|
Post by Runningflame on Apr 6, 2022 20:55:51 GMT
Anything that "transcends the natural world" - simply doesn't exist. It is forever outside our frame of reference or any other frame of reference that can be shown to exist. Surely the conclusion should be "we can't prove or disprove it" rather than categorically "it doesn't exist," then? Or at least "it doesn't exist for all practical purposes." Science can still exist in a world of magic among those that cannot do magic, but the fact that Coyote can make Annie touch the moon and leave her fingerprint there is just so far removed from science that it makes science pointless. Kat's reactions at the beginning of the comic are the only ones that make sense from a science perspective. Conservation of mass/energy doesn't seem to apply to Gunnerkrigg as Annie can just create energy, heat, without using any kind of fuel source. The fact that physics applies sometimes (most of the time, actually) means it's far from pointless. It's merely incomplete, and sometimes you need different methods.
|
|
|
Post by jda on Apr 6, 2022 22:08:16 GMT
Where Annie talks Loup into self-anhilitation.
|
|
|
Post by rabbit on Apr 6, 2022 22:21:08 GMT
This exchange between Annie and Jerroup is fascinating, but I find myself wondering “where is Rey?”
|
|
|
Post by todd on Apr 7, 2022 0:13:52 GMT
The way I see it, the problem is, the Omega Device would take into account your reaction to its predictions when calculating its predictions, so, since it knows how you will react to its predictions, it will tell you what you will do, and you WILL do exactly that... So it will feel like you are following a script rather than really living... Which raises the possibility that the reason why the Omega Device shows a certain future is because the Court, upon seeing that future, set out to bring it about, believing it to be "what is meant to be", when in fact, it came about because they followed it. The self-fulfilling prophecy at work.
|
|
|
Post by mordekai on Apr 7, 2022 0:17:32 GMT
The way I see it, the problem is, the Omega Device would take into account your reaction to its predictions when calculating its predictions, so, since it knows how you will react to its predictions, ... it needs an infinite iteration of predictions including previous output as input and will never make an actual prediction. Many people already mentioned the problem of the computer being recursive, and that it would need to be bigger than the universe in order to work. But if we accept it works, then it knows how you will react ot its answer, and takes it into account when elaborationg the answer. it will tell you what you will do, and you WILL do exactly that... Why? It's not a making people do things machine. (Also see: negation machine.) It's not like it will force you to obey... it just can calculate how you neurons will fire when listening/reading the answer, and it will elaborate an answer that will provoke the right kind of reaction so you will do what the answer says you will do... because you know, Determinism... Even if you decide to NOT do what the computer says before receiving the answer, the computer will elaborate an answer such that it will break your resolution to disobey... because the computer's job is to predict the future, and it takes your emotions and reactions into account when elaborating the answer, and it will elaborate an answer that won't be wrong, which implies that your reaction to the answer is to act like the answer says. In the real world our decisions may be either determined by physics, from a Deterministic point of view (by the chemical reactions in our neurons reacting to the stimuli from our environment), or, if we accept the existance of an element of randomness and indetermination in our universe, by said chemical reactions altered to some degree by chance... But we aren't aware of that, so we feel like we have free will... The Omega Device would rip the beautiful mask of free will and show us as the helpless puppets we are... Not if you're a compatibilist! But really I find being a puppet to causality no more distressing than being a puppet to a causality/randomness combo. Yeah, but we aren't aware of our lack of free will. The Omega Device would show us our lack of free will clearly and plainly...
|
|
|
Post by helzblack on Apr 7, 2022 3:07:57 GMT
But as many have pointed out quantum uncertainty doomed the Court's plan even without the ether.
A common misunderstanding. Only within the Copenhagen Interpretation, which a fewer number of phycist use over the years.
