David Schwartz's page

Ah, so the idea is that entropy increases until all energy is dissipated, then the universe will be sort of empty and without movement or potential for movement.

But without entropy, the universe would be equally empty: all whizzing around without settling into something meaningful. So, if you want to put it into ancient Chinese terms: Life as we know it exists only in the transition from Yang to Yin.

I'm kind of partial to "Noy Jitat!" myself.

On other boards that allow personalized avatars, I use the picture of me that appeared in Dragon.

Since (ironically) I can't use that one here, I picked the one that looked most like a Hill Giant. It doesn't look anything like me though (except for being humanoid).

Why doesn't a creature's relevant ability score affect how many 0-level spells they get?

It's not worth the hassle. If the current formula extended to 0-level spells every spellcaster would get a bonus cantrip (which kind of defeats the purpose of it being bonus). If you have a sufficient score to get two (or more) bonus cantrips, you're probably powerful enough that it doesn't matter.

As for physics, entropy isn't about things falling apart, it's about things becoming more complex. Sometimes that means falling apart, sometimes that means becoming highly convoluted (and then falling apart).

Or as it says in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms: "The empire long united must divide, and long divided must unite." True words, and a prime example of evolution at work.

Factoids about my birthday:

For you older folks: I was born at approximately the same time Bob Crane was killed.

For you younger folks: I was born on the same day as the lead singer from the Pussycat Dolls.

if we evolved from apes through natural selection then why are there still apes around?

Let's take this question to its logical conclusion: If humans evolved from rocks, why are there still rocks? Answer: Because otherwise there would be no where to stand. Obselesence is part of evolution, but not always. Your question is the same as asking, if we have celphones, why do we still have landlines? If we have cars, why do we still breed horses? If we have 3.5, why do people still play AD&D? There's no such thing as better, only different (and perhaps, preferential).

As for physics, entropy isn't about things falling apart, it's about things becoming more complex. Sometimes that means falling apart, sometimes that means becoming highly convoluted (and then falling apart). Evolution tends toward more compexity (but without neglecting simplicity, because the complex is merely the emergent behavior of a lot of simple things). And if we just want to talk about heat, complex organism produce a lot more heat that simple ones (humans, especially).

PS Like a rules-heavy game system, an organism designed for every function and every environment would keel over from the weight of its extraneous organs.

You're first mistake is assuming humans are the pinnacle of evolution. We're just one branch.

Human babies are helpless ten times longer than any other creature - including apes. What is the evolutionary benefit to that?

We traded instant instict for the ability to learn and adapt.

Over 70% of the earth is covered in sea water but we highly evolved humans can't drink it, can't breathe it and though born with the instinct to hold out breath when submerged we still have to learn to swim.

You can't make fire underwater. Save one notable exception, every human culture has relied on fire, or its modern equivalent electricity. There's nothing for humans in the water.

Highly evolved brains but no where near fast for a predator.

It's that instinct versus intellect thing again.

humans must work hard just to survive, we're susceptable to hundreds more diseases and ailments, we don't have the best senses or abilities (outside of thought processes). We can't live unaided almost anywhere in the world.

And this is different from any other organism (included said diseases) how?

Some might call it a lame defense, but I find it more logical that God made us the way we are (or animals the way they are) just because it was pleasing to Him.

And we should worship this joker?

If we look and behave the way we do because of chance - boy, did evolution screw us over!

I'm a choa-determinist; for me chance doesn't enter into it. Evolution can't give you everything. Going back to gaming as an example, no amount of tinkering will ever give you a universal system, because different genres have different paradigms. A grim-n-gritty combat system will not work for a light-hearted comedy game. Ditto organisms. Each ecological niche has its own paradigm. What works for a squid, doesn't work for a person. There is no pinnacle of evolution, just like there is no one perfect game system. Each bloodline adapts to its environment, just like each game revision adapts to its audience.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

It seems Soveliss is roleplaying Guybrush Threepwood and needs to open up the giant monkey head to get to LeChuck in Secret of Monkey Island...;)

You fight like a dairy farmer!

