[Torg] Re: Axioms and PE

[Jasyn Jones]

On Jul 10, 2007, at 6:45 PM, Chad Dickhaut wrote:

> I apologize for the month's delay;

And I for my two-week delay. I have just moved, and I have been far  
to busy to respond.

> --- Jasyn Jones <jasynj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 10, 2007, at 9:32 PM, Chad Dickhaut wrote:
>
>> If such arguments follow the pattern of the Tech argument above, then
>> the same counter-examples apply: PE can affect magic, that doesn't
>> mean that magic can affect PE. That's why it's a higher order
>> phenomena.
>
> Actually, in Torg cosmology PE does more than affect the axioms; it is
> inextricably tied to them.

Let's stop an break something down.

1. Tools of the Tech axiom work according to the laws of physics.

2. The Technological axiom itself is a series of limitations that  
determine what tools can operate.

3. These two come into conflict. Very often, the laws of physics say  
"yes, this must work," but the Tech axiom says "no."

4. In such cases, the Axioms are enforced by the Everlaw of One  
(through disconnection or transformation).

5. In fact, the only way for the laws of physics to override the Tech  
axiom's limits, is if PE is manipulated by the User (the Everlaw of  
Two).

Laws of physics never override the Tech Axiom, only the Everlaws do.  
Hence, the laws of physics cannot overide the PE flow of the axioms,  
as they cannot override the axioms at all. PE is inextricably tied to  
the axioms, but that doesn't mean that tools which operate by  
physical laws can limit PE.

The question is this: is PE subject to the laws of physics. In many  
cases, it is not. Is it ever?

My argument is that it is illogical to subject PE to the laws of  
physics. There are no physical laws that affect PE, PE is above and  
beyond physical laws. (And magical laws, spiritual laws, etc.)

There are metaphysical laws, the Everlaws, which affect PE. That's  
different.

I do understand that people can differ on this point, and the canon  
certainly does. Given the relationship between PE, the axioms, the  
Everlaws, and the laws of physics, the Torg metaphysics only make  
sense if the laws of physics are subordinate to the other three, and  
the other three are not subject to the laws of physics.

[...]

> The flow of PE from the inhabitants of a
> cosm serves to define the axiom limits, and the consistent, repeated
> breaking of those limits by a sufficient portion of the cosm’s
> population can drive them up.

The processed of the axioms occur in violation of physical laws, not  
because of them. Were physical laws what they appear to be (universal  
laws of physics), there is utterly no explicable reason why a sail  
would fail to work, no matter the Tech axiom. There is no reason  
(under the laws of physics) why a Tech 1 person could "disconnect"  
and have the sail fail to function, when a non-disconnected person  
*in the very same circumstances* could make the sail function.

Gun: hand to a disconnected person, won't work. Give back to a  
connected person, works. Back to the disco, won't work. This is  
absolute nonsense, from the point of view of the laws of physics.

Yet it is Torg metaphysics. The operations of axioms occur in  
violation of the laws of physics.

[...]

> PE is generated through the interactions
> of the Living and Unliving, and the axioms define how the Living may
> interact with the Unliving within a cosm.   This seems to me to  
> indicate
> a certain amount of reciprocity between PE and the axioms.

But the axiom aren't the laws of physics, they limit the laws of  
physics. The laws of physics don't ever override the axioms, and  
hence cannot ever dictate to PE.

[...]

> As such, I
> would argue that while Tech (or Magic, Social, or Spirit) can never
> fully comprehend PE and large-R Reality (it doesn’t see the whole
> picture), it can apprehend it, however imperfectly.

You have not constructed a case why this is so. This conclusion  
doesn't follow from your premises. More, the way in which axioms  
operate within the game indicate the opposite: PE is not bound by the  
laws of physics, magic, or the tenets of a religion.

>  If transcendent
> abilities and effects cannot be understood in any part through the  
> lens
> of the axioms, by what frame of reference can they be made
> comprehensible to the minds of creatures bound by the axioms?

The same tools/frame of mind now provided: transcendental effects  
(the Reality skill, etc.)

Axioms are not the end-all and be-all of existence, and not all  
knowledge is of the axioms or attained through tools of the axioms.  
Perforce: Corruption, Honor, and so forth. These are real effects (in  
Torg) that are understood and manipulated, but not through the axioms.

Similarly, transcendant phenomena are understood through other  
skills: scholar (PE metaphysics), reality, whatever. The knowledge,  
however is not attained by studying axioms (anymore than studying  
axioms would give insight into the Law of Action).

