Book 2 – Text Updates 052

[ftl]

But, might the bracer need to know the present to predict the future? The bracer may need to be able to tap into everything going on right then in order to extrapolate the future,

No, it doesn't *need* to do this. Probability always include the uncertainty in your knowledge as well as uncertainty in the world itself. And the bracer only gives probabilities and numbers, not certainties. It does mathamancy, not predictamancy.

and the only limitation on accessing this ability is knowing what questions to ask.

We can take reasonable guesses on the limitations though.

For example, when the dwagons were unveiled, and Parson was talking about the probabilities of victory. He said "depending on the unknown caster, it could be between 50% and 80%" or something like that.

Are you really saying that, if he'd just asked "What's the probability that it's a shockamancer? lookamancer? thinkamancer? " and so on, he would have been able to read off of the bracer the exact unit that was there? And that, after so much time with the bracer, he didn't know that, and proceeded to ask the entirely stupid questions of "what's the probability we'll win if it's a [something]mancer?"

I think it's quite reasonable to judge based on his actions that no, he could *not* have gotten that intel just by asking a few quick questions of his bracer. Otherwise he would have done that.

The truth is that we have no idea how Parson is inputting his questions to the bracer, and until that has been expounded on, it is still undefined. He may have drop down menus to select unit type, a range of levels, averages, weighted averages, and a host of other options. Speculation is not going to answer this question.

I think we've seen that it's not dropdown menus. It's subvocalization, natural thinkamancy - similar to how commanders give orders to units and suchlike.

[Housellama]

But, might the bracer need to know the present to predict the future? The bracer may need to be able to tap into everything going on right then in order to extrapolate the future,

No, it doesn't *need* to do this. Probability always include the uncertainty in your knowledge as well as uncertainty in the world itself. And the bracer only gives probabilities and numbers, not certainties. It does mathamancy, not predictamancy.

and the only limitation on accessing this ability is knowing what questions to ask.

We can take reasonable guesses on the limitations though.

For example, when the dwagons were unveiled, and Parson was talking about the probabilities of victory. He said "depending on the unknown caster, it could be between 50% and 80%" or something like that.

Are you really saying that, if he'd just asked "What's the probability that it's a shockamancer? lookamancer? thinkamancer? " and so on, he would have been able to read off of the bracer the exact unit that was there? And that, after so much time with the bracer, he didn't know that, and proceeded to ask the entirely stupid questions of "what's the probability we'll win if it's a [something]mancer?"

I think it's quite reasonable to judge based on his actions that no, he could *not* have gotten that intel just by asking a few quick questions of his bracer. Otherwise he would have done that.

The truth is that we have no idea how Parson is inputting his questions to the bracer, and until that has been expounded on, it is still undefined. He may have drop down menus to select unit type, a range of levels, averages, weighted averages, and a host of other options. Speculation is not going to answer this question.

I think we've seen that it's not dropdown menus. It's subvocalization, natural thinkamancy - similar to how commanders give orders to units and suchlike.

I agree about the Thinkamancy. That's how most things in Erfworld work. Mounts, commanders, etc. It's not unreasonable to assume that's how that artifact works as well.

As far as available information... I think that the bracer has access to some behind the scenes info. I'm going to speculate that Mathamancy the discipline gives accurate readings of forces currently present. That is, the magic has perfect (or near perfect) accurate readings of the stats of all the units in the area with which to do calculations. That's a reasonable assumption. Ditto with calculations relating to ruling (eg, most efficient way to spend schmuckers, pop units, move forces, etc.) Whether or not Mathamancy allows for more than that, such as the accurate predictions about the value of the future predictions vs the knowledge Charlie wished to acquire is an open question. We have yet to see a Mathamancer in the comic, so we don't have enough information.

I'm going to go ahead and state my opinion that it does not. I'm betting that the bracer has access to extra information. How and where it gets this information is unknown. The bracer is an Artifact. That is known. It was not created by humans, so it doesn't necessarily have to conform to the known magical rules. Essentially, the bracer is a black box. Questions go in, answers comes out. I'm betting that there's something inside that black box that has access to a lot more information than a normal mathamancer would. I'm also betting that source of information only goes so far though. It's big, but it's not perfect. Hence why the answers come out in percentages.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Parson doesn't know all of Erfworld's tricks yet. He's still learning the rules, and while he has access to a Mathamancy toy, he ain't a Mathamancer. There may be much more that the bracer can do that Parson just hasn't learned how to exploit yet.

As always, your mileage may vary

[Kreistor]

I think we've seen that it's not dropdown menus. It's subvocalization, natural thinkamancy - similar to how commanders give orders to units and suchlike.

You're right, I had forgotten that. Since Units understand intent, not words, it would use whatever intent Parson intended.

