Book 2 – Text Updates 059

Page by page discussion of the comic.

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 059

Postby Salem » Wed May 22, 2013 11:09 am

Lilwik wrote:
Salem wrote:He used the word fate. Period. He also used the word free will. That separates it from reality entirely. The closest REAL not fictional ideal that I know of that comes close to that is a concept that combines determinism (For briefness everything is a reaction and therefore can be determined) and the concept that even though your actions are determined one of the determining factors is in fact you.
That's a philosophical idea subject to debate in reality, not something to depend upon being true in Erfworld. All we know in Erfworld is that some future things can be determined in advance by predictamancers and they call it Fate. Also, we know that carnymancers can manipulate future events somehow, and they also call that Fate. That doesn't mean that Erfworld is any more or less likely to be strictly deterministic than reality, and it certainly doesn't provide firm footing for a huge leap to the conclusion that Fate is some personified trickster who fiddles with Parson's bracer, especially when Parson is in a world with tons of tricksters that we already know about. I consider it more likely that Charlie or Jojo was using Carnymancy to make the bracer say .980104773 but the bracer knew about the beam about to fall and refused.

Salem wrote:In this idea it's not hard to look at fate shoehorning you. Whoops you misthrew that discus and it killed your dad. That FEELS active. Characters in the story say things that make it feel active. Nothing about fate feels like something in our earthly experiences. Especially since if you believe in any realistic non fiction/religious based view of fate there is no room for real free will. No room for deviation. Every point between A and B is predetermined. Ergo any story that talks about fate v free will at the very least leaves room for discussion as to the nature of fate. Which leaves room to talk about it from non "earth" views.
Remarkable and unusual things happen all the time. If you wait long enough and search far enough you're guaranteed to find one, but you wouldn't usually think some agent caused it to happen. If you flip a coin and it lands heads a hundred times in a row, I'm going to call that luck, not an invisible ghost playing with the coin. The only thing that suggests that any of this stuff might be planned by some GM of Erfworld is that predictamancers are able to tell us about some of it before it happens, and that already has a simpler explanation: Predictamancy is magic.

Has anyone ever suggested that there are invisible dirt monsters moving through the soil to make Dirtamancy work? Should we assume that there are invisible fairies flying around injecting nutrients into plants and messing with people's minds to make Flower Power happen? I don't think so, because inventing things like that is for the author to do.


I don't know why I'm even responding to you. You seem hostile and it gets under my skin.

I don't even care. I mean my main point is:

A: It is not unreasonable to argue about fate as an active agent in a work of fiction. Because while not necessarily likely is entirely possible.

Right now there are many possibilities behind the beam falling, as rob reveals stories more of them drop to a 0.0% probability. Jack is still a possibility however slim. If he is decrypted his chance of having been involved drops to 0.0%. So it's not impossible. Fate however is something people talk about in world, so to consider it for whatever reason, be it determinism, or fatalism, or fateisaliveism. All are okay to discuss. You attack people's rights to discuss them. No. Bad. Don't do that it's just unhelpful and slightly trollish.

Now if we accept fate exists in some aspect in the world it played a role in the beam either:
A: It actively is changing the world to stop parson or
B: It was fated to happen.
C: No role what so ever. - I added this in because it IS a possibility contrary to what I said above. If we take predictamancers at their word not everything is fated. Only some fates exist. This is why the world seems fatalistic. C only exists if you perceive robs world as being fatalistic.
D: No role again - but because some player outside of fate influenced the outcome. Note that in some way everything I say involves fate. Why. Because. Because I said so. Because some form of fate exists in erfworld. So talking about it isn't being stupid. It's just throwing out possibilities. Ignoring something that is at least possible isn't intelligent. It's not not intelligent but don't play the I'm better than you guys card. Just don't. It's out there in the ether, we can talk about it. It's okay if we do. It really is it doesn't hurt anyone.
"Too cute to (stay) croak(ed)!"
Salem
YOTD + Erfabet + Pins Supporter!
YOTD + Erfabet + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:47 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 059

Postby mroozee » Wed May 22, 2013 12:27 pm

I was going to post my opinion of how people should feel about fate in a work of fiction about a board game that doesn't exist... maybe get myself all worked up about it... maybe insult someone with a different opinion... but then I decided I'd just carry on living my life.
mroozee
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 6:36 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 059

Postby Salem » Wed May 22, 2013 12:30 pm

Eff wrote:It would be like 15 minutes into opening arguments:

Defense attorney jumps up and yells: "Innocent until proven guilty biatches! Have you proven him guilty yet?"
Prosecution: "Not yet, but we haven't even called wit..."
Defense: "Innocent!!"