In the MWI "interpretation" there is still what is called quantum determinism. The only uncertainty is whether you end up on the universe with the dead cat or alive cat in Schrodinger's experiment, for example, but from a top-down view both universes exist.That is to say in the Copenhagen interpretation there is uncertainty because you think etiehr the cat will end up alive or dead and there is no way of knowing, in the Many Worlds Interpretation both universes exist and there is no uncertatinty, everything is predictable because both the universe with the dead cat and alive cat exist together with a version of you that sees a dead cat and another version that sees a live one. Besides scientists don't want to know everything, rather they seek to know the way to know everything in theory, a way to predict everything if they wanted to.In Christianism God is supposed to know everything and no one says God is bored or whatever, but yes it would deprive you of your freedom if you knew your entire future ;however that is different from having the theory or formula that allows you to predict everything. Science doesn't seek to see it all but rather to be able to see it all.
|
|
|
Post by Dvandaemon on Apr 7, 2022 3:32:32 GMT
And I could be wrong, but she's giving him the Spock raised eyebrow in the last panel. She's either fascinated by or suspicious of what he's saying there. She's raising both eyebrows but one isn't visible behind her bangs
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Apr 7, 2022 4:49:35 GMT
I'm just saying, this line of reasoning doesn't seem very roboty. Would it be normal for Robots to have such disdain for the idea of programed behavior? Annie is kind of oblivious and its that lovely reader exclusive knowledge that makes this interaction suspicious, so I still don't think Annnie has any idea, but ita getting suspicious.
|
|
|
Post by speedwell on Apr 7, 2022 8:25:58 GMT
Anything that "transcends the natural world" - simply doesn't exist. It is forever outside our frame of reference or any other frame of reference that can be shown to exist. Surely the conclusion should be "we can't prove or disprove it" rather than categorically "it doesn't exist," then? Or at least "it doesn't exist for all practical purposes." Science can still exist in a world of magic among those that cannot do magic, but the fact that Coyote can make Annie touch the moon and leave her fingerprint there is just so far removed from science that it makes science pointless. Kat's reactions at the beginning of the comic are the only ones that make sense from a science perspective. Conservation of mass/energy doesn't seem to apply to Gunnerkrigg as Annie can just create energy, heat, without using any kind of fuel source. The fact that physics applies sometimes (most of the time, actually) means it's far from pointless. It's merely incomplete, and sometimes you need different methods. It doesn't exist for any purpose. The natural world is what we know as reality, that which is real. If something is outside reality, it isn't real.
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Apr 7, 2022 10:26:04 GMT
Okay, I'm not sure why so many people think Jerrek is acting out of character for a robot/NP. For example... I'm just saying, this line of reasoning doesn't seem very roboty. Would it be normal for Robots to have such disdain for the idea of programed behavior? Annie is kind of oblivious and its that lovely reader exclusive knowledge that makes this interaction suspicious, so I still don't think Annnie has any idea, but ita getting suspicious. Preaching about the coming of an angel that will elevate robotkind to a new existence, starting a new religion, or falling in love with a human is also not very roboty, yet guess what the two robots Annie knows best have been up to? Furthermore why shouldn't an NP, a free willed (I assume) being that evolved from a robot not feel disdain for the idea of programmed behavior? Don't humans feel the same for the idea of being slave to one's nature and instincts like our own primate ancestors? What's that quote again, all sufficiently advanced technology is perceived as magic? Or something to that effect. And as already talked about by Annie, and Kat, and big-Z, and others: magic and science can exist right next to each other in this world, but one doesn't exclude the other and they can't necessarily explain one another. But yes: wolf that can stop time and "split" people just scoffed at the idea of atoms. I think that's the problem though, I don't agree that one doesn't exclude the other. Science can still exist in a world of magic among those that cannot do magic, but the fact that Coyote can make Annie touch the moon and leave her fingerprint there is just so far removed from science that it makes science pointless. Kat's reactions at the beginning of the comic are the only ones that make sense from a science perspective. Conservation of mass/energy doesn't seem to apply to Gunnerkrigg as Annie can just create energy, heat, without using any kind of fuel source. Can she?
