Inner Peace (Through Superior Firepower) – Episode 020

[Housellama]

There are other possible wordings which would be more canny. I grant that it's very suggestive of conditional fate, but she could be dumbing it down for the non-predictamancers.

True. But I'm thinking horses, not zebras.

That's the way it works in combat. Could be different than everything else. Still opens a big can of worms, speaking philosophically.

[Goshen]

The simplest explanation is that she looks forward a second or two to see her future self take the shot and either hit or miss. It's not Mathamancy, calculating odds. She's actually seeing the future, or at least A future. We've always assumed that all Predictamancy is 100% accurate and Predictions couldn't be avoided. But if this is true and she's seeing her future self miss a particular shot, when her present self decides not to take that particular shot she's changing the outcome that she saw. To do otherwise violates the "a second or two" that was given in the text. This necessarily means that Predictamancy isn't 100% accurate. By choosing not to take that particular shot that she saw herself miss in the future, she makes that future outcome that she 'predicted' impossible. This means that the future as seen by Predictamancy can be changed. That Predictamancy necessarily cannot be 100% accurate.

You could say that she is able to look at a number of possible futures, each one only 2 seconds, or whatever, ahead. That's a matter of breadth, not depth.

[Goshen]

In the same series, a way was developed to beat precognitive magic users - attack, and watch the users reaction to defense or dodge, and change your action accordingly - if you have faster reflexes than them, then they should see the future split based on their actions.

That's very cool!

Another approach would be to create a situation where there there is NO possible future in which the predictamacer could score a hit. Just make yourself impossible to hit. Easier said than done, often....

[Balerion]

The simplest explanation is that she looks forward a second or two to see her future self take the shot and either hit or miss. It's not Mathamancy, calculating odds. She's actually seeing the future, or at least A future. We've always assumed that all Predictamancy is 100% accurate and Predictions couldn't be avoided. But if this is true and she's seeing her future self miss a particular shot, when her present self decides not to take that particular shot she's changing the outcome that she saw. To do otherwise violates the "a second or two" that was given in the text. This necessarily means that Predictamancy isn't 100% accurate. By choosing not to take that particular shot that she saw herself miss in the future, she makes that future outcome that she 'predicted' impossible. This means that the future as seen by Predictamancy can be changed. That Predictamancy necessarily cannot be 100% accurate.

Now, it's possible that this is only how combat Predictamancy works, but once you let the possible futures genie out of the lamp, you can't put it back in. It's demonstrable that Fate can be changed. Fate is Fate. If you change it once, then it's not Fate anymore. It's Fate, maybe.

I am going to disagree; this holds true if she is seeing the entire scene play out, but what if she just asks the question "does this unit get hit by a spell in the next two seconds?" If the answer is yes, she attacks smugly. If the answer is no, she knows not to attack, fulfilling the prophecy she just made, knowing if she attacks a miss is guaranteed. I think combat predictamancy has to be very selective in information they are delving for in order to hold with absolute prophecies, and in order for it to be useful. But it would make sense to have the ability to be more specific over a shorter time period, and to get more fuzzy the farther out you are predicting.

I will admit that it wasn't really described this way, but Wanda is far from a perfect narrator at this point, and she easily could have garbled the understanding (or Delphie gave a simplified version). But i think we should look for any explanation that keeps Fate sacrosanct before looking elsewhere.

[drachefly]

There are other possible wordings which would be more canny. I grant that it's very suggestive of conditional fate, but she could be dumbing it down for the non-predictamancers.

True. But I'm thinking horses, not zebras.

Why? We're on the veldt.

[0beron]

Somewhere in those notes in her satchel, there was a brief explanation of how Predictamancy worked in combat. It amounted to the caster using her juice to see things happen a second or two ahead, so that she could aim where the enemy would be, and to move where the enemy's return blows and arrows would not land.

This explains all that we need to know. Delphi is not exactly predicting "IF" a shot is going to hit, she is aiming where she can see the enemy will be, thus knowing that she will hit.
I think the next line:

Most importantly to this plan, a Predictamancer could know whether or not a shot or blow she was about to initiate would be a hit. If it wouldn't, then she simply did not take the shot.

...is Wanda pointing out why Delphi is the one controlling the tower spells. Goodminton has so little magic and so few resources to call for this combat, that every single spell has to count. She Delphi's ability to aim where units are about to be is important to the success of Goodminton's plan.