Not only are these arguments lazy, they are also being misapplied. "Like Reality Unless Noted," "Occam's Razor," and "Innocent until proven guilty," are not truly arguments for a side... they are just tiebreakers, which means you are admitting that you have nothing to back your argument up with when you invoke them. Furthermore, they aren't even real tiebreakers in that they don't decide which is the correct one, they just decide which one we are going to assume is correct for the purposes of moving forward*. Since this forum has no explicit task to move forward with, we have no need for these rules.



Now that I've actually caught up on the thread.

First of all that would be awesome. Just pure awesome. (Note: I like Phoenix Wright)

As for Innocent until proven guilty it really isn't about the truth at all. It's about burden of proof. The concept is designed to place the burden of proof on the state. As opposed to some justice systems where individuals must prove their innocence against the machinery of the state.

As an aside, while the point of a trial is to get to "the truth," it is not required to reach an outcome. Guilty and not guilty when used in the context of a trial are unloaded words. They're not saying the person committed this crime, as much as it is likely enough they committed this crime that we will convict. Not guilty isn't innocence it's not being convicted. The truth isn't required for a court. In fact there are all kinds of legal rulers people use. Beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence, etc. Each one basically meaning percentage truthiness 95% 51%. In most cases civil trials only need to be more likely than not. 51%.

(This wasn't meant as a critique; I just have a bachelors in criminal justice and figured I was qualified to add some clarification.)
"Too cute to (stay) croak(ed)!"
Salem
YOTD + Erfabet + Pins Supporter!
YOTD + Erfabet + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:47 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 059

Postby alowe » Wed May 22, 2013 1:23 pm

Well, I half predicted it when I said that Parson would get no help,

http://www.erfworld.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6513&p=95740&hilit=alowe#p95736

I just hope he isn't croaked cause it's hard to empathize with a living corpse.
User avatar
alowe
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 12:48 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 059

Postby multilis » Wed May 22, 2013 1:44 pm

alowe wrote:Well, I half predicted it when I said that Parson would get no help,

http://www.erfworld.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6513&p=95740&hilit=alowe#p95736

I just hope he isn't croaked cause it's hard to empathize with a living corpse.

It is unclear whether uncroaked is a living corpse.

Charlie is not a thinkomancer and uses his dish for thinkomancy. It is possible that pliers are part of life sphere, they dust decrypted and perhaps "resurrect" the dead. Magic kingdom has no idea, some of the mages were mad because they thought Wanda was going into life sphere.

The 0 upkeep does hint that might be corpse.

As well, completely unknown what happens to decrypted when Wanda dies.

The decrypted archons still think of Charlie, completely unknown if a unit decrypted that turns from Wanda will still love her.
multilis
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 059

Postby Vreejack » Wed May 22, 2013 2:19 pm

Lipkin wrote:I think the people arguing against the fate theory are missing the point. You argue against the possibility that Fate is fiddling with the bracer, when that isn't what we who are placing blame on fate are saying. Fate simply is. Parson has a destiny according to predictamancers, and since he hasn't achieved that destiny yet, he can't use the scroll. No one is tampering with the bracer, not even Fate. The bracer is simply taking fate into account. Parson should have a 98% chance of casting it, but in reality, has 0, because he has a destiny yet to fulfill.

We know the bracer can make predictions about the future. It's answering his question in both the mechanical, and literal sense.

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


I am inclined to think that the bracer showed two different numbers--not because it was being influenced, but because it was not finished with the calculation. consider these lines:
The window showed a long decimal number, then blinked and showed a short one instead. Then it ran through a series of digits that changed every split second. Then it went blank. Then it read: specify conditions


Parson's computer takes time to perform its calculations, and it knows it must take fate into account. Apparently that takes a few hundred milliseconds extra. So there is no need for a tin foil hat, here. Nobody is willfully influencing the computer, outside of itself.
So...Watashi wa mizugorō ga sukina koto o kiita, neh?
A Prediction is what would have happened had there been no Prediction. What is scary is that they are also what will happen in spite of the Prediction.
User avatar
Vreejack
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 059

Postby multilis » Wed May 22, 2013 2:59 pm

Vreejack wrote: Nobody is willfully influencing the computer, outside of itself.