Well, Stephen Hawkins believes in God. As did Eintsein. In fact a lot of our greatest minds come to believe in God from their study of the macro or the micro of our universe.

The Universe is pretty freakin' amazing. Whether that's indicicative of something, I'm not ready to say. I will say that it is a jump from aknowledging the existence of god to worshipping said god. And a further jump to choosing a specific manner in which to do so.

I think at this point I should mention that one of the religions I practice is Progressive Judaism. In my opinion, the benefits of religion are not reliant on extraphysical elements in either the practitioner or the religion.

I'm thankful for my existence even if I'm not sure who (if anyone) to thank.

Page 46 of the PHB has Soveliss the ranger carrying three giant Q-tips on his back. What gives? Is he a cloud giant groomer?

I would guess they're torches.

Some specifics--for life experience, I have personally experienced and witnessed "miracles" that could not be explained by science.

Grimcleaver kind of summed up my position: I don't see the fact that diseases sometimes suddenly heal themselves as a failure by science or proof of intervention. It proves for me how freakin' amazing the human body is. Why is sudden unexplained health seen as a sign from God, but sudden unexplained death not? (This goes back to the whole micromanaging god question.)

Getting down to a more basic level regarding creation, how did existence begin? If from the Big Bang (as with evolution, a theory I do not reject) what was the First Cause, keeping in mind accepted laws/theorems of physics? This gets to the heart of my ex nihilo "life from nothing" statement.

The thing to remember about the Big Bang is that it wasn't an explosion /in/ space, but an explosion /of/ space. All the matter and energy could have been already there, it was just wasn't doing anything without space/time. I'm in no way qualified to talk about the universe before the big bang, so I can't rule out the possibility of a demiurge.

I'm short on time at the moment, so I'll have save my intro to evolution for another time.

I voted Planescape.

I like mythology, philosophy, and crazy juxtaposition.

Which is why my real favorite setting is Grimm.

I've made my peace with sexy halflings, but when you put a gnome in a cocktail dress, you've gone too far.

A religious experience is very personal but not necessarily any less valid. I understand that when it comes to science we use public scrutiny as a litmus test. But science and religion do not necessarily contradict each other. The scientific method is a way of finding out more about our universe. Religion is a way to understand the meaning behind the universe.

Why shouldn't personal experience be exposed to the litmus test of public scrutiny?

And I hate to play devil's advocate here but what you claim is "unavoidable evidence" another can see as coincidence. From my perspective you (myself, and many others) indeed believe in evolution and other scientific theories and postulates. We have an experience (in this case of witnessing "evidence") and some attribute it to a higher being, others as just dumb cosmic luck, etc.

"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action." Evolution is too common to be coincidence.

As for the divine intervention, er I mean, "intelligent design", that's easy enough to prove: Show me a sitution which contains all the components necessary for natural selection, and yet it doesn't occur due to nonintervention. (Or "Why does God prefer Shakespeare over all the other Elizabethan playwrights?")

I believe that understanding evolution is important to our understanding of all complex systems, but don't take my zeal as an attack on religion. I'm not saying there is no God, I'm saying God doesn't micromanage.

And, yes, I am willing to discard evolution if and when someone produces a more accurate theory.

Sean, Minister of KtSP wrote:

...but every now and then, you get to score a conversion.

Do you get XP for that? :P

No, but in American football you get two points.

What makes it intrinsic?

It's just there.

"At the time of Shakespeare and Marlowe, there were scores of playwrights trying to make a living in London. Name one."

Normally I use that question to illustrate why the past often seems better than the present, but it also illustrate natural selection in the realm of literature.

If you look at history, you see the process of natural selection at work in all elements of culture from pop music to language to religion. (Why does Jehovah look a lot like Jupiter? For much the same reason a viceroy butterfly looks like a monarch butterfly.)

Study game theory; you'll quickly see that simple rules can lead to complex permutation, many unexpected. Hell, look at games. 3.5 and Storyteller are not compatible, but they both show clear indication of descent from Gygax's original D&D, itself evolved from wargames. (How is a grid like an appendix?)