[Sieggy]

. . . and exactly how would Charlie go about casting such a spell via Eyebook? I think this perhaps goes back to the root functions of Erfworld as a game-like reality. An agreement is binding between parties, and Erf itself compels compliance. IOW, the reality does not permit or allow for cheating. Hacks. yes. Exploits, sure. Loopholes, go get 'em. Cheating as in refusing to fulfill the terms of an agreement? No, that's cheating. I can only speculate as to the repercussions of deliberately breaking your word and bond, but it's probably unpleasant enough that it's literally unthinkable.

Weaseling, now that's another story. If you're clever enough to word the agreement in such a manner as to allow yourself an out, well, demons and devils have specialized in that sort of thing forever. And, I suspect, so has Charlie. As will Parson . . .

[Kreistor]

. . . and exactly how would Charlie go about casting such a spell via Eyebook?

I'm not sure which spell you're thinking about. The deal for the Mathamancy questions was arranged during the Thinkagram conversation, so was under the influence of an Arkentool, which can break rules.

[Sieggy]

. . . and exactly how would Charlie go about casting such a spell via Eyebook?

I'm not sure which spell you're thinking about. The deal for the Mathamancy questions was arranged during the Thinkagram conversation, so was under the influence of an Arkentool, which can break rules.

Via Kreistor ---------------------------------------------------
"I'm magically bound to give him twelve battlefield evaluations, whenever he wants."

Parson has accepted a Thinkamancy spell of some sort that forces him to go through with the deal. If you think that Charlie wouldn't include accurate casting and reporting in that spell, then you severely underestimate Charlie.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
You're imputing to the Dish powers not in evidence. Once again, games have rules - Parson physically could not pass a hex boundary until his status change. Blatant, open cheating may not be an option in this reality, though trickiness is ALWAYS an option. But this is speculation . . . Charlie trusts Parson to comply honestly and completely with the terms of their agreement. And remember that in Book 1, Charlie didn't actually double cross Parson when he allied with the RCC1, in fact he specifically warned Parson that he would tell Ansom he was standing by 'in case he was needed'. Reinforced it, in fact. It turned out he was, and took that opportunity to bend Ansom over and roger him roundly. He didn't cheat, he was just a tricksy bastard . . .

[Kreistor]

You're imputing to the Dish powers not in evidence.

And yet, in all of that, you did not explain how the spell was cast on Parson.

[drachefly]

Why would he need to? It clearly was. What's gained by going over how? Would that really answer the question at hand? Not really!

[Kreistor]

Because if there is only one answer, that answer must be correct.

[Sieggy]

You're imputing to the Dish powers not in evidence.

And yet, in all of that, you did not explain how the spell was cast on Parson.

That was kind of my point. You're saying that a spell was cast on him - we have no evidence of this whatsoever. I was speculating about the nature of Erf, and whether or not in a game-like reality cheating (as in breaking an agreement) is possible. Or it's quite possible that Parson, being an adept player, would not violate the 'rules' of the game by cheating . But either way, Charlie trusts Parson to adhere to the terms of their agreements, and Charlie has also show that while he may be a slimy, squirming weasel who parses his words like a corporate lawyer, won't violate his word either. I suppose it might be possible for Parson to lie to Charlies unseen face about the results of a calculation, and the question is simply this - is it physically possible for him to do so, and if not, why? Or alternatively, both view themselves as 'players', not 'cheats'.

You seem to think that a spell enforces this; there is nothing to support such a view. Physical cheating is not allowed (off turn movement, etc), so it might also be possible that other forms of rules violations may be prohibited by the fundamental nature of this reality. Either way, we don't know . . . but if so, it grants a truly intelligent and clever player a great advantage over one who lacks these qualities. Sort of like anywhere else . . .

[Kreistor]

That was kind of my point. You're saying that a spell was cast on him - we have no evidence of this whatsoever.

"I'm magically bound to give him twelve battlefield evaluations, whenever he wants."

If Parson's own statements are not evidence enough for you, then I simply do not care what you think. At all. I will never convince you of anything, because your standards of "proof" are absurd. I can't imagine what might be evidence to you.

[drachefly]

Because if there is only one answer, that answer must be correct.

I was pointing out that your questions have diverged from the main line of argument sufficiently that they have little to no bearing on it. One way or another, Parson was magically bound. Was it through hacked iwhatevs, or through a thinkagram, or something else? Dunno, offscreen. Point is, it could and did happen.

[Kreistor]

I was pointing out that your questions have diverged from the main line of argument sufficiently that they have little to no bearing on it.

You don't think that inaccurate representation of the facts in the comics are not a "main line of argument"? Personally, I feel correcting inaccurate knowledge of the comic is far more important than any theory or speculation. I find that your idea that this is somehow off-topic interesting, in that it reveals something of your character and priorities, but I do not require this type of feedback, since I disagree with what these threads are all about.