I would say rather insufficient data to say there is outside interference, there is logical explanation without it being interfered with.

We have no idea what calculator really is, how it works, who made it, etc. Same goes with what Fate is.

We do know that eyebooks can be hacked.

It is possible that there was 98% chance spell would work without interference, and 30% chance of success even with "Fate" interfering and "Fate" lied to make it look like 0% in effort to discourage Parson. A basic question left by Jojo and even Parson in book 1 is "can Fate can be cheated?" "can you cheat the GM in order to win the game?" (We don't know how good Fate is at Luckomancy)

Since Charlie suggested doing the calc and Charlie is a "con man" type mage, it is possible that the rigging was done by Charlie, a form of reverse psychology so Parson would spot the "con" and thus be conned.
Last edited by multilis on Wed May 22, 2013 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
multilis
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 059

Postby arkerpay » Wed May 22, 2013 3:05 pm

mroozee wrote:I was going to post my opinion of how people should feel about fate in a work of fiction about a board game that doesn't exist... maybe get myself all worked up about it... maybe insult someone with a different opinion... but then I decided I'd just carry on living my life.


I like the cut of your jib! It is fun to think about though, and observation is similar to ones I have made on the Book 0 threads.

Which reminds me, when is there going to be an update to Book 0?
arkerpay
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:07 am

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 059

Postby multilis » Wed May 22, 2013 3:09 pm

mroozee wrote:I was going to post my opinion of how people should feel about fate in a work of fiction about a board game that doesn't exist... maybe get myself all worked up about it... maybe insult someone with a different opinion... but then I decided I'd just carry on living my life.

It is sad that Charlie has conned you into thinking you are living your real life now. You shouldn't have read the scroll.

The "real life" is just an illusion, your body is still in Erfworld, but incapacitated by the illusion. We keep trying to warn you.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0889.html Follow Elan's advice. Look at the news. Look carefully, it is too absurd, your real world can't be real!

(The debates on this forum are very important matters of life and death, survival of the real world, Erfworld! If we do not figure out the truth, we may die)
multilis
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 059

Postby effataigus » Wed May 22, 2013 4:29 pm

drachefly wrote:Occam's razor can do way more than break ties.

Like, a theory that a coin tossed 1000 times in a row will produce this particular random-looking but predetermined sequence has a tiny prior, such that unless there's some reason to elevate it to your attention*, even if every prediction is fulfilled perfectly it has negligible weight as an explanation compared to 'it was random', primarily because of its high information content. This is pure Occam, and it does way more than break a tie.
In the interests of keeping an off-topic discussion going...

1. That sounds like a tie breaker to me. Both theories account for the same observations. My argument is that we're skipping the first step of checking whether two competing arguments actually explain all of the observations and moving straight to the tiebreaker.

2. It is not clear to me that Occam got us to the right answer in your example (I've never understood the proofs of a non-deterministic world well enough to internalize them, and some part of my human psyche wants to see order in the universe anyway). If that coin were flipped in Erfworld, I'd bet against that coin's outcome being determined purely by random chance unless the flip's outcome had absolutely no influence on Erfworld events (we know Parson's ability to cast the scroll does... or I believe this to be true anyway).

I understand that it would be a scary world without Occam... why not have a convoluted and insane theory to explain any minute observation as long as it works, right? Given that, I think Occam is fine as rule of thumb, but needs to be swallowed with a big dose of "but we don't really know for sure"... and probably left out entirely when choosing between two arguments that are on the same order of complication magnitude. Sometimes the universe really is a little complicated.
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 – Text Updates 059

Postby Fjord » Wed May 22, 2013 4:46 pm

Lipkin wrote:I think the people arguing against the fate theory are missing the point. You argue against the possibility that Fate is fiddling with the bracer, when that isn't what we who are placing blame on fate are saying. Fate simply is. Parson has a destiny according to predictamancers, and since he hasn't achieved that destiny yet, he can't use the scroll. No one is tampering with the bracer, not even Fate. The bracer is simply taking fate into account. Parson should have a 98% chance of casting it, but in reality, has 0, because he has a destiny yet to fulfill.

