|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to be confused with the Liar of Building - which creates 15 men who stand around watching one man work and which claims to do 600 man hours of work per hour, but, actually, will probably take three tims that.
You can undo that curse with a Strike of Staffing. :P
Wow. Holy smeg, you guys... this thread! I was going to make a sarcastic comment about Golarion not having atoms because of vibrations in the phlogiston and reversing the polarity of the neutron flow, but it seems sadly unnecessary.
Actually it does. The equation can be temporarily violated but the violation will work itself out the amount of violation and the factor of it's length won't be any greater than Planck's Constant. Which is why Einstein's equation holds true on the macro and atomic levels.energy ALWAYS equals mass multiplied by velocity squared.Actually -- no it doesn't Einstein was close -- but he wasn't quite right. There are several points when E=MC^2 doesn't hold up -- indeed the equation itself has problems once you start getting into the deeper end of physics and goes absolutely spastic once you introduce quantum physics.
A little help here.
Well as Einstein himself pointed out it's all a matter of perception -- as there isn't an actual mass-energy-momentum relationship.
So I would be more appropriate in saying that Dubiousnescity was applying the concept incorrectly and that the only way to apply it at speed of light travel is with a change in the method it is used and a few adjustments.
you are losing the overall point here which is that magic isnt real. and while i think your point is that perhaps some of the effects of magic in the game could be replicated is valid, they cannot be done so without technology assisting. magic eschews the tech. and while energy of protons doesnt need mass, pretty much everything else does. even that is outside the argument. the point here is that a wizard uses means that are fictional to tap into a form of energy that at best is so improbable it falls into the same category of aliens built the pyramids.
alright. at speed of light the mass of energy becomes less substantial. BUT that doenst apply to magic in the world of golarion, unless you claim that magic is protons or of that ilk. and that it moves at light speed from one point to another. but if that were the case, then you would lose the ability to use it depending on the position you were on the world(if the magic comes from say the sun or moon, and as it is so lacking in mass it would be very easy to block it from use by a wizard by placing him in a force cage. or stone shaping around him to prevent outside interference). at that point the energy MUST move at that speed to be energy at all. but we know it works at night and day and under ground. so the magic-protons could not eminate from the sun. if they came from the earth itself, as they would need to in order to get both underground and above ground, how then would say the plane of air have magic?
its an interesting hypothesis, but it still cant hold up.
and the name is dubiuousnessocity.
its an interesting hypothesis, but it still cant hold up.
and the name is dubiuousnessocity.
First off -- I'm sorry for misspelling your name -- it always bothers me when it happens to me, and I didn't mean to do it to you.
The hypothesis is predicated on the idea that any technology that is sufficiently advanced might as well be called magic. That part is the key -- that people won't know the difference in how the effect comes about (and honestly won't care) only that the effect happens.
Basically put when technology (or science) outstrips the people's ability to understand the technology it becomes magic to them.
Cellphones 500 years ago -- trans dimensional travel and control of reality by the mind today. Right now if such abilities were displayed it would be considered 'supernatural' and magic -- regardless of the means involved.
thats my point though. magic is in the game DOES NOT have the tech, its medieval fantasy. whereas you can feasibly replicalte some of the effects in the game with technology, a wizard does not have a cell phone, he casts sending. a sorcerer does not use a taser, she casts shocking grasp. while the ends are the same or very similar, the means are worlds apart.
in the game magic, not science perceived to be such, is real. people dont think he cast fireball when all he did was throw a lit propane tank into the midst of the crowd of goblins. thats the step BEYOND realism that medieval fantasy takes. you move into a realm where what we know and perceive are NEEDED to do something and you take a step past that boundry. magic is one of those steps, the gods are another. dragons flight (mass to wing size ratio say a dragon is much lighter than his abilities would suggest...) the list goes on and on. my whole point on the matter from the beginning is that the science in the game does not nessecerily relate to our own because it is fantasy and there are so many circumstances that prove otherwise or at least VERY strongly suggest it.
your last point says that wed see it as magic. we wouldnt, weve moved beyond that as a society. we would certainly see it as alien, and abberant, not magic.
and lastly, i dont care about the name mispell. just being snarky.
