Book 2 – Page 110

Page by page discussion of the comic.

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Lilwik » Sat Jun 08, 2013 9:05 pm

Turtlewing wrote:By far the simplest explanation for the bracer's behavior is that it's attempting to display both correct answers to the question it was asked.
That's not a simple explanation. That's a tricky and unintuitive explanation. You've described the explanation well and it certainly works as far as we know, but it takes quite a few words to explain. A simpler explanation would be: the scroll is magic and messing with the bracer. That's so much easier to understand. That doesn't make it more likely to be true, but let's at least say that the two-correct-answers explanation is not by far simplest. It's better to say arguably simplest.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Somna » Sat Jun 08, 2013 9:29 pm

Lilwik wrote:
Somna wrote:You're confusing the act of actually casting something with an ongoing effect.
No, I'm saying that the scroll might have an ongoing effect on it created by Carnymancy, an effect specifically designed to encourage Parson to cast it.

An effect designed to encourage Parson to use the scroll is flat out in the realm of Hippiemancy's Date-o-mancy, the magic of relationships. And there's no way a Hippiemancy effect, latent or otherwise, is going to believably sneak past Ms Grand Abbie Janis. Then there's the fact that even if there was such an effect on the scroll, it would have compounded on his Summon Warlord spell and made him use it without Charlie's prodding and Mathamancy calculation request, not save it for the absolute last possible action he can actually confirm.

Lilwik wrote:
Somna wrote:And if the scroll had an effect on top of the spell scribed in it, you really think Sizemore, Maggie, Janis, Issac, Marie, and the rest of the Predictamancers wouldn't have noticed?
I'm open to the possibility that they might not notice. On Page 65 Marie made it clear that Parson shouldn't trust Carnymancers, and that implies that Carnymancers are tricky, which in turn implies that not everything they do is out in the open and obvious, and if a caster thinks that then we should take it as possible that Carnymancers are capable of doing things that casters can't always see.


All that tells me is that Carnymancy is the magic of breaking or screwing up magic or rules, hence the comment from Parson about Carnymancy being the magic of rigging the game. The fact that Parson was able to analyze the scroll contents as actually breaking the Summoning spell on Parson just reinforces that point.

Even with the incredibly poor information we have about Carnymancy, think about it for a minute.

Carnymancer specialties are, per Jojo, stirring up trouble, roping a dope, and inciting a crowd.

The Carnymancy magic we HAVE seen mentioned are:

- Rigged incapacitation rules
- Breaking Summon Warlord spell

And then consider this:

What sounds better?

Jojo saying that the scroll would break his Summon Warlord effect, or Jojo saying that the scroll sends him home?

Even if it sends him home, does it send him home intact or is the breaking literal, causing it to send him in pieces so he can't get summoned again?

It sounds like Carnymancers have to communicate the desired end result of using their magic rather than how their magic works, because if they actually explain HOW they're doing it, the reaction is most likely going to be "Oh hell no, stay away from me with that magic." It also sounds like there's an inherent risk in using Carnymancy, hence all the comment about it being bad news normally.
Somna
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 9:53 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Somna » Sat Jun 08, 2013 9:43 pm

Lilwik wrote:
Turtlewing wrote:By far the simplest explanation for the bracer's behavior is that it's attempting to display both correct answers to the question it was asked.
That's not a simple explanation. That's a tricky and unintuitive explanation. You've described the explanation well and it certainly works as far as we know, but it takes quite a few words to explain. A simpler explanation would be: the scroll is magic and messing with the bracer. That's so much easier to understand. That doesn't make it more likely to be true, but let's at least say that the two-correct-answers explanation is not by far simplest. It's better to say arguably simplest.


  • Charlie wants him to use the scroll.
  • Charlie gives him a scroll that passively messes up his bracer's calculations, then asks him to calculate the odds of casting it.
  • Something messes up his bracer's calculation, making the end result 0.
  • Charlie gave him a scroll that messes up his bracer calculation to state he can't cast it, so that he will want to cast it.