We know the bracer can make predictions about the future. It's answering his question in both the mechanical, and literal sense.

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


This!
I'd kiss you, but that could prove quite expensive :?
User avatar
Fjord
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:11 am

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 059

Postby Not Me » Wed May 22, 2013 5:16 pm

BanzaiJoe wrote:This made me wonder. Does Erfwold have to reconcile the manipulations of Fate. In other words, the more "GM Fate" stacks the numbers against Parson, is there a Karma for Fate? I was inspired by the conversations with Wanda and the Luckamancer about how you just take one number from here and put it over there but it still evens out in the end. Does Erfworld respond to GM Fate's manipulations. Although Charlie called up Parson, could Erfworld have made it possible because of Fate messing with the "deck". I wish I had a better way to explain it.



If I got it right, what you are looking at might be in this update:

For when the price was paid, it was Erfworld which processed the transaction. The world would produce the unit that was called for...more or less. There was the matter of the Fate Axis as well, and this unit was turning out to be very special. This unit would be worth far more than the buyer had paid for.

That was no violation of Numbers, though. It simply meant that this unit carried a balance due. And though it was an astronomically high figure, someone would pay.

Zero always called, and someone would have to pay.


And to add to other discussions in this thread, here is a specific mention of "Erfworld" as being able to "process the transaction" so might not be far-fetched to assume "Erfworld" can be considered a sort of "entity" for some purposes.
Not Me
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 3:30 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 059

Postby effataigus » Wed May 22, 2013 5:28 pm

Salem wrote:As an aside, while the point of a trial is to get to "the truth," it is not required to reach an outcome. Guilty and not guilty when used in the context of a trial are unloaded words. They're not saying the person committed this crime, as much as it is likely enough they committed this crime that we will convict. Not guilty isn't innocence it's not being convicted. The truth isn't required for a court. In fact there are all kinds of legal rulers people use. Beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence, etc. Each one basically meaning percentage truthiness 95% 51%. In most cases civil trials only need to be more likely than not. 51%.
Hmm, right you are... seems I was misquoting a teacher of yore. He said "jury decides fact," not "jury decides truth" as I said, and there seems a meaningful distinction. Also, glancing at the Googles suggests he was misquoting something like "jury tries fact" which seems to be getting at what you are saying. Either way, these are rules for saying "lets go with this" rather than "this is right."
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 – Text Updates 059

Postby Salem » Wed May 22, 2013 6:01 pm

effataigus wrote:
Salem wrote:As an aside, while the point of a trial is to get to "the truth," it is not required to reach an outcome. Guilty and not guilty when used in the context of a trial are unloaded words. They're not saying the person committed this crime, as much as it is likely enough they committed this crime that we will convict. Not guilty isn't innocence it's not being convicted. The truth isn't required for a court. In fact there are all kinds of legal rulers people use. Beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence, etc. Each one basically meaning percentage truthiness 95% 51%. In most cases civil trials only need to be more likely than not. 51%.
Hmm, right you are... seems I was misquoting a teacher of yore. He said "jury decides fact," not "jury decides truth" as I said, and there seems a meaningful distinction. Also, glancing at the Googles suggests he was misquoting something like "jury tries fact" which seems to be getting at what you are saying. Either way, these are rules for saying "lets go with this" rather than "this is right."


Yep! But no suprise your overall points tend to be on the ball.


effataigus wrote:2. It is not clear to me that Occam got us to the right answer in your example (I've never understood the proofs of a non-deterministic world well enough to internalize them, and some part of my human psyche wants to see order in the universe anyway). If that coin were flipped in Erfworld, I'd bet against that coin's outcome being determined purely by random chance unless the flip's outcome had absolutely no influence on Erfworld events (we know Parson's ability to cast the scroll does... or I believe this to be true anyway).


I've always had that trouble too. Especially with coin flips and die rolls, saying it's random is like saying "The power you put behind the flip, the shape of the coin, the effect of 'gravity', the rotation, air resistance, wind, etc some how play no role in the end result. Then again I've never had someone tell me something that was actually random other than at the sub atomic level. Even then it's also often followed by "We may just not know the reasons." Random schmandom.