[Housellama]

I am going to disagree; this holds true if she is seeing the entire scene play out, but what if she just asks the question "does this unit get hit by a spell in the next two seconds?" If the answer is yes, she attacks smugly. If the answer is no, she knows not to attack, fulfilling the prophecy she just made, knowing if she attacks a miss is guaranteed. I think combat predictamancy has to be very selective in information they are delving for in order to hold with absolute prophecies, and in order for it to be useful. But it would make sense to have the ability to be more specific over a shorter time period, and to get more fuzzy the farther out you are predicting.

I will admit that it wasn't really described this way, but Wanda is far from a perfect narrator at this point, and she easily could have garbled the understanding (or Delphie gave a simplified version). But i think we should look for any explanation that keeps Fate sacrosanct before looking elsewhere.

Ah! Okay, this makes sense. I'm all about preserving absolute Fate if it can be done. It just didn't seem logically possible the way that it was described. Self fulfilling prophesy is a much better explanation if absolute Fate is in effect and it still encircles Wanda's description.

Yes, Wanda's an uninformed narrator but speaking from a meta-plot point of view, it wouldn't make sense for Rob to not tell us the truth. The exception to this is if the specific details are plot relevant down the road. He knows that the forums take great joy in tearing his work apart and obsessing over details. Why wouldn't he give us the correct info? Chekov's Gun aside, either he's just handwaving it (which, given the importance of Fate and Predictamancy in the story would be rather dumb and would not fit with Rob's track record of incredibly thoughtful design) or he's telling us how it works. Yeah, Wanda may not be the most knowledgeable person but now Delphie has no reason to lie to her (about that at least) and Rob has no reason (again, future plot points aside) to not give us at least a semi-accurate description. Especially considering this is Predictamancy.

So far, Rob's definitely not an author to just feed us boop that doesn't fit in the story or world without a reason. He knows his audience and he knows his story.

[0beron]

I hate to play devil's advocate and throw a wrench in the proposed explanation, but we have seen both from meta-plot and Wanda's own perspective that Fate CAN be meddled with (if only in the short term, it always gets it's way in the end), which means the future is not necessarily set in stone and Predictamancy CAN produce a flawed image even a few seconds in the future. Even with a question like "will that unit be hit by a spell in the next 2 seconds?" hasn't been shown to be immune to error. We've just seen Delphi "play it safe" and not risk challenging a prediction.

[Housellama]

I hate to play devil's advocate and throw a wrench in the proposed explanation, but we have seen both from meta-plot and Wanda's own perspective that Fate CAN be meddled with (if only in the short term, it always gets it's way in the end), which means the future is not necessarily set in stone and Predictamancy CAN produce a flawed image even a few seconds in the future. Even with a question like "will that unit be hit by a spell in the next 2 seconds?" hasn't been shown to be immune to error. We've just seen Delphi "play it safe" and not risk challenging a prediction.

The determinism (aka absolute Fate) response to that we only believe that we are denying or meddling with Fate. In truth, Fate is deterministic and everything happens as it was meant to. The problem with prophesy in general is that one can never see far enough to see the biggest picture. The failure of a smaller prophesy can lead to the fulfillment of a larger one.

For all we know, what Predictamancers see is what Fate wants them to see, and even if a Prediction isn't true in the short term, we still doing exactly what we were Fated to do anyway. The Prediction that goes 'wrong' isn't wrong. Fate included the Prediction's results (that is, the results of being told the Prediction) already, inside the final result. Look at the Greek tragedies. They are full of prophesy that was fulfilled because someone tried to avoid it.

However, even with what we've been shown so far, we haven't seen a failed Prediction. Everything that has been Predicted has come true... eventually. Just because a Prediction is seemingly avoided in the present just leads to the Prediction being fulfilled in the way it was ultimately meant to. That's the problem with an absolute Fate. No matter what happens, Fate can always say "That's how it was supposed to be".

[0beron]

Yes actually, we're saying essentially the same thing Housellama. The immediate prediction made during combat could be false, because the caster seeing a false vision is what Fate requires for the sake of it's large picture.

[Housellama]

Yes actually, we're saying essentially the same thing Housellama. The immediate prediction made during combat could be false, because the caster seeing a false vision is what Fate requires for the sake of it's large picture.

Again, maybe we're saying the same thing in spirit, but your wording doesn't do it for me.