Natural selection is going on around us all the time, in culture, in science, in the way we work (If an editor isn't nature, red in tooth an claw, I don't what is. ;-)).

I don't have faith in evolution, I have unavoidable evidence.

I don't fully reject either, but neither do I fully accept them as the only possible explanation. Until such time as we can clearly prove (via established hypotheses, tested and observed over time) one can derive life from nothing, I cannot accept it as the only possible explanation.

How else do you explain the fossil record?

I notice you use the phrase "life from nothing". Evolution isn't something from nothing, it's something from something else. Humans are made up the same stuff that makes up everything else in the universe. It's only the arrangement of those elements that make us unique.

This is a statement I deem to be dangerous and (possibly) indicative of not fully understanding the theory of evolution. Evolution is not fact, it has not been fully proven to explain creation from a primordial soup of non-sentient chemicals to humanity. There is strong theory to support aspects of microevolution, and I do not refute these. The observed evolution we see every day is, in fact, microevolution. The leap from chemicals to single-cell organism, to every form of life on the planet is very much dependent on hypothetical assumptions and conclusions. To rest one’s belief on these requires just as much faith as resting on creationism.

So, do you reject the notion that a lifeform can be genetically dissimilar from its distant ancestors (one creature evolving from another)? Or is your contention merely the jump from non-life to life (an arbitrary distinction in my opinion)?

BTW When I say I see evolution, I don't mean just in living things; the process of natural selection is so intrinsic in so many different systems, it would greatly surprise me if it weren't occurring in animals.

To Eric, I will say that I don't believe I'm fatalistic.

Fatalism doesn't mean pessimism. I'm a fatalist myself (I've also been accused of being a Taoist), however I came to it via chao-determinism (the belief that the universe is deterministic but so complex as to be unpredictable).

For item (2) (the easier one) I'd simply note that I do allow above the possibility of Insanity. One who claims divinity to the point of death while not actually being of a divine nature would, at least in my assessment, demonstrate mental instability.

Veering off from the specifics of Jesus, I don't think that necessarily indicates madness. The first rule of confidence tricks: A con artist never, never admits when he's wrong or lying. Supposing our hypothetical con artist - I make no claims about Jesus here - admits that he was making the whole thing up: either the authorities kill him anyways for fraud or he goes the rest of his life being "that guy who claimed to be the messiah". Some people prefer death before dishonor, even if they're not that honorable.

Before I delve into evolution, I would ask if those posting regard evolution as fact, or theory? I see later you state you have faith in your theories...I just want to confirm this.

I see evolution at work everyday; I think people are foolish not to accept it.

When I came to understand God wasn't sending a proxy, but rather sacrificing himself for his "friends" (as there is no greater love than to lay down one's life for a friend) even when those friends might reject that sacrifice, the profundity of living a life transformed in the image of Christ took on a much greater and deeper meaning.

The "Aztec" gods also self-sacrificed so you could have a world to live in, as revealed in the Codices. Show them any gratitude lately? ...Which I suppose is my sarcastic way of saying the concept of divine sacrifice is not uniquely Christian.

I say this because religion is not useful in the least.

Voltaire: "If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

Don't blame the tool, blame the user.

1) knew he was lying to people (an act which seems untenable as lies in general are told to better one's position and his actions brought no reward, but instead punishment)

You're ignoring two facts: 1) Jesus was not the only person claiming to be the Messiah at that time; 2) People will do self-destructive acts to get attention.

The Universe is big and maybe your not the center of it (unless of course the universe is infinite then you would be) and the visible universe maybe 16 billion light years, but that is not empirical evidence there is no divinity. I have heard the same argument used as "empirical" evidence that there is a divinity. I have no empirical evidence only my faith, without evidence one way or the other I can only fall back upon my faith.

Still, Where is the empirical evidence?

I never said there was no divinity, nor that I had proof of that assertion. I'm just saying that physical reality provides enough justification for moral action for me, without the need for an authority figure, mortal or extraphyiscal.

In other words: I'm a humanist, but only by accident of birth. (And humanism is only one of my "religions".)