Rules of thumb: Occy's, gravity, beyond a reasonable doubt. They're intended as working models not models of fact. "We can work with X becuase of this rule." Not X is true because of this rule. D:
"Too cute to (stay) croak(ed)!"
Salem
YOTD + Erfabet + Pins Supporter!
YOTD + Erfabet + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:47 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 059

Postby MarbitChow » Wed May 22, 2013 6:16 pm

Salem wrote:I've always had that trouble too. Especially with coin flips and die rolls, saying it's random is like saying "The power you put behind the flip, the shape of the coin, the effect of 'gravity', the rotation, air resistance, wind, etc some how play no role in the end result. Then again I've never had someone tell me something that was actually random other than at the sub atomic level. Even then it's also often followed by "We may just not know the reasons."

You're attributing determinism to disqualify randomness when randomness doesn't actually have that as a requirement. Think of random as "you can't determine the outcome based on the initial parameters" rather than "non-deterministic".

If you know with certainty all of the starting states, you may be able to predict the outcome of a random event, like a die roll. That doesn't make a die roll less random; given every possible starting state, the likelihood of any of the 6 sides coming up should be equal, and not governed by conscious selection. If it meets that criteria, it's random.
Equilateratoria is now underway. New players are welcome to join at any time! (Rules)
User avatar
MarbitChow
 
Posts: 2509
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 059

Postby Lilwik » Wed May 22, 2013 7:23 pm

MarbitChow wrote:When you start referring to a reality that is different in dozens of important respects from our reality... when you've reached the point where you have to start noting that trivial things like cups breaking are similar when TIME ITSELF is different... you're in an alternate dimension. It's nothing like 'reality'.

Don't argue that too persuasively! Don't mistake my meaning; I'd never attack your right to discuss that idea or any idea, but just think of the potential consequences if you argue that trivial similarities between Erfworld and reality have to be noted. It's unlikely that Rob Balder would ever be convinced, but why take the risk? I certainly don't want to see endless tedious updates listing the least interesting parts of Erfworld.

effataigus wrote:"Like reality unless noted" seems to be (like Occam's Razor) one of those rules that should only be implemented when ALL other lights go out. However, it is typically implemented on this forum as soon as convenient for making a point.
You are exactly right in your analysis of LRUN and Occam's Razor, but I would say that all other lights have gone out for Fate already. Aside from the issue of whether Fate was doing some Foolamancy on the bracer, there's an even more fundamental issue that has shown itself before and is bound to show itself again: did the beam fall because Fate gave it a push when Parson started to read the scroll, or would the beam have fallen like any ordinary beam, with or without Parson reading the scroll. Either way, it would be Fate guaranteeing that Parson could not read the scroll, but one way has Fate being like a ghost that manipulates the world like deliberately fiddling with the bracer and adjusting the timing of events as necessary, and the other suggests that Fate is even more powerful: so powerful that it gets its way passively, just letting events unfold as they are fated to unfold.

We have no good evidence either way. The fact that things were predicted isn't evidence since we already know Predictamancy is magic. It's just impossible for us to know if the beam was pushed. The only thing that we've ever seen that might be considered real evidence for an active Fate is the bracer's weirdness in this update, and that could have many other explanations. We really know nothing about what caused that. So I say that on the issue of Fate it is time to go to Like Reality Unless Noted and make the call that Fate is probably not a poltergeist roaming Erfworld and hitting people with things when they try to go against its plan.

Salem wrote:All are okay to discuss. You attack people's rights to discuss them.
That is a brutally unfair misrepresentation. When I say that we should assume something, I only mean that the assumptions that I'm suggesting are most likely to be true, most likely to not lead us into wild speculation that has no connection at all to what the author is thinking. I don't mean that there is some sort of moral obligation to assume as I say. I'm shocked that anyone took it that way.