Conclusion: This argument of "the scroll is magic and messing with the bracer" is completely bogus. Not only is it a logic fail, it is simply the most ignorant explanation. It also flies in the face of the testing Parson did to make sure something was not screwing up his bracer calculations.
Somna
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 9:53 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Lilwik » Sat Jun 08, 2013 10:20 pm

Somna wrote:An effect designed to encourage Parson to use the scroll is flat out in the realm of Hippiemancy's Date-o-mancy, the magic of relationships.
As far as I'm aware, Date-a-mancy has always been shown to be about relationships between units, and we've never yet seen anything about Date-a-mancy for relationships between units and things. That's not proof of anything, of course.
Somna wrote:Charlie wants him to use the scroll.
Agreed.
Somna wrote:Charlie gives him a scroll that passively messes up his bracer's calculations, then asks him to calculate the odds of casting it.
That could be true. We have no evidence either way, except that if it were possible to do then I would expect Charlie to do it, and something seemed to be messing with the bracer.
Somna wrote:Something messes up his bracer's calculation, making the end result 0.
That could be true, but considering what actually happened it seems more likely that 0 was the correct answer, not the result of trickery. On the other hand it has been pointed out that what answer is correct depends on how you interpret the answer.
Somna wrote:Charlie gave him a scroll that messes up his bracer calculation to state he can't cast it, so that he will want to cast it.
If that's true Charlie would either have to be crazy or else very, very clever. It's possible that Parson wouldn't have cast the scroll if the bracer had just straight-forwardly told him that he could, and he only tried to cast the scroll because it looked like someone was trying to trick him into thinking he couldn't do it. I find it hard to believe that Charlie would anticipate that, especially since it's probably not even true, so I think it's more likely that the .980104773 is from Charlie.
Somna wrote:This argument of "the scroll is magic and messing with the bracer" is completely bogus.
It's just something that could have happened, not something that we have any solid evidence for.
Somna wrote:Not only is it a logic fail, it is simply the most ignorant explanation.
Ignorant of what exactly?
Somna wrote:It also flies in the face of the testing Parson did to make sure something was not screwing up his bracer calculations.
Can you explain that in more detail? It seems that Parson's testing concluded that something probably was screwing up the calculations, so that tends to support the idea that scroll may have had magic to cause that.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Somna » Sun Jun 09, 2013 2:50 am

Lilwik wrote:
Somna wrote:An effect designed to encourage Parson to use the scroll is flat out in the realm of Hippiemancy's Date-o-mancy, the magic of relationships.
As far as I'm aware, Date-a-mancy has always been shown to be about relationships between units, and we've never yet seen anything about Date-a-mancy for relationships between units and things. That's not proof of anything, of course.

Wanda picking out the uniform in Book 0, Episode 9, is said to have Date-o-mancy involved because of who it represents.

Lilwik wrote:
Somna wrote:Charlie wants him to use the scroll.
Agreed.
Somna wrote:Charlie gives him a scroll that passively messes up his bracer's calculations, then asks him to calculate the odds of casting it.
That could be true. We have no evidence either way, except that if it were possible to do then I would expect Charlie to do it, and something seemed to be messing with the bracer.


...This is completely drawn from your claim. If you "have no evidence either way," then your claim of "the scroll is magic and messing with the bracer" is literally not based on anything valid and is worthless to use as an explanation.

Lilwik wrote:
Somna wrote:Something messes up his bracer's calculation, making the end result 0.
That could be true, but considering what actually happened it seems more likely that 0 was the correct answer, not the result of trickery. On the other hand it has been pointed out that what answer is correct depends on how you interpret the answer.


- Again, this is based off of your claim that "the scroll is magic and messing with the bracer," which you've admitted is not based on anything.
- I never said "trickery" was involved. That's all you.