Actually I said supernatural -- and honestly we aren't nearly as far along as you would like to believe. We still have the flat earthers, and many people regularly poll to say they believe in supernatural and magical phenomenon to this day -- I'm not going to dirty this conversation with a religious debate but... you know?
Also again we know that it is called 'magic' in the game -- but until we know more about the subatomic particles and quantum physics and beyond (such as what exactly is going on in a black hole) we can't rule out what we will do with that knowledge, what methods will be used to harness it (if we can), or many other such factors.
We know that magic in Galorian is energy. So it isn't simply wave hands something from nothing -- there is some sort of interaction of energy matter and who knows what all else that could possibly be expressed in a mathematical formula. Now how and why these things interact would be of intense interest to our scientists today -- if such phenomenon ever appears. Heck with the way science works we might figure out the formula for doing before we find an actual way to practice that formula.
Basically what I'm saying is, "Don't limit science."
Like a growing child it's going places and learning new things and we don't actually know where it will end up.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A useful distinction to make, I think, would be that D&D/PF magic doesn't necessarily 'make sense' scientifically, but that it *doesn't have to be* non-sensical.
The game setting has a plane of infinite elemental fire that is somewhere between 'infinitely far away' and 'just tantalizing out of reach.' If a wizard can simply poke a pinprick hole in the wall betwen 'here' and 'there,' and cause a blast of fire to come surging through, that's 'science' as far as Golarion is concerned, even if it's also 'magic.'
Alternately, if he's loosening up the atomic bonds causing an item to transform into another item, again, that's 'science,' and yet, also, 'magic.' Indeed, Pathfinder polymorph magic is *less magical* than 3.X polymorph magic, since the beast shape / etc. spells are strictly limited to certain features, and polymorphing someone into a rat, in Golarion, *doesn't actually turn them into a rat,* just a rat-shaped creature with a small selection attributes that they would have likely gotten if you polymorphed them into a teacup poodle or a ferret or a de-clawed housecat.
Just because magic, in pretty much any interpretation of the game, wasn't *designed* to 'make sense' from a scientific standpoint, doesn't mean that the reader can't impose some 'sense' onto it, and have the existence of other planes allow one to wave at the laws of thermodynamics, since the matter and energy is just being shuffled around between planes, rather than 'created' or 'destroyed.'
im not limiting science, actually im just seperating it from fiction in order to allow the fiction to fully blossom. which is maybe the entirety of our basis for argument.
i truly enjoy the idea of the game world existing as its own entity with its own set of physics laws and rule and equations, etc. that way our own science doesnt get in the way of the game. the way i run my game is when a wizard uses magic to conjure something up, he is channeling the energy through himself and to the means he creates by the use of the spell. no science of the real world involved. its magic, which is very real in golarion, not a metaphore for yet to be understood technology.
The way i see the game, as i stated yesterday, is as our concept of peoples myths and beleifs of the actual world 700 years ago. where dragons DO exist, they arent a volcano or earthquake. werewolves do exist, not a serial killer that has hysteria covering his footsteps. and magic is a very real and occasionally tangible force, as it is.
set, i fully agree with you on your points. except i dont need the psuedo science to follow up the magic. he polymorphs because the magic changes his form. he shoots a ray of searing light because his magic superheats the lines between he and his target. its simple, its unsophisticated, and mostly its fun.
|
im not limiting science, actually im just seperating it from fiction in order to allow the fiction to fully blossom. which is maybe the entirety of our basis for argument.
What i have seen you do on and on in this thread is to completely refuse ANY possibility of magic happening under current laws of physics, that are, however extensive pretty incomplete when we get to the subatomic level.
Wow, there's like five or six different arguments going on at once here...
But my biggest beef is with the blue dude going 'math' this and 'math' that when he never took the time to understand my point (or the math, for that matter).
Let's now discuss the scientific properties of mana.
What is it? Where does it come from? What happens if you eat it?
Wow, there's like five or six different arguments going on at once here...