I only say we should assume a passive Fate because otherwise it necessarily leads to all sorts of strange questions. If Fate has plans, pushes beams, fiddles with bracers, then Fate is a character in Erfworld. Fate would be even more mysterious than Charlie, but we'd still end up with questions like: does Fate have a sense of humor? Is Fate Parson's ally? Is Fate in love with Wanda? Are Carnymancers and Predictamancers actually talking to Fate and know what it's voice sounds like? Is Fate male or female? If the author has never imagined Fate as a person at all, then all of that speculation is just wandering further and further from Erfworld. I have nothing against your right to do that; I just think inventing your own fantasy worlds apart from Erfworld won't get you any closer to understanding Erfworld.
Last edited by Lilwik on Wed May 22, 2013 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 059

Postby Salem » Wed May 22, 2013 7:25 pm

MarbitChow wrote:
Salem wrote:I've always had that trouble too. Especially with coin flips and die rolls, saying it's random is like saying "The power you put behind the flip, the shape of the coin, the effect of 'gravity', the rotation, air resistance, wind, etc some how play no role in the end result. Then again I've never had someone tell me something that was actually random other than at the sub atomic level. Even then it's also often followed by "We may just not know the reasons."

You're attributing determinism to disqualify randomness when randomness doesn't actually have that as a requirement. Think of random as "you can't determine the outcome based on the initial parameters" rather than "non-deterministic".

If you know with certainty all of the starting states, you may be able to predict the outcome of a random event, like a die roll. That doesn't make a die roll less random; given every possible starting state, the likelihood of any of the 6 sides coming up should be equal, and not governed by conscious selection. If it meets that criteria, it's random.


I don't know if that's a good definition of random. In that case old faithful would be random (I actually have no idea how that works.) Those little toy birds that bob. The rotation of the planets. Fit that one criteria. Even though they are fixed to some extent.

And if we're only using the predictive criteria. Your defintition is stronger, but still altered from the original. It being altered means it can not be applied the same. There are people who in a specific enviornment can control a coin flip to some degree producing less than chance results. So basically we're arbitrarily placing a line "Random is when it can no longer be predicted or controlled" which means random is different for different people. Or we're using the entire human knowledge base and defining random based on that which gets tricksy like a hobbit.

The way random seems to be being used in this context is that greater idea of random. Which I apparently can't define.

Lilwik wrote:
Salem wrote:All are okay to discuss. You attack people's rights to discuss them.
That is a brutally unfair misrepresentation. When I say that we should assume something, I only mean that the assumptions that I'm suggesting are most likely to be true, most likely to not lead us into wild speculation that has no connection at all to what the author is thinking. I don't mean that there is some sort of moral obligation to assume as I say. I'm shocked that anyone took it that way.

I only say we should assume a passive Fate because otherwise it necessarily leads to all sorts of strange questions. If Fate has plans, pushes beams, fiddles with bracers, then Fate is a character in Erfworld. Fate would be even more mysterious than Charlie, but we'd still end up with questions like: does Fate have a sense of humor? Is Fate Parson's ally? Is Fate in love with Wanda? Are Carnymancers and Predictamancers actually talking to Fate and know what it's voice sounds like? Is Fate male or female? If the author has never imagined Fate as a person at all, then all of that speculation is just wandering further and further from Erfworld. I have nothing against your right to do that; I just think inventing your own fantasy worlds apart from Erfworld won't get you any closer to understanding Erfworld.


If you're not attacking, why use words like "wild speculation." That is a loaded term. Finally, you're completely ignoring any possibilty that fate MIGHT be an active player. It's not like in this situation there is a risk to our life for considering it. We're throwing out options like shotgun speculation. And you're using LRUN to dismiss fate. In reality fate CAN NOT exist. In fiction it CAN. We can't use reality to predict how leveling up works. It doesn't exist. We can assume stats go up, but in some games some also go down. I think that's the problem I think LRUN only accounts for things that CAN exist and most accurately DO exist. Where as in this situation neither is the case. As far as I know there is determinism or superstition when it comes to fate in reality, and nothing is verifiable. It feels like you're forcing a ruler that doesn't fit. You need a compass here. And your argument is just falacious. To assume fate is an active agent doesn't mean to assume it's a character with apersonality. It could be a force, it bends when pushed then bounces back. Like borrowing rolls which exists in erfworld as far as we know and should assume. There is a FATE AXIS OF MAGIC. How can we not assume that fate exists? One of the main themes in the story is free will vs FATE. You're acting like we're being ridiculous. It is entirely likely.