Lilwik wrote:
Somna wrote:Charlie gave him a scroll that messes up his bracer calculation to state he can't cast it, so that he will want to cast it.
If that's true Charlie would either have to be crazy or else very, very clever. It's possible that Parson wouldn't have cast the scroll if the bracer had just straight-forwardly told him that he could, and he only tried to cast the scroll because it looked like someone was trying to trick him into thinking he couldn't do it. I find it hard to believe that Charlie would anticipate that, especially since it's probably not even true, so I think it's more likely that the .980104773 is from Charlie.


- Again, this is based off of your claim that "the scroll is magic and messing with the bracer," which you've admitted is not based on anything.

Lilwik wrote:
Somna wrote:This argument of "the scroll is magic and messing with the bracer" is completely bogus.
It's just something that could have happened, not something that we have any solid evidence for.
Somna wrote:Not only is it a logic fail, it is simply the most ignorant explanation.
Ignorant of what exactly?
Somna wrote:It also flies in the face of the testing Parson did to make sure something was not screwing up his bracer calculations.
Can you explain that in more detail? It seems that Parson's testing concluded that something probably was screwing up the calculations, so that tends to support the idea that scroll may have had magic to cause that.


You know, there's very little point in clarifying when you've already flat out admitted your claim is not based on any solid evidence.
Somna
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 9:53 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Lilwik » Sun Jun 09, 2013 3:13 am

Somna wrote:If you "have no evidence either way," then your claim of "the scroll is magic and messing with the bracer" is literally not based on anything valid and is worthless to use as an explanation.
No, it's an excellent explanation because it is simple and explains all the evidence that we have. We don't know whether it is true or not, but other than that it is a great theory. What I dislike are overly complex theories that don't explain anything any better for all their complexity, but that's just a personal preference and has nothing to do with which theories are most likely to be true.

Somna wrote:You know, there's very little point in clarifying when you've already flat out admitted your claim is not based on any solid evidence.
It's still fun to talk about Erfworld.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby drachefly » Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:45 am

Somna wrote:[*]Charlie gave him a scroll that messes up his bracer calculation to state he can't cast it, so that he will want to cast it.[/list]


That seems to be an accurate summary of the argument.

If Parson can cast the spell, Charlie mucked with the bracer to make it seem like he couldn't, because...?
If Parson can't cast the spell, why does Charlie care whether he tries?

Lipkin wrote:I think if free will exists, then passive fate cannot


Passive fate is determinism plus acausally gained information. If you're okay with determinism and free will going together, then I don't see how adding acausally gained information hurts so long as that information is selected so as to be consistent with physics (and if it's consistent with physics, then it's consistent with the basis of the free will), and the path it takes doesn't actually involve a free will violation.

In other words, while you can imagine prophecies and predictions that would appear to violate free will... (like, 'in ten seconds you will commit suicide' and the only way to do that is for the subject's brain to fritz out, thereby violating their free will - BUT the brain fritzing out is an ordinary kind of free will violation like death, and the causes of that were present before the prediction was made)... you can also easily imagine predictions that won't. They're consistent with all wills remaining unimpinged - or at least no more impinged than they would have been without that passage of acausal information.

Do you see what I'm saying?

~~~~

I too tire of the 'Kriestor's English comprehension fail'. Oberon, are you a picador?
User avatar
drachefly
 
Posts: 1594
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:36 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Lipkin » Sun Jun 09, 2013 12:18 pm

drachefly wrote:
Somna wrote:[*]Charlie gave him a scroll that messes up his bracer calculation to state he can't cast it, so that he will want to cast it.[/list]


That seems to be an accurate summary of the argument.

If Parson can cast the spell, Charlie mucked with the bracer to make it seem like he couldn't, because...?
If Parson can't cast the spell, why does Charlie care whether he tries?

Lipkin wrote:I think if free will exists, then passive fate cannot


Passive fate is determinism plus acausally gained information. If you're okay with determinism and free will going together, then I don't see how adding acausally gained information hurts so long as that information is selected so as to be consistent with physics (and if it's consistent with physics, then it's consistent with the basis of the free will), and the path it takes doesn't actually involve a free will violation.

In other words, while you can imagine prophecies and predictions that would appear to violate free will... (like, 'in ten seconds you will commit suicide' and the only way to do that is for the subject's brain to fritz out, thereby violating their free will - BUT the brain fritzing out is an ordinary kind of free will violation like death, and the causes of that were present before the prediction was made)... you can also easily imagine predictions that won't. They're consistent with all wills remaining unimpinged - or at least no more impinged than they would have been without that passage of acausal information.

Do you see what I'm saying?