>   The
> Everlaws may be “above” the axioms, but they become largely  
> meaningless
> without the framework the axioms provide.

The axioms aren't the laws of physics, they limit them. What is at  
hand is: do the laws of physics limit PE? I say that they cannot, as  
it doesn't make sense for them to do so. PE overrides the laws of  
physics, they don't obey them.

Also, the axioms can only exist because of the Everlaws, they are  
subjunct to the Everlaws (and are probably created by the Everlaws).  
The Everlaws could function without axioms, but axioms have no  
existence without the Everlaws (as they cannot affect existence at all).

>> I'll stipulate that PE can affect magic, Tech, spirit, etc. However,
>> this in no way establishes or indicates that these phenomena can
>> affect PE. (Your argument is clever, but incorrect.)
>
> Per the Eo2, PE is generated through interactions between the Living
> and Unliving, which are governed by the axioms.

In part, as they are affected by World Laws and, the link between the  
Living and Unliving is governed by the Everlaws. The axioms only have  
a link because of the Eo2, which is the link. The Link is caused by  
an Everlaw, not by the axioms.

More, you are not distinguishing between the laws of physics and the  
Tech axiom. The Tech axiom is a series of limitations which say (in  
essence): No matter what the laws of physics say, this device shall  
not work (assuming a Pure Zone). The laws of physics have no means to  
circumvent this or affect this: the limitations of the axiom  
transcend the laws of physics, by definition.

So, why would the laws of physics, which at every single axiom level  
are subordinate to PE, suddenly gain the ability to dictate to PE?

> This seems to very
> powerfully indicate that axiom-based phenomena can affect PE.

Only to the extent that the Everlaws dictate, and in accordance with  
the Everlaws, not the laws of physics. In Torg, physics is, at best,  
a third-degree citizen, a peon that cannot order the King (PE/ 
Everlaws) around. The Tech Axiom orders the laws of physics around,  
and the Everlaws order the axioms around.

There's an inherent hierarchy there, I am only recognizing it.

>>>> PE is the fundamental unit of existence, and local cosm variables
>>>> cannot order it around. After all, if PE is subject to natural
>>>> laws,
>>>> then that means the Everlaws are, and that means that tools can
>>>> change the Everlaws. Madness!
>
> Not true.  As I have stated, PE's relationship to the axioms is not as
> one-sided as you make it out to be.

Sure it is: the Everlaws enables the axioms to exist, and they exist  
in the ways that the Everlaws define, and the laws of physics can't  
say boo.

>   Besides, while the Everlaws
> regulate PE in limited ways, the Everlaws are not PE,

Though it is off the main topic of the thread, but I want to address  
this point. This is just my chain of logic, it is in no way official:

The Everlaws influence the world through PE. Every time the Everlaws  
act, they use PE to do so, and cannot act in any other way. The only  
real effects the Everlaws have, is through PE.  From this point of  
view, the Everlaws are not independent of PE, because they depend on  
PE to affect existence.

In actuality, PE is what acts in certain ways to define and enforce  
reality, the Everlaws merely describe how this happens, they do not  
make it happen.

In a very real sense, the Everlaws are merely *descriptions of how PE  
behaves.* The Everlaws are a model of the way in which PE acts to  
define and enforce reality. (This is analogous to the Laws of Motion,  
which describe ways in which matter behaves.)

The Everlaws are descriptions of the behavior of PE, not something  
concrete in and of themselves. The Everlaws are academic theories, PE  
the real stuff. PE gives rise to the Everlaws, and the Everlaws only  
describe PE.

Again, this is my chain of logic, but it seems solid. It exactly  
describes the current rules- these are the current rules, viewed from  
a different angle- and it answers a question unanswered in the canon:  
what are the Everlaws?

So, while the Everlaws are not PE, they describe the way in which PE  
behaves, and cannot be separated from PE (as they are conceptual  
models).

Also, to stave off a possible objection:

Yes, the Everlaws are analogous to laws of physics, but they are not  
laws of physics, but rather laws of metaphysics, which describe how  
PE dominates the laws of physics.

> so if PE is
> subject to axiomatic tools it does not necessarily follow that the
> Everlaws are.

If Technological tools can create hardpoints, or talismans, or make  
someone a P-rated, then the Everlaws are subject to Technological  
tools (and hence the laws of physics), at least in part. You can  
disagree about what extent this is true, but it is true.

That said, my examples were obviously far more outre than what you  
conceived of.

> It’s not simply that scientists at Tech levels
> below 31 haven’t figured out how to build a shrink ray, but rather  
> that
> such a device is contradictory at their Tech level.