P.S. "I just think you're inventing your own fantasy worlds" is kind of insulting.
Last edited by Salem on Wed May 22, 2013 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Too cute to (stay) croak(ed)!"
Salem
YOTD + Erfabet + Pins Supporter!
YOTD + Erfabet + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:47 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 059

Postby multilis » Wed May 22, 2013 7:28 pm

"Fate simply is"

In Parson's planned game in real world, Fate was a railroad GM that wanted to be cheated.

In Erfworld is open question whether Fate can be cheated. Jojo claims it perhaps can be.

"Fate simply is" sounds like someone in magic kingdom who is sure of their theory just because rather than any sort of test.

Fate could be "stupid" and have random goals. Fate could be intelligent long range planner that has specific goals and perhaps limited resources to manipulate world to achieve those goals.

Fate could be uncontrollable by players. Fate might be able to be manipulated by players using magic, artifact, tool of titans, etc.

Fate could be a version of Parson playing GM.

Why does Fate want Parson? Because some greater power wants Parson or because a conspiracy of predictomancers, thinkomancers, etc somehow manipulated universe so that Fate now wants Parson because of the mages goals?

For a royal believer, Fate is the will of the Titans so that Royals eventually dominate. "My will is the Titans will" claimed Ansom the Arrogant, and yet his words were shown false.

For a Tool believer, Fate is the will of the Titans so that the attuned get the tools and dominate. "Ansom has one. But it is not atuned to him and he doesn't know why. I know why. Because he is bringing it to me." Thus spoke Stanley the Wise in Erfworld 1:32 and behold: his words have already come true.

http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F032.jpg
multilis
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 059

Postby Lilwik » Wed May 22, 2013 8:25 pm

Salem wrote:Finally, you're completely ignoring any possibilty that fate MIGHT be an active player.
I am seeing a clear lack of evidence for it, and I conclude that the author probably doesn't intend Active Fate because he would have given us clues if he wanted us to think that. Perhaps the flickering bracer is the start of his giving us clues that Fate is active, but right now it's all we have and it's very weak. The burden of proof has got to be on the side that claims Active Fate is a real thing because it is an extraordinary claim that has huge implications.

Salem wrote:And you're using LRUN to dismiss fate. In reality fate CAN NOT exist. In fiction it CAN.
If you use the fact that something can exist to conclude that it does exist then you shouldn't be insulted by the idea of wild speculation or inventing fantasy worlds. I wouldn't be insulted if people thought I was speculating wildly, but since I'm taking the conservative approach of assuming that things are less fantastic and more like reality, that's not likely to happen.

Salem wrote:To assume fate is an active agent doesn't mean to assume it's a character with a personality. It could be a force, it bends when pushed then bounces back. Like borrowing rolls which exists in erfworld as far as we know and should assume.
Active Fate can't be just a force, because the concept requires that it have plans and a desire to act to ensure the success of those plans. I admit that someone might be able to come up with a description of Active Fate that doesn't make it a fully traditional person, but it still needs to be a planner of some sort.

Salem wrote:There is a FATE AXIS OF MAGIC. How can we not assume that fate exists? One of the main themes in the story is free will vs FATE. You're acting like we're being ridiculous. It is entirely likely.
Fate certainly exists. The real question is: what is Fate?

I am drawn to that quote in the first episode of Inner Peace: "There was the matter of the Fate Axis as well, and this unit was turning out to be very special. This unit would be worth far more than the buyer had paid for. That was no violation of Numbers, though. It simply meant that this unit carried a balance due. And though it was an astronomically high figure, someone would pay." Is that just being poetic? Is that merely an acknowledgement that Fate has bad things in store for the the people who popped Wanda? Or are we supposed to take it more literally and infer that people carry around an actual Fate Number that must eventually be balanced somehow? How does that number connect to Predictamancy, especially since Predictamancy is not aligned with Numbers? A number can't plan, it certainly can't push beams, but it's exactly in the world of the Mathamancy bracer. If only we understood more about Mathamancy it might clear up a some uncertainty about Fate.
Last edited by Lilwik on Wed May 22, 2013 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 059

Postby Aster Azul » Wed May 22, 2013 8:34 pm

Off topic and forgive me if this has been asked and answered already...

Image

Which dragon color was lost to retconjuration?
Like our new game, King's Ascent!
https://www.facebook.com/KingsAscent
User avatar
Aster Azul
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:08 am

PreviousNext

Return to Reactions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Xarx and 17 guests