~~~~

I too tire of the 'Kriestor's English comprehension fail'. Oberon, are you a picador?

I'm not ok with free will and determinism going together.

Now granted, I haven't seen the movie or the play, but passive fate sounds a lot like Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/T ... ernAreDead

There is no free will, but only the unique perspective of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern lets them suspect that. They are forced to play out their roles regardless, and no foreknowledge or altered choices due to said foreknowledge will change that. Because after all, it's a play. You can watch it 100 times, and they will never make different choices. It's certainly an interesting idea, but it means that everything is inevitable. Even if you are supposedly in control of your actions, you aren't, because you could never hope to do anything different.

I think I understand what you are trying to say. That free will and determinism can go together because it is still the choice of the players involved to do whatever they want, and the predictions that are made are only able to be made because the predictions themselves wouldn't change the path to the predicted event. But this would mean that all choices have already been made. Since all choices have already been made, they cannot be changed, even if one knew the entire chain of events. That doesn't feel like real free will to me. That's the illusion of choice.

In order for there truly to be free will, there needs to be the capacity to alter one's fate. If Carnymancy is the magic of fighting fate, then free will is natural Carnymancy. But we've been told that Carnymancy "makes a deal" to work, and I'd assume this would hold true for natural Carnymancy. If you want to fight fate, there is going to be a price.

Would a Carnymancer linking with a Turnamancer be able to turn back time? Would they be able to change anything, or would it happen the exact same way all over again?
User avatar
Lipkin
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:36 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Somna » Sun Jun 09, 2013 2:34 pm

After looking at Carnymancy and Carnymancy for a bit, I'm under the impression that a major theme of Carnymancy is breaking things to get what you want.

First, we have the Carnymancy scroll. It's designed to break the Summon Warlord spell when used.

Then we have the Carnymancer specialties: stirring up trouble (breaking the peace), roping a dope (the only phrase I'm not sure about, since I've never heard it before till now), and inciting a crowd (breaking people's tempers).

If you look over Sylvia's explanation, Jojo says he rigged the incapacitation rules. In other words, he broke them for her ten turns in a row so that she wouldn't die at the end of those turns.

The coming back to life part on the other hand, he says was a trade. Without more details, we only know the results, but I'm heavily thinking that it also involved breaking something or some things (if you want to include breaking Sylvia's sense of reality).
Somna
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 9:53 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Lilwik » Sun Jun 09, 2013 5:50 pm

drachefly wrote:If Parson can't cast the spell, why does Charlie care whether he tries?
That's a good point. It looks like I'm going to have to abandon my theory that Charlie is behind the malfunctioning bracer. It seemed like a natural conclusion: Charlie wants Parson to cast the scroll, Charlie forced Parson to use the bracer on the scroll, the result of the bracer was strange, therefore Charlie was manipulating the bracer to encourage Parson. Straight-forward and simple, but I failed to properly consider Charlie's motivation. He ought to expect that the bracer will tell the truth without any tampering required, and raising the odds of Parson being able to cast the scroll seems unlikely to actually make Parson more likely to do it. Parson just wants a yes or no answer, and he'd take odds greater than 0 as yes and give it a try, so the specific odds didn't matter at all. And of course if the true odds were 0 then raising them wouldn't help Charlie.

There's still a possibility, but the explanation is no longer simple. It needs to account for why Charlie would want Parson to try to cast the scroll even when Parson is incapable of casting the scroll. For example, what if the scroll isn't really a spell but is actually a magic item of a different sort that has been disguised as a scroll. Maybe the scroll is a Carnymancy trap that is triggered by a unit attempting to cast from it, and that's why the roof fell in on Parson when he did it. The .980104773 came from the same magic that causes everyone to see it as a real scroll. The point is that no one could ever really cast the scroll because it is intended to kill anyone who tries, so it needed to have magic to trick the bracer if Charlie ever wanted Parson to try to use the scroll. And of course the plan was never to have Jojo cast the scroll and always for Jojo to give it to Parson.