Only because the Everlaws define it to be contradictory, and act  
(through PE) to enforce that definition.

None of which establishes the case that the laws of physics can  
control a phenomenon which, by definition, violates the laws of  
physics and controls them (e.g. PE, see disconnection and  
transformation).

> Even if the
> fundamental physical laws don’t change as one climbs the axiom chart,
> they might as well be changing so far as Torg metaphysics is  
> concerned.

How so? Torg metaphysics defines what limitations are placed on the  
laws of physics, and acts to enforce those limitations in violation  
of the laws of physics. It isn't concerned with what those laws are.  
They can be the same, or differ, and the Axioms/Everlaws/PE behave  
the same: contradictory tools can cause disconnection or transformation.

>  This, of course, defies our sensibilities.  If a tool utilizes a
> “fundamental law” in order to operate, then why should it stop working
> in a less advanced Reality?  Nonetheless, this is how Torg Reality
> works.

By overriding physical laws, not by obeying them.

>> In the metaphysics of Torg, the Everlaws are the fundamental rules of
>> all reality everywhere. Allowing a tool to change them is madness,
>> within the game that is Torg.
>
> The Everlaws are fundamental, but they are ultimately fairly  
> limited in
> their scope.

Their scope is everything and everywhere.

> There is much more to large-R Reality
> than what the Everlaws cover; as you say, there is a host of  
> additional
> rules regarding PE manipulation, group powers, and the like.

Group powers arise from Eshards, which are created by the Eo3. They  
devolve from the Eo3.

Yes, there are a lot of rules about "R"-eality, outside of the  
Everlaws themselves, but those do (or should, if they don't) devolve  
from the Everlaws themselves. Any rule about how PE behaves outside  
of the Everlaws, is effectively an Everlaw, if a minor and unstated  
one. (An Ever-Subclause, if not an Ever-Law.) Everlaws describe how  
PE behaves, so minor rules about how PE behaves are effectively  
equivalent to Everlaws.

More, even if PE behaves in ways other than those dictated by the  
Everlaws, PE isn't dictated to by the laws of physics. In fact, if  
the laws of physics dictated to PE, they'd effectively be another set  
of Everlaws.

Hmmm...

> It seems to me, though, that sufficiently advanced cosms should be  
> able
> to

I understand that you think this, but the reasoning behind it doesn't  
follow, for me. As I try and apprehend how the Axioms/Everlaws/PE  
works, it seems as if they are not limited by the laws of physics,  
but rather that the laws of physics are limited by them.

> but it seems a bit much to me to bandy the term “madness”
> about when describing them.  IMHO, that sort of hyperbole doesn’t  
> serve
> the discussion well.

I seem to have chosen examples that, while being more extreme than  
you support, are (to me) perfectly within the scope of the general  
theory: PE and the Everlaws can be subject to the laws of physics.

I concede that you do not support these examples, but there isn't any  
concrete reason why they are of necessity excluded. If the laws of  
physics are to affect PE, how and why needs to be explicated, that  
limits (such as those you propose) clearly arise from the rules, and  
are not imposed arbitrarily.

>> (For example, it would lead to a
>> "reconnect me" gadget.)
>
> It could lead to such a device, but it wouldn’t necessitate it.

But to me, there is no intrinsic reason why it wouldn't, other than a  
post-hoc "that's unbalancing." If we were to stipulate that the laws  
of physics can, in some part, control PE, then there should be a  
better reason why this wouldn't be possible.

>   There
> is much within the scope of Torg which is possible but realistically
> unattainable.

Your point and the examples which support it are reasonable and well- 
formulated. Your point is:

"Many tools can be unbalancing, in the context of the game. Just  
because PE-controlling Tech tools can be unbalancing, doesn't mean  
the theory behind them is flawed or that we must exclude all such  
tools."

You are correct. I think the theory is flawed, but not because its  
possible effects unbalance the game.

(Although the unbalancing aspects of them do give me pause.)

>> More, this argument is irrelevant: I didn't make the "always subject
>> to" claim. What I said was far more reasonable and accurate: This
>> evidence indicates that PE violates physical laws, and (AFAIK) no
>> evidence indicates the opposite.
>
> You didn’t explicitly make the “always subject to” argument, but it’s
> implicit in your argument (even as you’re rephrased it).

Your argument was: "You say that, because PE can override Tech tools,  
it must always do so. Since Kill Technology can override Tech,  
doesn't this force you to conclude that miracles always override Tech?"

The first sentence is incorrect. I did not say that: "because PE can  
override Tech tools, it must always do so." What I said was: " There  
is evidence that indicates that PE violates physical laws, and  
(AFAIK) no evidence to the contrary."

