[Torg] A possible outlook on the Tech Axiom: No way physics.

[Jasyn Jones]

On Jul 24, 2007, at 8:30 PM, Kansas Jim wrote:

> Jasyn writes:
>
> [Smooge wrote:]
>
>>> Such principles imply that certain effects are
>>> practically impossible. A small number of principles, however,  
>>> belong
>>> to a different category. These say, in effect, "That cannot happen."
>>> Such principles imply that certain effects are physically  
>>> impossible.

>> Such as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (AFAIK.) This isn't  
>> a  limitation of technology, but a fundamental limitation in the  
>> laws of  physics. Hence, no tool of physical laws can overcome it,  
>> no matter  how advanced.
>
> But if we go with that for Torg, we eliminate 90% of the science  
> fiction
> that the high end of the Tech axiom is supposed to emulate.

I do not see how that follows at all from my central point: no matter  
how high the Axiom rating of a cosm is, the tools of that Axiom are  
limited by its basal nature. If the Technlogical axiom involves tools  
that follow the laws of physics, then all tools of that Axiom must do  
so (including Axiom 33 tools), or the definition is meaningless.

> The axiom
> chart would pretty much end in the 24-26 range because the laws of
> physics as we currently understand them say we will never have fast
> interstellar travel, teleportation, high-energy laser weapons, none of
> that cool stuff.

I think you misunderstood my statement. I did not state that those  
limits which today's physics believe are binding, must always be  
binding on the axiom, therefore we should rewrite the axiom to match.

I did not say that there are absolutely binding limits, nor did I  
specify which limits might be absolutely binding (save for the HUP,  
which I can expand on below).

What I did say was: if there are utterly binding physical laws, then  
they bind all tools of the Tech axiom, including Tech 33. (And if  
there are no such binding laws, the very definition of the axiom goes  
against the "all '33' Axioms are the same.")

This is a very different claim than the one you address above.

To answer a question you didn't ask (EDIT: You kind of did, later,  
and our answers actually match.): "How can fast interstellar travel,  
teleportation, high-energy laser weapons, and other tools which  
violate our current understanding of physics ever be possible?"

Answer: Because there may be higher physical laws of which we are  
unaware, and there are certainly theories that we have not yet  
developed that will yield tools that appear to violate current theories.

For example, Newton's physics suffice to predict the orbits of most  
planets. However, they cannot predict the orbit of Mercury. Mercury's  
orbit violates the laws of Newtonian physics. However, a more  
sophisticated theory, which takes into account more complex  
influences- Einstein's relativity- does correctly predict Mercury's  
orbit (and can correctly predict the orbits of all other planets).   
In truth, Newtonian physics is but a special case of Einsteinian  
physics (Newtonian interactions all occur within the same  
acceleration frame, well below the speed of light, etc.)

There are certain to be more sophisticated theories that explain the  
universe in more comprehensive ways, which illuminate physical laws  
which we have not yet discovered/properly elucidated, will allow us  
to build tools that are impossible under our current understanding of  
physics.

Is this a handwave? Yes, but a very plausible one. Much of what is  
now the higher Tech axioms may not actually ever be possible, in  
reality, but some of it will probably be. For the purposes of Torg,  
or any science fiction story, this handwave suffices to allow us to  
include questionable tools (like a hyper-light drive).

(In fact, this handwave even stretches, in some cases, to allow for  
the existence of psionics and astrology. These examples, IMHO, are an  
abuse of a good handwave, but, in the case of psionics, an abuse I  
can ignore for the sake of a good story.)

Still, to bring it back to my original point, even such questionable  
tools are asserted to operate based on physical laws, otherwise they  
wouldn't be Technological. This is part and parcel of the  
Technological axiom, and Axiom 33 cannot change that.

HUP: HUP is a fundamental limit, verified by very complex (to me)  
math. It may be that this math itself is a special case of far more  
complicated and comprehensive equations, which allow the HUP to be  
violated in special circumstances: in a high gravity field,  
arbitrarily near the speed of light, when the matter involved is at a  
high enough temperature.* This may happen, or it may not. At the very  
least, it's plausible to think that it might.

(*To be more specific, a quantum theory of gravity, a new wrinkle in  
relativity, or the Unified Field Theory may allow us to know when the  
HUP can be evaded, or they may not. I'm just listing some theories  
which do not yet exist, but which we are diligently searching for.  
I'm not saying these will allow such an advance.)

> In order to have any of that cool stuff, we have to say
> that there will be discoveries made in the future that our current  
> level
> of understanding doesn't allow, that there will be technology in the
> future that violates the physics of today.

Right, which doesn't obviate on my original point: if there are  
fundamental limits, they limit all Tech tools, even Axiom 33 ones.

More, your logic doesn't establish a claim that there are not, and  
can never be, fundamental limits. There may be, and probably (IMHO)  
are fundamental limits. However, many of today's limits are probably  
not fundamental limits, despite being real limits (that apply in  
specific circumstances, 99.99% of the time).

> Things were discovered which
> proved they had an incomplete understanding of the world, the future
> could hold the same for us. From a science fictional standpoint, it
> must hold the same for us.

I agree. I wasn't discounting such a possibility, because it is  
necessary if questionable high-Axiom tools are to ever exist. Again,  
though, this doesn't establish that there are no such limiting laws.

There probably are, and were I to nominate some of them, I'd point to  
the HUP or to the Laws of Thermodynamics (in my ignorant arrogance,  
as I am not a physicist).

My contention is:

1.) If there are such limiting laws, which seems likely, it rules out  
the "all Axioms are identical/effectively identical at '33'."

2.) Moreover, even if there are no such limits (which may well be the  
case), the basal nature of the axioms limit the tools of those self- 
same axioms: all Tech tools, even Tech 33 ones, must operate  
according to physical laws. (Whether this is physical laws as  
currently understood, physical laws as they might be understood at a  
higher Technological axiom, or physical laws as they might be  
understood in a reality with variant physical laws**.)

Conclusion: Technological tools cannot ever violate the laws of  
physics, or the definition of the Technological Axiom and the nature  
of all Axioms is invalidated.

** In such cosms, such as a Steampulp cosm with Ether technology (or  
the Nile), the tools do follow physical laws, and are hence  
Technological, but if the local laws of physics allow the natives to  
vary from the Technological axiom in a noticeable way (fast  
interstellar travel at Tech 18), a World Law must be specified to  
allow this.
---
Jasyn Jones
jasynj (at) gmail (dot) com

Check out Storm Knights, my Torg website:
http://darleyconsulting.com/games/stormknights/

"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."
Ulysses, Alfred Lord Tennyson