I'm not nearly as happy with that theory now that it has gotten so complicated. The two-correct-answers one is now simpler. Maybe the .980104773 isn't really correct but it's the answer that Parson would have gotten if he had been standing anywhere else and the bracer displayed it very briefly just as part of resolving the final answer. Looking at it that way, the falling of the beam was probably intended to be a moment of realization where we figure out why the bracer was being stubborn about displaying only zeros.

Lipkin wrote:That free will and determinism can go together because it is still the choice of the players involved to do whatever they want, and the predictions that are made are only able to be made because the predictions themselves wouldn't change the path to the predicted event. But this would mean that all choices have already been made. Since all choices have already been made, they cannot be changed, even if one knew the entire chain of events. That doesn't feel like real free will to me. That's the illusion of choice.
That's not quite right on two points. For one, Predictions always change things, otherwise they would be pointless. Even if the Predictamancer never shares the Prediction with anyone the Predictamancer still knows and it must affect her decisions at least slightly.

Even if determinism is true and there is only one fixed path that Erfworld can take, it still makes sense to think about other paths that won't actually happen, such as the path the world would have taken if the Prediction hadn't been made. Hopefully all Predictions are true in that hypothetical path as well as in the real path, otherwise a bad Prediction could sometimes actually be to blame for a bad outcome, but I can certainly imagine that sometimes Predictions cause themselves to come true.

The other point is that it is wrong to say "the choices cannot be changed even if one knew the entire chain of events." That's an absurd statement and not something that determinism implies. It's impossible to imagine knowing the entire script and not being able to choose whether to follow it, unless you were some sort of puppet instead of a person, so that would make determinism obviously false instead of a serious philosophical position. Instead, determinism is simply the idea that all our decisions are made for reasons, maybe obvious reasons that we are aware of, maybe subtle reasons even we don't know, but either way every choice we make is caused by the current situation somehow, and the next situation is caused by our choices, so the entire chain of events leading into the future is inevitable in that way. So obviously under determinism if you gave someone knowledge of the future it would completely change the situation and the inevitable events would depend on the the situation as it is, with the knowledge that was given, very much not making people into puppets.

Don't take my word for this. This is a topic of endless philosophical discussion that I am not even close to qualified to participate in. Please look up what knowledgeable people have to say about compatibilism and incompatibilism.
Last edited by Lilwik on Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby drachefly » Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:09 pm

Lipkin wrote:I'm not ok with free will and determinism going together.


Can you answer briefly: what in non-determinism is it that enables free will?

Bear in mind that if it's the ability to do something other than what you want to do, that's brain damage, not free will.

And bear in mind that what you want to do is a fact deducible from the physical state of your brain (or, if you're confused about what you want to do, that too is a fact).
User avatar
drachefly
 
Posts: 1594
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:36 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Denar » Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:26 pm

A soul.
Denar
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:01 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Lipkin » Sun Jun 09, 2013 9:53 pm

drachefly wrote:
Lipkin wrote:I'm not ok with free will and determinism going together.


Can you answer briefly: what in non-determinism is it that enables free will?

Bear in mind that if it's the ability to do something other than what you want to do, that's brain damage, not free will.

And bear in mind that what you want to do is a fact deducible from the physical state of your brain (or, if you're confused about what you want to do, that too is a fact).

The ability to, if not prevent your fate, at least tread water. In determinism, you have no hope of resisting, because every action you make brings you closer to your predicted fate. In non-determinism, it's possible to stray from the path laid out for you. Even if you are eventually forced back to that path, and the ramifications are great, you still have options.
User avatar
Lipkin
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:36 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby drachefly » Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:49 am

Fate, as in... the way it's going to work out? In determinism, that's all there is to it. Some sequence of events will occur because of their causes. And you want the ability to have some other sequence of events occur? But once you do that, then that's the sequence of events that occurred, and it turns out that you and fate were agreeing all along!