More, the position you impute to me-"PE can always override Tech  
tools"- is not my position. That's not what I am saying, and if It  
were, I'd be wrong.

A tool from one cosm that is in another cosm is always- no matter the  
axioms involved- contradictory (at best, a 0-Case). Yet, PE cannot  
shut down this tool (the 0-Case contradiction), as the user is immune  
to disconnection. PE doesn't always override Tech tools, it can never  
override 0-Case contradictions.*

My actual position is: Physical laws can never control PE. This is  
quite different from "PE can always control the laws of physics."

*Now, the 0-Case exception exists only because the Everlaws define  
the rules in this manner. If they defined the rules differently, all  
contradictions could be removed, even 0-Case ones. So, if the  
Everlaws made it so, then PE could always override Tech. This same  
logic doesn't extend to Kill Technology.

>> evidence indicates the opposite.

>   If PE can
> violate physical laws and manipulate technology, but technology cannot
> perceive or manipulate PE, then Tech is always subordinate to PE.

Which wasn't your argument (see above).

Yes, PE can violate the laws of physics (when, where, and how the  
Everlaws determine), but the laws of physics can never control PE.  
That's the definition of "transcendental."

Again, this logic doesn't extend to the Kill Technology miracle.

>>> Does a Summon Demon spell mean that Spirituality is always
>>> subject to Magic?
>>
>> Demon's aren't Spiritual, in Torg. This may be a mistake (I've argued
>> so, in the past), but this is the case.
>
> Demons may be summoned by magic and they might require Magic 9 to
> physically manifest, but the fact that they can be turned by Ward  
> Enemy
> indicates that there is more to them than whatever magical component
> they might have; they are as Spiritual as they are Magical.

Humans can be affected by miracles, which means that, in Torg, demons  
are as spiritual as humans: both can be affected by miracles.

On point, no, the logic I apply to why the Everlaws override the laws  
of physics (magic, et. al.) cannot be extended, via reductio ad  
absurdum, to the situations here discussed, as you've misstated my my  
logic.

>>> Just how common do you think Tech (or other axiom) 33 cosms are,
>>> anyway?   I mean, really.
>>
>> It's irrelevant, as I pointed out. Arguing that these devices should
>> be restricted by axiom is, in practical terms, an argument that these
>> devices should be restricted.
>
> I don’t believe that we’ve ever disagreed on whether such devices
> should be restricted, but rather how and to what degree they should be
> restricted.  You prefer to preclude your existence altogether, and I
> prefer to make them possible, albeit extremely unlikely.  As such, the
> commonality (or rarity) of Tech 33 cosms is germane to my argument.

As you said above, whether the tool is balanced or not is irrelevant  
(my restatement, possibly flawed): "Just because PE-controlling Tech  
tools can be unbalancing, doesn't mean the theory behind them is  
flawed or that we must exclude all such tools."

By the same token, just because PE-controlling Tech tools can be  
balanced, doesn't mean the theory behind them is solid, or that we  
must include any such tools.

Hence, balance isn't necessarily a controlling precept or a  
dispositive argument.

>
>> I'm building my axiom charts so that they anticipate and support as
>> many cosms/settings as desired.
>
> With the exception of cosms and settings such as Kadandra and the Star
> Sphere which have developed axiom-based Reality tools.

Not true. I'd allow them to have the same tools as they do now- and  
gave similar tools to Orrorsh- but rather than them being tools of  
the axioms, they're transcendental tools.

Example: the cosm gate Mara uses is the Gate group power, not a Tech  
tool. Same tool, different principles, the principles being modified  
so as to be more logical and coherent.

Now, if I rewrote the Space Gods, I might remove some "reality"  
tools, but not because of this line of argumentation.

> That’s fine if
> you don’t desire such cosms, but your axiom charts preclude the use of
> such cosms by others who might desire them.

Not true, as the means to create such tools lie within other areas-  
transcendental powers, not the law of physics.

>> I don't assume the limits of vanilla Torg.
>
> Right, you’re assuming an entirely different (in some cases more
> restrictive) set of limits,

Different, yes. More restrictive, no.

> While I don’t like your approach as much as I like my own, I
> don’t think your way is invalid.

I share those same sentiments.

>> My argument isn't "no one should ever know these truths" but
>> "individuals who know reality is plastic should be rare, no matter
>> the axiom levels." This makes Storm Knights and High Lords
>> exceptional, not run-of-the-mill.
>>
>> How useful is "run-of-the-mill" SK's?
>>
>> I'm sorry, you can't counter my reasoning by sneering at it: it is
>> solid, even if you disagree.
>
> Right, I get that.  And my argument is that such individuals will be
> rare regardless of whether or not the upper levels of the axioms can
> begin to apprehend the nature of PE and reality.