But my biggest beef is with the blue dude going 'math' this and 'math' that when he never took the time to understand my point (or the math, for that matter).
simply because i dont agree with your side of an argument does not mean that i dont understand it. the math supports my argument far more than the one against, epecially if we are going to talk probability.
the initial question was what was the science being used by alchemists, and i posit that they dont study a science we do on earth because the physics of the world of golarion are simply different.
the initial question was what was the science being used by alchemists, and i posit that they dont study a science we do on earth because the physics of the world of golarion are simply different.
Doesn't hold water -- either it's magic and its supernatural therefore by definition outside the actual physics of the world of Golarion or it's simply science applied in a different form from what we know (the correct form for that world) -- can't have both otherwise Clarke's laws win since the magic is simply the science of that world following the physics of Golarion (Clarke's third law).
If it's the physics of that world then by definition what they are doing is the science of that world -- not magic. If what they are doing is in fact supernatural and therefore magical then it isn't following the laws of physics (which is after all what is needed to be supernatural or magical in the first place).
simply because i dont agree with your side of an argument does not mean that i dont understand it. the math supports my argument far more than the one against, epecially if we are going to talk probability
You missed my point: no matter how implausible an event, if it can be described within the framework of the Dirac equation, that world exists per the many-worlds hypothesis. I'm not saying it's our world, or that it follows different rules. But the way that worldline shakes out results in events that a reasonable person would interpret as proof that his world follows 'magical' rules. Even though that's not the case, and each instant spawns a near-infinity of worlds where magic stops working, there remains at least one worldline indistinguishable from one where PFRPG core effects work.
Many worlds isn't actually about probability. It is a mechanism whereby probability can be removed from the discussion because ALL outcomes occur. The more worldlines that resemble each other, the more 'probable' it is deemed according to the Copenhagen interpretation. Many worlds replaces probability with statistics.
the initial question was what was the science being used by alchemists, and i posit that they dont study a science we do on earth because the physics of the world of golarion are simply different.Doesn't hold water -- either it's magic and its supernatural therefore by definition outside the actual physics of the world of Golarion or it's simply science applied in a different form from what we know (the correct form for that world) -- can't have both otherwise Clarke's laws win since the magic is simply the science of that world following the physics of Golarion (Clarke's third law).
If it's the physics of that world then by definition what they are doing is the science of that world -- not magic. If what they are doing is in fact supernatural and therefore magical then it isn't following the laws of physics (which is after all what is needed to be supernatural or magical in the first place).
you are sort of right. you can have both their science and magic in both the same. its there in the game. and because its fantasy not scifi it doesnt have to follow clarks laws.
Abraham spalding, have you been watching through the wormhole? ;) (I love that show btw).
The fun part? We are just starting too. Humanity is this close to actually playing with time/space itself -- and we don't know what all is possible once we start doing that.We are doing that... but all that funky stuff by definition only occurs on the quantum level. We're nowhere and conceivably never will be playing with that kind of stuff on the macro level.
Third time -- we are up to the size of a human hair. Which is well beyond the quantum level.
Good thing alchemists haven't discovered acetone... heheh. Over the fourth of July I used acetone, hydrogen peroxide and sulfuric acid to make 75 grams of TATP that went off like a stick of dynamite. The largest piece of the can I could find was 1 square inch in area.
Gets me a little steamed that fireball specifically states "the explosion creates almost no pressure." Kind of like saying a cannonball has no mass.
I find the idea of "magic" interesting in that I can't figure out an objective definition for it. Should "magic" be defined as "technological expertise which is not based on the scientific method?" What, then, do we call systems architecture? Should "magic" be defined as "that which scientists used to do or that which they do elsewhere?" Then when, exactly, did the magic of yesterday become the science of today?
The twin questions of what is possible and what is magic are equally pointless. The only relevant question is "how do you know?"
All the answers are in Clarke's laws.
The only difference between magic and science/technology is the perspective of the observer. If the observer is sufficiently savvy, the observed will be science. Otherwise, the observed will be magic. In a general sense, magic is science that has not yet been discovered. Or, science that is not generally known about. Or, science that has not been de-mystified. Conversely, science is magic that has been "sufficiently rigorously defined." Or, science is magic that has been de-mystified.