I would argue with the term 'false'. So far, no Prediction has been wrong. All have been 100% true. The Predictions are always correct, but they are... incomplete is a good word. I hesitate to even say misleading, because again the Predictions have been true to the letter. The problem comes in not with the mancy or with Fate, but with the interpretation of the vision. People make assumptions, and those assumptions lead to the appearance that Fate was changed, but it wasn't. The vision was correct, Fate was Absolute, it was the individual minds that were wrong. There's a separation between the Prediction as given and what the Mancer assumes about the Prediction. The Mancer's assumptions is where Fate appears to get fuzzy.

[Balerion]

Yes, Wanda's an uninformed narrator but speaking from a meta-plot point of view, it wouldn't make sense for Rob to not tell us the truth. The exception to this is if the specific details are plot relevant down the road. He knows that the forums take great joy in tearing his work apart and obsessing over details. Why wouldn't he give us the correct info? Chekov's Gun aside, either he's just handwaving it (which, given the importance of Fate and Predictamancy in the story would be rather dumb and would not fit with Rob's track record of incredibly thoughtful design) or he's telling us how it works. Yeah, Wanda may not be the most knowledgeable person but now Delphie has no reason to lie to her (about that at least) and Rob has no reason (again, future plot points aside) to not give us at least a semi-accurate description. Especially considering this is Predictamancy.

So far, Rob's definitely not an author to just feed us boop that doesn't fit in the story or world without a reason. He knows his audience and he knows his story.

I would disagree a bit again . I see the theme of fate vs free will being a central core to where the main story is going, so I don't think he is going to show us perfectly how fate works in this story, when its something we have to learn there. If this was a stand alone, I could see your point... But I think the meta-gaming is such that he wants to give us hints right now, to supplement what he will do later, but not spoil what will be a central part of the main story.

I hate to play devil's advocate and throw a wrench in the proposed explanation, but we have seen both from meta-plot and Wanda's own perspective that Fate CAN be meddled with (if only in the short term, it always gets it's way in the end), which means the future is not necessarily set in stone and Predictamancy CAN produce a flawed image even a few seconds in the future. Even with a question like "will that unit be hit by a spell in the next 2 seconds?" hasn't been shown to be immune to error. We've just seen Delphi "play it safe" and not risk challenging a prediction.

i think meddling with Fate is generally a pretty big thing to have accomplished. Playing the metagame again, its a huge element of the main story in my mind; I don't see Fate being casually defied in an everyday battle fitting with a lot of previous themes. If we had a carnymancer or something similar in the battle would be enough to cloud fate, as that is kinda what they seem to do (from our brief brush with them), but I think the example of the Jetstone battle is a good one; Marie knows its an important turn, and she can't see beyond it and has no idea what will happen. The future isn't firm, so she just can't see it; she doesn't see things that are going to be false later.

My current working theory is that predictamancy functions by taking advantage of relative time in Erfworld to let the mind/senses of the predictamancer wander a bit forward; the closer to their base point, the better control they have over seeing what they want to, and understanding what they see. The farther afield, the harder it gets. So I am going to fight the idea of any prediction being false pretty hard .

[multilis]

My current working theory is 2 different issues, short term one showed combat effectiveness.

In longer term one, I think predictions aren't just glimse of future, but that fate has an underlying goal and is messing with things to get it to happen. Parson was "needed" by erfworld. "Fate" is adjusting Wanda's luck, etc.

It is not enough to find a way to satisfy the wording of a prediction, it is more important to figure out the goal... fate will affect luck to reach it's *goal* rather than just fit a prediction.

Book 1, Parson wanted to DM a game where he was like fate working against a group, and he wanted his group to cheat fate. That hints that Fate here may also want to be "cheated".

[0beron]

So far, no Prediction has been wrong. All have been 100% true.

Yes, but the only predictions that we have seen "tested" are long-term prophecies (FAQ will fall....someday). We've never seen anyone try defying a short-term prediction (You will miss that marbit if you swing now).

I think the example of the Jetstone battle is a good one; Marie knows its an important turn, and she can't see beyond it and has no idea what will happen. The future isn't firm, so she just can't see it; she doesn't see things that are going to be false later.

THIS however is a really good point of proof. It's not exactly the same situation (and of course Marie could be lying) but I think it's a better bit of evidence than "no prediction has been wrong yet" (If you're familiar with Hypothesis Testing in statistics, that's kinda the methodology I approach Erfworld with)

I see the theme of fate vs free will being a central core to where the main story is going, so I don't think [Rob] is going to show us perfectly how fate works in this story, when its something we have to learn there.