But less rare, if tools of the axioms can duplicate their abilities.  
How rare are computers? Extend that to a "Create Hardpoint" gadget,  
and you see my concern.

Such abilities are created by the Everlaws, not the laws of physics.

> In my reckoning,
> cosms with any axioms sufficiently advanced to begin to apprehend
> Reality would be so rare that their inclusion within the body of  
> proper
> SKs and HLs would hardly make either SKs and HLs “run-of-the-mill”.

Tech 26 is the breakpoint right now (based on the novels), which  
gives us: Tharkold, Cyberpapacy, Kadandra, and the Space Gods. Add in  
Weird Science, and we get the Nile. That's 4 out of 9 primary  
canonical cosms (including the 7 invaders, CE, and the Space Gods,  
but excluding Kadandra). That's not rare, that's nearly half. And  
that's just Tech. If we extend it to Spirit or Magic, that could  
bring in Aysle and the Living Land (or not).

That's not rare, that's nearly half. That is, in my mind, a problem.

> Your argument seems
> to imply that if any sort of Reality tools become available outside
> your proposed limits anywhere in the Cosmverse that soon every SK and
> her thrice-dead grandmother (Occult ritual gone horribly wrong; don’t
> ask) will be bristling with ridiculous, game-breaking tools.

The tools, in and of themselves, are ridiculous. But, the imputation  
of making them tools is that they are known and available: even if  
rare as nukes, nukes are available to eight countries (in the modern  
world). In a Tech 33 cosm, if such tools are possible, they would be  
just as available (or else become little more than a Plot Device).

Your main point seems to be that such tools are neat and colorful. If  
so, why deliberately strive to make them rare, nay, unique. If  
something is so cool, why not let it be available?

If it's unique, or sufficiently rare, it might as well be a Plot Device.

I think "R"-eality-based tools are cool, when limited to P-Rateds.  
This makes them available everywhere (potentially), but only to  
exceptional individuals. This is more available than rare or unique,  
but heightens the exceptional nature of PE and SK's, instead of  
diminishing it.

Yes, I believe that making "R"-eality based abilities into Tech tools  
robs them of their exceptional nature, and diminishes the exceptional  
nature of both SK's and High Lords. I want to go the opposite direction.

This is only my opinion, and no one else need agree.

> I’ll
> admit that such isn’t likely your intent, but that seems to be a
> consequence of your rhetorical thrust.  I apologize if I seemed to
> sneer at your argument, but I find it difficult not to smile a bit at
> that sort of overstatement.
>
>> You are asserting that I am crusading for a change to the canon: this
>> is patently false.
>
> No, I’m asserting that your proposed changes invalidate portions of
> previously established Torg material irrespective of your intentions.
> Whether or not that is a negative thing depends entirely on how
> attached one might be to those portions of canon.  For instance, I  
> like
> the idea that Kadandra has stumbled onto some of the workings of the
> Cosmverse without the intervention of a DD or E-shard.  It allows them
> to be a palpable help to Core Earth without having all the answers
> themselves.  It allows a GM to build a scenario that pits Scitopianism
> against scientific hubris: where Kadandran science forges ahead with
> unshakable confidence precisely because of how much it *doesn’t* (and
> ultimately, *cannot*) understand.  I like the idea of an ally for Core
> Earth who isn’t directly tied to the Apieros/TNO struggle (as would be
> necessary if Reality effects were only available through transcendent
> means), an ally who has better reasons for not just stepping in and
> winning the P-Wars for Core Earth than “the Prime Directive/our
> philosophy forbids it” (*shakes fist at Space Gods*).  YMMV, of  
> course,
> but that’s where I’m coming from.
>
>> It isn't in the canon Magic axiom, and it isn't in my Magic axiom.
>
> Right.  It’s an extension of the idea of Reality-tech.  I don’t  
> think I
> asserted otherwise, but I’m sorry if any of what I wrote appeared  
> to do
> so.
>
>> This just isn't a crusade against the canon. It's only my refusal to
>> extend the material in ways I find obnoxious.
>
> Fair enough.  Likewise, my intent isn't to harangue you, but rather to
> explain my position further.
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________ 
> ______________
> Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's
> Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
> http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222
> _______________________________________________
> Torg mailing list
> Torg at justintimeadventures.com
> http://www.justintimeadventures.com/mailman/listinfo/torg

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