Good thing alchemists haven't discovered acetone... heheh. Over the fourth of July I used acetone, hydrogen peroxide and sulfuric acid to make 75 grams of TATP that went off like a stick of dynamite. The largest piece of the can I could find was 1 square inch in area.
Gets me a little steamed that fireball specifically states "the explosion creates almost no pressure." Kind of like saying a cannonball has no mass.
Examples like these are why I strongly prefer less detail in spells as opposed to more, especially when "more detail" just means "more dissociated and more self-contradictory."
Take [Instant Fortress] for example:
The fortress springs up in just 1 round, with the door facing the device's owner. The door opens and closes instantly at his command. People and creatures nearby (except the owner) must be careful not to be caught by the fortress's sudden growth. Anyone so caught takes 10d10 points of damage (Reflex DC 19 half).
An expanding fort apparently causes enough pressure to deal significant damage, yet fireball does not. Obviously, they don't want it to deal "pressure" damage. But it seems to me if they want a spell to be weaker, they should just make it weaker, not dissociate it. People should be encouraged to bring their real-world knowledge to the table, but details like these actually discourage it.
So, where do the other ways of knowing which aren't "science" or "magic" fit in? That's where your application of Clark's statements falls apart - you don't seem to have made any allowance for architecutural know-how, economic savvy, weather sense, or anything else which doesn't follow the scientific method.
Empirical ways of knowing would fit under art or wisdom or mysticism. However, it should be noted that empirical knowledge generally is only considered to be unscientific because no one has been clever enough to successfully subject them to the scientific method. Take something as basic and ancient as massage therapy. Studies show it is vastly superior to conventional medicine for low back pain. Yet it generally defies scientific study. Why? Because scientific study (ie, reproducable results) cannot account for the skill of the therapist. It would be like having a simple chemistry experiment fail if you weren't "good enough" at chemistry. Makes no sense, right? Similarly, a farmer who lives or dies by what the weather brings will certainly be much more skillful at interpreting it than the average person, yet his sense will defy scientific method because what he knows cannot entirely be taught, it must be felt. He could teach the basics, but sooner or later you'd be on the road of things you can only discover for yourself.
These things are "mystical" in the sense that they are mysteries that must be discovered by each individual. That's why mystics speak in riddles. What they have to say defies plain language. If it were that simple, they would say it simply. But they speak in riddles because they know you have to figure it out for yourself anyway, and a riddle is literally the best conveyance of their knowledge.
I guess under my definition you could technically call that magic, even though the result is immaterial. Call it divination. The only thing separating it from science is the present lack of ability to subject it to the scientific method. And lack of ability to teach skill.
my point about science is that its mathematical and is by all means correct.
Yeah, that point is wrong. Natural science like physics is empirical while math is pure deduction. For physics you'd need true axioms - or in other word, Gnosis, to start with (which leads to scientific mysticism)
if you can prove otherwise to me please do so.
Definition of science -> Need of Falsification -> Quod erat demonstrandum.
I think perhaps the point i make is being lost here to people attempting to legitimize the game in a real world manner. ITS NOT REAL.
I guess noone in here doubts that. We are in the detail, not into the pragmatism about it.
remember the basic eqation of einstein e=mc2. if magic has this kind of energy you suggest, where is its mass, or its velocity(both would have to be significant as its velocity is limited(faster than light is not possible as the speed of light is the only real constant in space time)? magic is pulled out of thin air using an energy that does not follow our physics.
Two possibilities:
1. Energy transformation. As you have to burn gas to fuel a flame thrower, you have to burn mana (or slots) to fuel a fireball. As for stuff that would need extreme quantums of energy like creating matter, just think "conjure" - the mage does not truly create it, he gets it out of some sort of plane via some sort of wormhole2. Simulated world - easy argument but works
other point, in 4.0 wizards can BECOME spells (and in 3.5, we got named spells like tensers... mordenkainens...) - which explains why the application of spells seems some sort of locked if you assume, that nearly all the spells were once wizards or are restricted by the gods (who also once were mortals or other weaker beings)
you are losing the overall point here which is that magic isnt real.
