that it's better; assuming that there isn't anyone around with a stronger belief that conflicts with the spell they're trying to cast. No further explanation need be given on the subject. The sorcerer doesn't need to know how it works, all that matters is that it does.

                  But it sounds like for you, the sorcerer would spend arduous hours casting the spell over and over again with different intervals in casting times as they compiled research notes (physical and mental) on how the spell works. Can they accelerate its travel speed for greater moment, or reduce it for better precision? Can they throttle the flames, or absorb heat from the surrounding environment? All good possibilities that could be studied and applied to making a stronger fireball. But it doesn't carry the fundamental essence of what reality warping is.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Nyrufa View Post



                    Don't think there's a satisfactory answer for that. I seem to have a fundamentally different understanding of what science is compared to everybody else here. For me, all the sorcerer needs to improve their Fireball is believe that it's better; assuming that there isn't anyone around with a stronger belief that conflicts with the spell they're trying to cast. No further explanation need be given on the subject. The sorcerer doesn't need to know how it works, all that matters is that it does.

                    But it sounds like for you, the sorcerer would spend arduous hours casting the spell over and over again with different intervals in casting times as they compiled research notes (physical and mental) on how the spell works. Can they accelerate its travel speed for greater moment, or reduce it for better precision? Can they throttle the flames, or absorb heat from the surrounding environment? All good possibilities that could be studied and applied to making a stronger fireball. But it doesn't carry the fundamental essence of what reality warping is.
                    How much opposing will is necessary to stop their will? Would thinking differently help? Others reinforcing your will instead of opposing it?

                    The practiced discovery of all/any of these factors is science.


                    Malkydel: "And the Machine dictated; let there be adequate illumination."
                    Yossarian: "And lo, it was optimal."

                    Comment


                    • Let's put this a slightly different way... ever heard someone describe something as "a science"? Like, "cooking is a science" for example?* They don't say that because it involves machinery (though of course it can and often does). The reason is that there's a repeatable process to it. If there's a method that an individual with the proper tools and skills (say, the gift of magic and a grasp of its use) can follow to produce consistent results, and can then explain to others with the same skills and tools how they achieved the end result, then that's a science. Doesn't matter if that method is as simple as "briefly focusing their conscious will and belief toward a desired end, any other flourishes are fun but optional" or as complex as "while wearing a crown of iron and a chain consisting of 49 links of electrum, swirling a nine-inch birch wand through the air clockwise three times, reciting a haiku composed in proto-Latin, and flooding their own mind with thoughts of righteous anger".

                      Now, if they're not using a method (even one as simple as consciously deciding something should happen), and if no outside factors can influence the events in any way - if stuff is just happening around them with absolutely no pattern of initiation or repetition, nor any rhyme or reason to what is happening - then sure, that's probably not really classifiable as a "science" of any sort. But then, they're not really in control of it either, so it's not really "their" magic for most purposes.

                      In short, any sorcerer worth their 343 grams of refined salt extracted from the dead sea on the night of a full moon is going to find themselves referring to magic as "a science", though perhaps with different superficial trappings, and an ascendant reality warper with time to muse on the subject stands at least a chance of agreeing.**

                      * Yes, I know people will say "cooking is an art" too, but bear with me here.
                      ** Before they turn said sorcerer into a jackalope, because everyone needs a pet.***
                      *** Incidentally, the reality warper has decreed that the human mindset demands the acquisition and care of one or more pets.
                      Last edited by Sconce; 04-11-2017, 08:02 AM.


                      Have a bit of a bad habit of extensively editing posts after, well, posting them. Bear with me...

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Nyrufa View Post
                        I seem to have a fundamentally different understanding of what science is compared to everybody else here.
                        That does seem to be the issue, yes. Vent0 made my point before me, you don't need a notepad to do science. "If I gain more confidence in my ability to shoot a Fireball, then I'll be able to shoot better Fireballs" *is* science.

                        If you allow me a follow-up question: Is language technology?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Justin Sane View Post
                          If you allow me a follow-up question: Is language technology?
                          Oh, good one. In this context it reminds me of those theories where written language is both a form a technology and a way to assert a magical paradigm that nowadays is almost omnipresent.

                          Ascension and The Invisibles. Good times.


                          Cinder's Comprehensive Collection of Creations - Homebrew Hub
                          Nightmares & Dreamscapes - Got any ideas about the denizens of the Primordial Dream? Come here and let's share our nightmares together

                          We finally got pictures of Pluto. No Mi-Go in sight. Those bastards are clever.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Justin Sane View Post

                            If you allow me a follow-up question: Is language technology?

                            Not... really? No. It's a series of audio / visual signals that we have been trained to interpret various meanings from. The same way a caveman learns not to stick their hand in fire because they receive pain signals telling him "THIS IS BAD AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD!"


                            The reason why I'm having a hard time accepting your variation of what science is, is largely due to my exposure with religious debate throughout the course of my life. Namely how people demanding a scientific explanation for things refuse to accept "God did it" as a proper explanation. And when they ask how God did it, they refuse to accept "they're God, they can do anything!" as a suitable reason. Real world science refuses to acknowledge my ideas of magic and the supernatural. So I naturally learned to view magic and science as two different things.
                            Last edited by Nyrufa; 04-11-2017, 09:03 AM.

                            Comment


                            • *Facepalms* Language is tech. It's derided off a concensus, it follows rules made out of convenience and we're constantly adapting it. Tell me how that's different from say, a software.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Nyrufa View Post
                                Not... really? No. It's a series of audio / visual signals that we have been trained to interpret various meanings from. The same way a caveman learns not to stick their hand in fire because they receive pain signals telling him "THIS IS BAD AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD!"
                                Emphasis mine. Plenty of people on this thread could argue that yes, it is a form of technology, much more eloquently that I'll ever be able to.
                                The reason why I'm having a hard time accepting your variation of what science is, is largely due to my exposure with religious debate throughout the course of my life. Namely how people demanding a scientific explanation for things refuse to accept "God did it" as a proper explanation for things.So I naturally learned to view magic and science as two different things.
                                Understandable, then.
                                I'm going to go back to a point made earlier in this thread, that science doesn't explain why gravity works, it only tells us how it works. That distinction right there is important. That distinction means that, using science, you can't prove (or disprove, for that matter) the existence of the Divine. For all science cares about, gravity works the way it does because God willed it so.
                                My point is, even if "Magic" can fill in the why part, science will always be able to fill in the how part, as they aren't at all exclusive.
                                Sidebar:
                                Anyone telling you that scientists don't/can't believe in God is flat-out wrong. Roger Bacon, who is often credited with formalizing the scientific method, was a Franciscan friar. Georges LemaƮtre, a Belgian Catholic Priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven, proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory.



                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X