What you're asking for seems logically incoherent.


Denar wrote:A soul.


Is that an attempt to answer my question?

If so, what role does this soul play? Does it have a causal impact on anything I do? If so, how does the soul decide what to do? Once you break open that black box, there's nothing in it that wasn't in the brain.
User avatar
drachefly
 
Posts: 1594
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:36 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Denar » Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:03 am

drachefly wrote:Fate, as in... the way it's going to work out? In determinism, that's all there is to it. Some sequence of events will occur. And you want the ability to have some other sequence of events occur? But once you do that, then that's the sequence of events that occurred, and you never prevented it!

What you're asking for seems logically incoherent.


Denar wrote:A soul.


Is that an attempt to answer my question?

If so, what role does this soul play? Does it have a causal impact on anything I do? If so, how does the soul decide what to do? Once you break open that black box, there's nothing in it that wasn't in the brain.



OK, there seems to be a misunderstanding between what determinism/Fate would be in a literary work and what it entails in real life, and you're moving the problems from one into the other. Asking "what there is in non-determinism that enables free will?" is a loaded question, because there is nothing in the universe that enables free will.

The truth is, that in real life, we're entirely mechanical beings. Everything in the universe is mechanical. This is what is meant by having no free will, that there is absolutely nothing you or anybody else can do except for what you will do.

So of course, the answer to the question would be that we have souls or something similar - something not bound by the same laws of the universe as the atoms in our brains - and that would influence our decisions based on matters of morality or whatever. I can't comment on how that process might work, because in its very nature we wouldn't comprehend it, and besides I'm not suggesting that I believe it. But anyway, there is no answer to the question other than something along those lines, because you're asking "What is outside the rules of the universe that enables free will?" If you're going to ask for the mechanics of that, then you won't get any objective answers.


But Lipkin isn't talking about determinism and free will going together in our world - which I presume he's ok with (I hope he is). He's talking about it in a story. In a story, we do not assume that the characters have no control over their actions and are predetermined like we are. On top of that, he's saying that it seems silly to justify this whole discourse we've read so far about the importance of free will, if nothing the characters can do can change their Fate, even if they're given the privilege not afforded to us, which is knowing it before it happens.

You see, the answer that sometimes gets thrown about here is the difference between compatabilism and incompatabilism, and that we should be compatabalist about erfworld, but both philosophies are determinist and using either undermines the "you can have both free will and determinism" crowd. They both apply to real life, and neither actually denies that we are mechanical beings anyway. Compatabilism just seeks to answer how we can punish people for their actions if "the universe" is responsible, and tries to come up with a morality system to justify that. Incompatabilists say that it is futile, and that the "freedom of choice" that compatabalists come up with isn't the same as "free will", which is true. There's a reason that they're called "soft determinists", and it's not a good reason.

I'm saying we shouldn't be determinist about Erfworld at all (or any story really).

When we read stories, we like to imagine that the characters have free will, and not just freedom of choice. If you remember the cage analogy Lilwik made earlier, this was where he got confused between the two.
I don't like to know that Parson is going do X and Y, and that every action he and his enemies make don't challenge that, but are instead just the predetermined steps along a linear path that brings him to that end.
Even if we stretch out what Passive Fate could mean, and say "it's not determinism! It's just the end that's predetermined, not every action that's made leading up to it!" (which is paradoxical) "Parson's free to make all these decisions, as long as they also bring him closer to his Fate." Well, yeah, again, that's mixing up free will with freedom of choice. Just because he has the freedom to choose from a set of predetermined paths that all lead to the same end (which in itself is story-ruining enough), doesn't mean he has free will.