The overall point started here:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/whatDoAlchemistsKnowAnyway&page=2#85Basically your starting argument was, that real world science could not be applied on Golarion, not that magic isn't real
and while energy of protons doesnt need mass,
!?
Protons give about half the mass of regular matterthats my point though. magic is in the game DOES NOT have the tech, its medieval fantasy. whereas you can feasibly replicalte some of the effects in the game with technology, a wizard does not have a cell phone, he casts sending. a sorcerer does not use a taser, she casts shocking grasp. while the ends are the same or very similar, the means are worlds apart.
Ever read a magic book? Maybe the wizards have some sort of "etheral hands" (hyperdimensional attachements to their bodies) they use for building "etheral structures" which become, in essence, the spells - and that's just one explanation
people dont think he cast fireball when all he did was throw a lit propane tank into the midst of the crowd of goblins.
Au contraire - this is exactly like real world "magic" works.
For example, a real world voodoo sorcerer blows a mixture of pulverized glass and a tranquilizing drug into the face of people he wants to become zombies (stoned slaves who work on his farm)Or another example: In WW2, some natives of the islands where the USA fought Japan got stuff from the soldiers like chocolate and they saw these metal birds in the sky. As a consequence, they are dressing like american soldiers nowadays as some sort of ritual to summon chocolate and metal birds - not understanding the situation rendered it to magic in their pereption
There already IS a world where saying vlaadimvorak and making devil horns with your thumb pushed through the middle always seems to result in something exploding into a fireball. But for every world where 'magical' coincidences occur regularly enough to be mistaken for a physical law, there is a number of worlds they don't that is so staggeringly large that a computer the size of the Earth running continuously for thirteen billion years would be less than one thousandth of one percent finished calculating it.
Please give me a source on that - applying Occam's Razor I don't see why scientists should bother with such stuff.
Especially the stuff about the computer doesn't sound scientific.Let's now discuss the scientific properties of mana.
What is it? Where does it come from? What happens if you eat it?
If it's still raw, it hurts your stomach.
I find the idea of "magic" interesting in that I can't figure out an objective definition for it.
I'd go with "occult" - the perceptionist has absolutely no idea how it works but the guy wo did it seemed to know what would happen.
(some real world high tech applies for that definition btw)
The only thing separating it from science is the present lack of ability to subject it to the scientific method.There are some things which are funamentally impossible to subject to the scientific method - whether due to the number of nodes in the problem, Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem, they are truly complex (our brain-mind thingie), etc.
Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem: (correct me if I'm wrong)
A computer program can do math correctly. But it will either be unable to prove every mathematical theorem, or it will be unable to prove its own consistency. In spite of future mathematical discoveries. Basically, it is impossible for it to ever be both complete and consistent.
You could boil down the theorem even more and just say: nothing is perfect. Or, view it as a paradox, or a logical exercise. I'm not sure it serves any purpose other than to try to prove that some things actually are impossible. Although it may have wider implications, such as suggesting Einstein's elusive "universal theory" would be impossible to discover (or that said discovery would serve to reveal even more inconsistency within the system of physics).
I have a feeling magic would be equally ill-equipped to deal with this problem. Disregarding inconsistency in the rules, this implies there would still be incompleteness or inconsistency within magic as a system.
Hudax wrote:
Let's now discuss the scientific properties of mana.What is it? Where does it come from? What happens if you eat it?
If it's still raw, it hurts your stomach.
It tastes like burning...
Good thing alchemists haven't discovered acetone... heheh. Over the fourth of July I used acetone, hydrogen peroxide and sulfuric acid to make 75 grams of TATP that went off like a stick of dynamite. The largest piece of the can I could find was 1 square inch in area.
Gets me a little steamed that fireball specifically states "the explosion creates almost no pressure." Kind of like saying a cannonball has no mass.
If the fireball is not created of rapidly expanding superheated gas but rather of fiery energy expanding :)