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Apr 7, 2022 10:31:51 GMT
Only Jerrek didn't scruff his hair before looking back, but then it obviously isn't necessary for him.
|
|
|
Post by Per on Apr 7, 2022 11:21:08 GMT
Many people already mentioned the problem of the computer being recursive, and that it would need to be bigger than the universe in order to work. But if we accept it works, then it knows how you will react ot its answer, and takes it into account when elaborationg the answer. You can assume it works arbitrary long and fast and accurately to model the deterministic universe, it doesn't follow that it will work in the sense that its predictions will be accurate. If it just works because of handwaving, then it doesn't need determinism. It's not like it will force you to obey... it just can calculate how you neurons will fire when listening/reading the answer, and it will elaborate an answer that will provoke the right kind of reaction so you will do what the answer says you will do... because you know, Determinism... It seems like you're saying the machine works by rummaging through possible predictions until it finds one that leads to itself being true, and then selects that future by outputting that prediction, and then is found to have worked. Aside from the fact that there seems to be no reason to think that an arbitrary succession of such self-fulfilling predictions could necessarily be found, I don't think that's what people usually mean by prediction machines. Even if you decide to NOT do what the computer says before receiving the answer, the computer will elaborate an answer such that it will break your resolution to disobey... So the prediction machine can only work in a world where everyone interacting with it is constantly compelled by spooky psychology to fulfil its predictions? That seems like a curious constraint. How does it spook a negation machine?
|
|
|
Post by saardvark on Apr 7, 2022 12:27:57 GMT
Only Jerrek didn't scruff his hair before looking back, but then it obviously isn't necessary for him.
I don't think the gesture means quite the same thing with Jerrek though... though there are definite similarities. In Annie's case, I see it as the physical manifestation of her dropping a "persona" she had adopted to try to manipulate Jack. She's making a significant "course change" and rethinking things. In JerreLoup's case, he is mentally confronting and analyzing a "way of living" that he finds absurd - a dead end. So he's reflecting on a course he doesn't think should be taken. Still, they're both contemplating a significant change.
|
|
manxy
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by manxy on Apr 7, 2022 13:11:51 GMT
Maybe the Omega machine is going to "shift" the Court into a version of reality where the ether doesn't and never did exist (i.e., reality as we all know it). It would tie together what they're discussing now with the previous concepts of shifting and that reality and history can essentially be manipulated at any moment.
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Apr 7, 2022 13:51:12 GMT
Okay, I'm not sure why so many people think Jerrek is acting out of character for a robot/NP. For example... I'm just saying, this line of reasoning doesn't seem very roboty. Would it be normal for Robots to have such disdain for the idea of programed behavior? Annie is kind of oblivious and its that lovely reader exclusive knowledge that makes this interaction suspicious, so I still don't think Annnie has any idea, but ita getting suspicious. Preaching about the coming of an angel that will elevate robotkind to a new existence, starting a new religion, or falling in love with a human is also not very roboty, yet guess what the two robots Annie knows best have been up to? Furthermore why shouldn't an NP, a free willed (I assume) being that evolved from a robot not feel disdain for the idea of programmed behavior? Don't humans feel the same for the idea of being slave to one's nature and instincts like our own primate ancestors? But wasn't the Angle coming and the religious rebirth a prediction/profacy or is my brain inventing history? The entire robot religion came off as very deterministic, but maybe tha was just my reading of it. And sure it makes sense that they want to move past the idea of actions being programed, just seems a little disdainful for a new person. Of course, you are most likely right. I think this is just reader knowledge making us look at a non suspicious conversation in a very suspicious way. If we didn't already know it was Loup maybe a few people would be suspicious about him right now, but I doubt everything he said would be getting the "is this normal for a new person" treatment and we'd just accept its normal for Jerrek and that any given new person could act this way.
|
|
|
Post by ohthatone on Apr 7, 2022 18:46:41 GMT
[quote timestamp="1649327164" I think this is just reader knowledge making us look at a non suspicious conversation in a very suspicious way. If we didn't already know it was Loup maybe a few people would be suspicious about him right now, but I doubt everything he said would be getting the "is this normal for a new person" treatment and we'd just accept its normal for Jerrek and that any given new person could act this way. [/quote] yeah I'm really thinking the next page will be something along the lines if annie asking what jerrek's previous role was and he'll say something about pipes and annie will find nothing odd about this. He just happens to be a very thoughtful ex-pipe bot.
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Apr 7, 2022 19:31:53 GMT
Ok, Jerrek is behaving out of character for an NP. That's because he's not NP-complete.
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Apr 7, 2022 22:11:10 GMT
Okay, I'm not sure why so many people think Jerrek is acting out of character for a robot/NP. For example... Preaching about the coming of an angel that will elevate robotkind to a new existence, starting a new religion, or falling in love with a human is also not very roboty, yet guess what the two robots Annie knows best have been up to? Furthermore why shouldn't an NP, a free willed (I assume) being that evolved from a robot not feel disdain for the idea of programmed behavior? Don't humans feel the same for the idea of being slave to one's nature and instincts like our own primate ancestors? But wasn't the Angle coming and the religious rebirth a prediction/profacy or is my brain inventing history? [...] S13 predicted the coming of the Angel long before he met Kat, if that's what you mean. And was taken apart and hidden for spreading misinformation by the other Seraphs. I'd argue he wasn't acting very roboty then either. By the way, I wonder if we'll ever get a definitive answer to the question whether S13 made a true prophecy then, or if the prophecy was fulfilled because he took several active steps in order to fulfill it, and otherwise Kat might have never ended up in the role she has now... Or perhaps some other technological genius with comparable abilities could have become their Angel? (Though it is suggested that reading the robot opcode is a quite unique ability that no other human besides Diego himself was known to possess.)
|
|
|
Post by rylfrazier on Apr 7, 2022 22:12:02 GMT
Oh, Jerrek, sweetie, you were almost there. He understood that there were multiple levels on which you could understand the cosmos - the smaller picture as well as the larger picture, the levels at which different rules apply, both small and large. On the quantum level, sure, there is no free will, and that's a fact. On the universe level, there is no free will because on that scale there is nothing we can think of as a person exercising what we think of as free will and no room to even have free will in. But on the level of human-scale functioning, where you can't put your hand through a table even though it is mostly empty space and where systems combine to make other systems in both predictable and unpredictable ways, where no person or people literally comprehend every single quantum interaction and every interaction of every system, free will is not only existent but inevitable. Time doesn't exist either. We're in a dead system. But we're alive within it. I don't think this is the terminology I would use for this phenomenon, the way I tend to look at the universe is that free will probably does not exist but the perception of free will definitely does exist. So on some level if an "omega device" were possible there is a knowable thing it could know, but since an Omega Device is not possible and more importantly because the way our minds operate gives us the impression of having free will, functionally it's the same as if we did have it, even if we aren't actually "making choices" that exceed the all-incoming physical universe, there's no outside "ghost in the machine" that makes the choice, even though to the person typing the comment it seems like that thing exists.
|
|
|
Post by Runningflame on Apr 8, 2022 0:45:37 GMT
Surely the conclusion should be "we can't prove or disprove it" rather than categorically "it doesn't exist," then? Or at least "it doesn't exist for all practical purposes." It doesn't exist for any purpose. The natural world is what we know as reality, that which is real. If something is outside reality, it isn't real.I disagree--unless we're using different definitions, which is quite possible. The existence of a thing is not predicated on our capacity for knowing about it. I am pretty confident that reality includes things that we will never encounter or postulate in theory. (Or are you including all such things under the umbrella of "the natural world" because they exist and are real?)
|
|
|
Post by speedwell on Apr 8, 2022 3:34:30 GMT
It doesn't exist for any purpose. The natural world is what we know as reality, that which is real. If something is outside reality, it isn't real.I disagree--unless we're using different definitions, which is quite possible. The existence of a thing is not predicated on our capacity for knowing about it. I am pretty confident that reality includes things that we will never encounter or postulate in theory. (Or are you including all such things under the umbrella of "the natural world" because they exist and are real?) There's nothing to disagree about. Anything that is possible to be proven to exist is part of the natural world. Anything not of the natural world cannot be shown to exist and may be disregarded. Anything that you imagine to exist outside existence is nonsense. If anything could be said to exist outside existence and "reach in" to the natural world to affect the natural world would have properties that are testable within the natural world. But by definition nothing that "exists" outside the natural world (that square circle again) can affect the natural world, because that would make it not supernatural but natural. Alchemy, a key concept of the comic, is an early attempt to define what happens in the natural world in terms of powers and properties that exist within the natural world, rather than resorting to handwaving of the "something exists outside existence" sort, a pure contradiction of the "A equals not-A" category that disproves itself.