I totally agree, I think in the end this subtle difference of opinions that Housellama and I have is simply a matter of perspective and belief. Jack and Wanda have been alive for hundreds if not thousands of turns, yet even they don't KNOW whether Fate can be denied and how Predictions play into the scheme of Fate. To quote MarbitChow (I believe): "Don't you get it? We ARE the magic kingdom! Offering our own theories and debating evidence" or something to that effect. In the end, on issues like this, we're really just picking a camp of BELIEF, not proven theory.

[Goshen]

I think the example of the Jetstone battle is a good one; Marie knows its an important turn, and she can't see beyond it and has no idea what will happen. The future isn't firm, so she just can't see it; she doesn't see things that are going to be false later.

THIS however is a really good point of proof. It's not exactly the same situation (and of course Marie could be lying) but I think it's a better bit of evidence than "no prediction has been wrong yet" (If you're familiar with Hypothesis Testing in statistics, that's kinda the methodology I approach Erfworld with)

So you are saying that long-term predictamancy alway produces correct predictions, with the caveat being that they can be difficult to produce and difficult to interpret. I think that fits.

It also fits that a very complicated turn with a lot of things going on might be more difficult to see beyond. The more stuff that's happening, the more possible futures the predictamancer has to content with. This could be true of many separate things happening, or possibly one big thing happening with a lot of consequences, with Parson's volcano trick being an example of the latter. It is probably even more important that the zombie volcano was such an unusual maneuver.

[Morni]

Predictamancer can be proving wrong. Ask one.. where will this unit be in 1 minute. and make that unit move so it's not there.

But on that thinking process. i think Parson bracers have some predictamancy in them. Remember the question Charlies asked Parson. About if knowing what they did to win the first war was worth the rest of the calculation.

http://www.erfworld.com/summer-update-2 ... ration.png

So maybe Delphie saw that the florist (forgot her name) had a 97% chance of being Wanda Chief caster.. and took that as it's going to happen.

[0beron]

So maybe Delphie saw that Olive Branch had a 97% chance of being Wanda's chief caster.. and took that as it's going to happen.

That is Mathamancy, not Predictamancy. They're very different things

[Goshen]

So maybe Delphie saw that Olive Branch had a 97% chance of being Wanda's chief caster.. and took that as it's going to happen.

That is Mathamancy, not Predictamancy. They're very different things

Heh. I'll bet they go great, together!

[Housellama]

Predictamancer can be proving wrong. Ask one.. where will this unit be in 1 minute. and make that unit move so it's not there.

Here's the problem with that: we've never actually seen it tried. Right now, every prediction we've seen has come true. And with Balerion's interpretation of combat Predictamancy ("does this unit get hit by a spell in the next two seconds?"), it's entirely plausible that combat Predictamancy (ie short term predictions) are always correct. Something may happen to that unit that forces it to be where it was predicted to be, even if the unit tried to move elsewhere.

I'm open to the idea that short term predictions can be wrong, but I really don't believe that's the case. So far, Fate has been absolute, and without a really good reason to believe otherwise, I'm going to assume that short term is the same as long term. A Prediction is a Prediction is a Prediction. This is (so far) a unique case, so it's possible that this is different, but to assume that it is different right off the bat is not something I agree with.

Heh, I just realized I went from strongly arguing one side of the argument to arguing the other side of the argument. What can I say, Balerion made a great point.

[Housellama]

I think the example of the Jetstone battle is a good one; Marie knows its an important turn, and she can't see beyond it and has no idea what will happen. The future isn't firm, so she just can't see it; she doesn't see things that are going to be false later.

THIS however is a really good point of proof. It's not exactly the same situation (and of course Marie could be lying) but I think it's a better bit of evidence than "no prediction has been wrong yet" (If you're familiar with Hypothesis Testing in statistics, that's kinda the methodology I approach Erfworld with)

I agree that the lack of Predictions about the future is good data supporting absolute Fate. I didn't mention that because I had kind of assumed that was obvious. But it's a very good point regardless.

I completely agree with your suggested methodology, but when you are working with a limited data set, it's hard to do that directly. Hume would say that just because every prediction thus far has been right that doesn't mean they always will be. Investors preach that past performance is no guarantee of future results ...but it's certainly a booping good place to start.

If you assume the null hypothesis is wrong, then you have to provide strong evidence to support that. So far, I haven't seen a strong argument for non-absolute Fate that can't be countered by a logical, plausible argument that supports absolute Fate. Like I said, I'm open to the idea that the null hypothesis is wrong, but I don't think that the burden of proof has been met.