Especially since the argument seems to be, that if he could ever have considered doing something contrary to this, then the Summon Perfect Warlord spell wouldn't have picked him in the first place. The real cage analogy, of course, would be that in Passive Fate your mind is in a cage and can't move at all. Maybe you get to choose what meals you have during the day! Wow, what freedom of choice. What free will. But of course, the option "to get out of this cage" is never presented, so you can't ever make that decision, you can't even imagine it or wish it... that's where the lack of free will comes from. At the end of the day, you're still in the cage, like you were at the start, and it's impossible to have any other result.

Active Fate, on the other hand, has no cage at all. You are free to do whatever you want. Of course, there's a big angry slave driver somewhere around you, and he has planned your work schedule. If you don't do it, or try to fight it, then you get a whip/beam to the face. Maybe even your friend dies because they're overworked to cover your "laziness" (stealing numbers). But it's all free will as to what you can do. There's no slave driver in your mind.
And of course, maybe one day you can outsmart the slave driver...
Denar
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:01 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby zilfallon » Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:12 am

I feel like quoting what arkerpay said on Erfabet reactions topic:

arkerpay wrote:All I have to read now is the reaction forum where people are having verbal knife-fights over how many subatomic fate particles can co-exist on the head of a needle.


Not complaining, just pointing it out :P
rkyeun wrote:Roses are red.
Violets are blue.

Image
User avatar
zilfallon
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:47 am
Location: Magic Kingdom

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby effataigus » Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:34 am

MarbitChow wrote:Image
XD
Last edited by effataigus on Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:31 am, edited 239044 times in total.
User avatar
effataigus
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:49 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby drachefly » Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:01 am

Denar wrote:OK, there seems to be a misunderstanding between what determinism/Fate would be in a literary work and what it entails in real life, and you're moving the problems from one into the other. Asking "what there is in non-determinism that enables free will?" is a loaded question, because there is nothing in the universe that enables free will.

The truth is, that in real life, we're entirely mechanical beings. Everything in the universe is mechanical. This is what is meant by having no free will, that there is absolutely nothing you or anybody else can do except for what you will do.


This is a silly definition of free will. It doesn't do anything, it applies to nothing, and it could never apply to anything in any imaginable world. That was the whole point of what I was getting at. Your definition of free will is useless, even counterfactually. However, there are useful definitions that really do capture what we mean when we say free will in day to day usage AND philosophically.

Do chairs exist? Does Erfworld, the comic, exist? If you look at quarks and electrons, you're looking too close to see these things. They are patterns in stuff. If you look at a book, you can at the right level of abstraction perceive the letters on the page. When you see those things bundled together in that way, you call it a book. Similarly, when you see our computers at the right level of abstraction, you can see text on a screen appearing in response to HTTP requests. This bundle of behaviors we call a web site - Erfworld.com, to be specific.

What do you see when you look at us at the proper level of abstraction? You see a bundle of perceptions, models (including self-models), and intentions. When you see a bunch of these things bundled together in this fashion, you call it a will.

Now, what makes this will free or not?

The issue is whether the decisions that come out of it are aligned with the intentions its contents imply. The more aligned, the freer the will. Like, if Anne and Bob are getting married because they want to spend the rest of their lives together and see getting married as a way to fulfill that goal, that's free will. If it's because Carl is holding a shotgun to Bob's back, that is a significant deviation from free will (Bob prioritized and settled for being alive, but had to sacrifice a bunch of other intentions). Philosophy and common usage in alignment!
User avatar
drachefly
 
Posts: 1594
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:36 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Lipkin » Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:23 pm

Carl having a shotgun to Bob's back doesn't remove Bob's free will. Bob is still free to do whatever he wants. Carl is just free to do whatever he wants in response.
User avatar
Lipkin
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:36 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 110

Postby Lipkin » Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:24 pm

zilfallon wrote:I feel like quoting what arkerpay said on Erfabet reactions topic:

arkerpay wrote:All I have to read now is the reaction forum where people are having verbal knife-fights over how many subatomic fate particles can co-exist on the head of a needle.


Not complaining, just pointing it out :P

6
User avatar
Lipkin
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:36 am

PreviousNext

Return to Reactions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests