Kreistor wrote:Under Passive Fate, there is only one Path, the Path it knows you took.
Predictamancy is magic
and that means the power to do the impossible; it doesn't need there to be only one Path when it is powerful enough to search infinite paths.
Irrelevant. You don't get to define "magic". Rob does.
Imagine time like a river that branches repeatedly. As you think of it, Fate would be outside of time, able to see the whole river at once from its source to its countless destinations. When a Predictamancer uses Predictamany from a certain point in the river, the magic somehow examines all branches that are ahead and finds statements or ideas that happen to be true in every branch.
Impossible, without an Active force involved. Suggesting this demands that there is no randomness.
Clay denies random chance can kill Wanda. There are two possible scenarios. First, that an Active Force is preventing random death happening to her. Second, an Observer that can tell that no random event will kill her. I call these Active and Passive Fate. Your third scenario, where random chance can not kill her and only one outcome exists for her without an active force creating these outcomes is both statistically impossible and absurd, since it denies causality. Your version, where no matter what she does she comes to the same events, demands an Active role for Fate, and if you insist upon Free Will, it must also be subtle. I really don't know how you're twisting your mind to allow the third possibility without an active force involved.
That is why the power of Predictamancy is limited; there are so many things about the future that they don't know, because most things aren't the same in every path, and that is also one reason that Erfworlders have free will.
No, your logic does not reach that conclusion. You are failing to explain how all streams reach one event, without an Active Fate. You're simply ignoring the question. You treat it as if it can happen as an inevitability, just because you state it's possible. Erfworld is a realm of chaos and random death. Why is Wanda immune regardless of her actions, if no Active Force is involved to ensure her survival? Why does no stream lead to the cliff everyone else can fall off?
Kreistor wrote:I've seen people cry to manipulate. I am beyond "believing" when it comes to Delphie. I lack sympathy for that devil.
You really hate
Delphie! I'm surprised. Of course I saw her as a bit of a villain in the beginning of Book 0, and I shared Wanda's dislike for Delphie, but when it became clear that Delphie was right all along and Wanda was wrong, I started to have sympathy for Delphie.
No, not hate. I merely think she was an arrogant, self-centered wretch that viewed her analytical ability as beyond everyone else's understanding and consequently when she overstepped and took on responsibility by rationalizing her Ruler's thoughts irrelevant, she got the appropriate punishment, to whit, death. It is one thing to think you're better than everyone else. It's another to act upon that belief and fail to obtain alternative opinions on your course of action.
She lied, but she was doing it to try to save Goodminton.
No, she wasn't going to save Goodminton. None of her Predictions foresaw that outcome. Had she sat down and gotten everyone together, explained the whole thing, and said, "Is there any way we can save this place?" then she might have gotten a flash of insight from someone else that could have achieved that end. Her own plan couldn't achieve that end at all, and she knew it.
Delphie knew in advance that Clay would fall in love with Wanda, which gives Delphie a strange perspective on things and I think it justifies Delphie's behavior pretty well. I would love to know why she is such a devil to you.
Are you saying that Clay's love for Wanda justifies something? Last I checked, I don't get a choice to love someone... it happens or not. How can you justify anything done to Wanda by Clay's emotional betrayal of Delphie? Emotional betrayals are beyond our control, and not justification for anything at all, much less justification for acting against an innocent third party that isn't even aware of it!
Volcanoes only erupt where there are volcanoes and earthquakes only happen on fault lines. There are places all over the world where those things are impossible (not just unlikely) without anyone having to do anything to make them impossible, and that's pretty clearly even more true for Erfworld than it is for the real world. Plus I don't think anyone would suggest that volcanoes erupt by chance; they are determined by natural processes underground.
Yeah, I would. The above is entirely 100% false. You describe only the most commonly known events.
Earthquakes: Southern Ontario in Canada is far from any fault line, but suffers up to 6.0 Richter scale earthquakes every 3-5 years. This is because the ground is "rebounding". 12K years ago, a mile thick sheet of ice had pressed the continent down for 1000K years. With that weight gone, it is rising, causing earthquakes. Earthquakes happen wherever rock moves, not just at fault lines. (Rock also moves in volcanoes, which cause earthquakes, too.) These earthquakes can centre anywhere in the region from Western Lake Superior to Eastern Lake Ontario, from lower Lake Erie to north of Ottawa.
Volcanoes: Volcanoes form where magma presses up into the plate. This happens anywhere, and they can form where none existed due to brownian motion in the magma below (though that is incredibly rare). In places like Hawaii and Yellowstone, it's hot spots below the plate that punch up through, but that's a little predictable since it forms a line of volcanoes. The Pacific plate is punching back up and hitting the bottom of the North American, which traps magma and pushes it up into the continent, below Nevada. This can cause volcanoes anywhere in the region. But a hot spot can theoretically hit anywhere on any continent, since magma is fundamentally chaotic. While there is a causal reason for a volcano's eruption, we cannot detect that reason, so new volcanoes appear as random events to us.