[drachefly]

Which facts? You were asking how a magical contract was created (to be technically correct, you were pointing out that a previous argument had not answered that question). We do not know the answer to that question and cannot find out at this time. Due to this, the only purpose for asking it would be either confusion (thinking we do know the answer, or my being wrong that we don't), misunderstanding (you're somehow talking about something else and I didn't get it), or a diversionary debate tactic. I thought it was the latter, but if it's one of the first two, let's try to get things straightened out.

What facts are you talking about?

[Kreistor]

We do not know the answer to that question and cannot find out at this time.

Then you feel that there is some method of creating a magical effect without casting a spell? Do you have *ANYTHING* to use as evidence, except your own skepticism?

Sorry, that requires the speculation that there is an entirely different mechanic in the system that has never been mentioned in 1.5 major story arcs and a huge amount of text in the Intermission, and it will never be mentioned because it doesn't exist. The comic will never mention something that doesn't exist, because that would require breaking the fourth wall.

You go ahead and believe that we can never know anything about the game system. Like I said, I pretty much reject your entire philosophy. "Possible" is not evidence of "plausible", and I do not find it even plausible that any other effect than a spell created the magical effect that is forcing Parson to comply with his deal with Charlie.

Why? Because I'm a scientist. If we hamstrung ourselves with that absurd philosophy, we would never even try to discover anything. Anything we might try to explain with physics, it can be explained with magic, psionics, voodoo, or any of a thousand untestable beliefs. Oh, it's possible that magic causes electricity to flow, but it's not plausible when a reasonable scientific explanation is available.

So, go ahead and invent anything you want that might exist. There are a thousand explanations for anything that happens, and since the comic will never mention any of them, they all might be true... to you. You can't disprove a negative, after all, and that's all your beliefs rely on. If it's not mentioned, it's still possible, right?

Thanks, but no thanks.

[oslecamo2_temp]

Why? Because I'm a scientist. If we hamstrung ourselves with that absurd philosophy, we would never even try to discover anything. Anything we might try to explain with physics, it can be explained with magic, psionics, voodoo, or any of a thousand untestable beliefs. Oh, it's possible that magic causes electricity to flow, but it's not plausible when a reasonable scientific explanation is available.

Please don't badmouth all scientists in history just for the sake of your twisted logic.

Because you see, words alone are very far from science. You also need experimentation to prove something. To create an hypotethical situation, preview a result, and then perform the hypothetical situation and see if the result happens.

Considering that Erfworld is an imaginary world, we cannot apply science to it, for the very simple fact we cannot interact with it to perform experimentation. We can use philosophy at best.

[Lamech]

We do not know the answer to that question and cannot find out at this time.

Then you feel that there is some method of creating a magical effect without casting a spell? Do you have *ANYTHING* to use as evidence, except your own skepticism?

Well hmm... actually most things casters do apparently aren't even spells. In addition we have natural magics, magical items, the arkentools and so forth. There are a bunch of ways to get magic effects with out spells.
But there are any number of plausible ways that Charlie could have magically bound Parson. Perhaps it involved a contract with a penalty clause like Tram talked about. Maybe it has something to do with the hacked eyebook? Charlie added the app "magical contract" which does the same contract deal the archons do. Maybe agreements made when thinkagraming Charlie are binding. Maybe... And we can not determine which of the numerous plausible ways that the contract is enforced or was created is the right one. Hence, we do not know how the magic contract was created and we can not find out at this time.

[BrotherRool]

Why? Because I'm a scientist. If we hamstrung ourselves with that absurd philosophy, we would never even try to discover anything. Anything we might try to explain with physics, it can be explained with magic, psionics, voodoo, or any of a thousand untestable beliefs. Oh, it's possible that magic causes electricity to flow, but it's not plausible when a reasonable scientific explanation is available.

I agree, as has already been said, that to dismiss something before proof against is folly and very unscientific.

Although it really is a case of semantics, a logical rule abiding magic system is no different from a strong nuclear force. No matter how far you push knowledge there will still be the boundary of "magic" at one point, even if you don't feel comfortable naming it as such

[Kreistor]

I agree, as has already been said, that to dismiss something before proof against is folly and very unscientific.

Although it really is a case of semantics, a logical rule abiding magic system is no different from a strong nuclear force. No matter how far you push knowledge there will still be the boundary of "magic" at one point, even if you don't feel comfortable naming it as such

I'll take it one step further. What's the difference between science and a religion? Nothing. Both are founded in unprovable assumptions, called faith by the religious, and axioms by mathematicians. Has the Law of Conservation of Energy ever been proven? Nope, and yet it underpins every other Law in Physics.

[Hanyo]

We have yet to see a Mathamancer in the comic, so we don't have enough information.

And on that note, I would be thrilled to see one introduced, preferably in a text update so that we can get a sense of the inner workings of a Mathamancer's mind.