PS Oh, and I don't believe the universe is infinite because I don't believe infinity is rational, but that's another discussion.

Hill Giant wrote:

...I believe in something greater than myself; I just don't have faith in it - I have empirical evidence.

What empirical evidence? All I have is raith and Possably a well developed "God-detector" in my brain.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that the universe is freakin' big and I'm not the center of it. (It did take several geniuses to realize how big the Universe is and that it in fact has no center).

I dislike the assertion "There must be something more than this." The visible universe is 16 billion light year wide. On this little speck of dirt we like to call the Earth there are more things to see and do than anyone can possibly experience in one lifetime. And people have the gall to ask, "There must be something more than this?" There's just no pleasing some folks.

Thank you for the info. I feel enlightened. I must be someone who has a well developed God detector because I see God everywhere. WHat about faith? Do you as an athiest have any faith? How do you as an athiest define the word faith? As an athiest with out a believe in a god or gods or divinity, are you still spiritual? Or is our lives just some random chemical, physical reaction started by something like the big bang?

I believe in something greater than myself; I just don't have faith in it - I have empirical evidence.

Personally, I hate the word 'atheist'; A philospohpy is not defined by what it doesn't believe.

If your definition of religion involves supernatural elements, then, no, I don't have a religion.

If your definition of religion involves world view, morality, society, and tradition, then I have several.

I did a little digging, and found out that one of my other family mottos (the Mallon one) is 'Gaudet Patentia Duris.'

Does anyone know what that means?

-Mr. Shiny

My quick translation would be "Rejoice, openly and strongly". In others words: "Say it loud, say it proud."

I hate to point this out, but isn't using a the word verb, which is a noun that refers to a type of word, as a verb, as in, to change as noun into a verb by using it as such in a sentance, actually "verbing" a noun?

It's OK, as long as you don't gerund your verbing... D'oh!

"The difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter--it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning." -- Mark Twain

There's another quote I keep in mind when writing, though I don't remember where I heard it: Someone accused a writer: "You write like you think you're smart." The writer replied: "No, I write like I think my readers are smart."

Question for Mr. Schwartz. Do you have any good suggestions for outside reading on the topic of Aztec deities and religion?

Of the books I used, here's my top three:

For anthropology: "The Ancient Sun Kingdoms of the Americas" by Victor W. von Hagen

For myths: "The Hungry Women" John Bierhost, ed.

For pretty pictures: "Aztecs: Reign of Blood & Splendor", Time-Life Lost Civilizations, Dale Brown, ed.

(shameless_product_placement) Speaking of southern Finland (Turku specifically), I would like to take this opportunity to thank Nokian Tyres, the makers of my favorite rubber in the whole world.

And all this time I though you were the Sales Manager for Paizo. ;-)

I see no strong statement there that the horse was beheaded in one blow...

I, too, doubt that he decapitated the horse in one blow. But it still illustrates the cutting power of the macahuitl.

I wonder how those stone blades stay in the weapon... some kind of resin?

Guanno (although the exact type escapes me at the moment).

Treating the macahuitl as equal to a longsword seems a bit off to me because, well, the Aztec and other American tribes were simply not as advanced in weaponry as the Europeans.

Differently advanced; they didn't have iron as readily available as the Europeans. The macahuitl (when used to kill, as opposed to capture) was designed to cut. One could argue it crushed as well as slashed, but the same could be said of many longer swords (greatswords were rarely sharp, 'cause they didn't need to be).

In shape, the macahuitl was more like a sword than a club as well. More like a cricket bat swung sideways than a baseball bat with nails in it.

I'd also like to try to use Meso-American weapons like clubs with the blades of stone set in them (like the Azetec). What do you think that would be like for damage. Exotic weapon?

As the writer of the upcoming Aztec pantheon articles, I reccomend treating the macahuitl as a longsword. Its wielded pretty much the same way. The wounds aren't as deep, but they aren't as clean either. According to one account, a Aztec warrior decapitated a horse with a macahuitl.

Upkeep - having to replace lost stone blades - isn't much more onerous than upkeep on a longsword - sanding, filing, and oiling.