|
|
|
Post by stef1987 on Apr 8, 2022 8:19:06 GMT
Did you even read it closely enough to have a reason for your dismissal? Haha, yeah, sorry, I did read it closely but I didn't have the energy to write a proper reply ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png) (and I'm not good with words anyway)
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Apr 8, 2022 8:42:56 GMT
Hence the existential horror. My favorite systems treat magic as equivalent to and similar to physics. Physics has inviolable rules. See, the specific interpretations of this phrase lie exactly at the point where empiric reality-as-given gets mixed with its predictive model. We cannot be sure we read it in the same way as each other or someone else, without extra definitions, which you omit, leaving them all implicit. As a result, I might agree with this, but the statement with which I agree may have nothing to do with what you wrote, let alone what someone else reads. The entire point of every brand of instrumentalism (from Buddhist "I teach how to remove the arrow" to " Shut Up And Calculate interpretation of quantum mechanics", and on) is to clean this very mix-up. Thus an instrumentalist definition may looks like this (this one is by A.Zinovyev): Explicitly stating something like (3) is where you cut the statements about model from the statements about reality. …at which point, yes, there is nothing special about Svarnetics, as long as you have a stream of meaningful data to work with. Of course, people in applied math (like prof. A.Donda) can take this sort of things in stride simply because they are used to working with relatively high levels of abstractions and as such not being concerned with the lowest "hardware" levels. Magic also has inviolable rules, but those rules shift and change over time. I read this thusly: the first part is an axiom or meta-rule allowing to discuss these rules. The second part is itself a part of such rule, so placing it next to the first may break layers of meta-statements. Which tend to set one up for some paradox or other non-navigable mess.
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Apr 8, 2022 9:35:54 GMT
Did not the wood, like the Court, also grow from the seed bismuth? It's a two halves of the same coin thing I think. No, the wood already existed when the Founders came there. But the Seed Bismuth was created using both their science and the Forest's magic.
|
|
|
Post by lamissquichante on Apr 8, 2022 11:42:09 GMT
Yeah, he's literally letting his hair down. All the better to look like a wild animal. [/quote] That's such a great sentence of you! ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) Also: And I could be wrong, but she's giving him the Spock raised eyebrow in the last panel. She's either fascinated by or suspicious of what he's saying there. [/quote] Thank you for pointing that out, really helps with the next page ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) . Edit: Trying to make some "nice looking, practical quotes" - not working right now... maybe I'll try again later, too tired now, got vaccinated again yesterday, I'm a little sick...
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Apr 8, 2022 14:42:48 GMT
Nothing exists that is not natural.
However, what exists may not be 100% compatible with our understanding of what is natural.
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Apr 8, 2022 15:03:37 GMT
Magic also has inviolable rules, but those rules shift and change over time. I read this thusly: the first part is an axiom or meta-rule allowing to discuss these rules. The second part is itself a part of such rule, so placing it next to the first may break layers of meta-statements. Which tend to set one up for some paradox or other non-navigable mess. For sure! And let's never lose sight of the fact that the real purpose of magic is to provide narrative hooks. The real trick is doing it in such a way that it doesn't feel like a deus ex machina. Rules without rules, predictable but unexpected.
|
|
|
Post by Runningflame on Apr 9, 2022 0:16:49 GMT
I disagree--unless we're using different definitions, which is quite possible. The existence of a thing is not predicated on our capacity for knowing about it. I am pretty confident that reality includes things that we will never encounter or postulate in theory. (Or are you including all such things under the umbrella of "the natural world" because they exist and are real?) There's nothing to disagree about. Possibly. But phrasing your response that way comes across as "There is only one possible answer," which in turn can sound like "I'm right and you're silly not to see it," which (even when it's correct) is more likely to make your interlocutor defensive than lead to mutual understanding. (I'm glad that the online forum medium gives me time to temper my defensiveness before sending a reply. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) ) I think we're mostly on the same page here, but I want to push on the importance of proof a bit. Suppose there is a planet orbiting a star in a distant galaxy. It is highly unlikely that we will ever be able to prove the existence of that planet. Would you say that such a planet does not exist, just because we humans are too far away to see it? Or is your definition of "possible to be proven" predicated on a hypothetical observer who is assumed to be at the right place and time to observe a phenomenon? This all makes sense, as long as you define "natural world" as "everything that exists"--meaning that magic, or deities, if they exist, are also part of the natural world. I don't think that's how most people define "natural," though. Using the term that way risks being misunderstood.
|
|