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

Wed Jul 25 02:12:47 EDT 2007

On Jul 24, 2007, at 11:20 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:

> On 7/24/07, Jasyn Jones <jasynj at gmail.com> wrote:

>> 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.
>
> I think you are just trying to pick your summer argument of the year
> :).

What? How can I be picking an argument, when the vast majority of my  
reply was an in-depth agreement with Jim about most things, and most  
of the rest was a simple statement that he had misunderstood what I  
was saying.

I admit, summertime tiffs have seemed to occur, though they're less  
bloody-knuckle without Dave, but I'm not sure this thread can be  
fairly characterized as one.

(And, I still claim that the summertime tiffs are not wholly my  
fault, as it tends to be me unexpectedly defending my position from  
all comers, not me trying to pick a fight. So stop trying to pick a  
fight about me picking fights! 8-D )

> Basically from what is understood about current physics most of the
> limits of the universe (thermodynamics, heisenburg principle,
> special/general relativity, etc) eliminate the possibility for most
> anything that is above tech 25 (and some things listed at 23/24 might
> not be possible).

That's fine, and I explained why that didn't create a problem.

> For the ability to exist, then the basic physics we
> understand have to be gotten around

And I tried to explain how this could happen. So far, we're in  
agreement (nearly exact, AFAICT).

> (in many ways that the Social
> axiom says that at a certain point Arrows rule can be gotten around
> for some unstated amount).

Which, after a discussion with Travis, I realized that not only is  
this impossible, it's irrelevant. Arrow's theorem doesn't do what the  
writers of the sourcebook thought it did. It doesn't limit the Social  
axiom, nor would overcoming it advance the Social axiom. What it was  
thought to do (by the authors) is, arguably, part of how the axiom  
might develop. This advance would be more clear without attaching  
Arrow's Theorem to it.

(More, Arrow's theorem imputes that voting systems are all inherently  
flawed or "unfair", but his criteria for fairness can, and has been,  
debated. It may be that Arrow's theorem, instead of being "overcome",  
will be conclusively proved to be wrong: a voting system that doesn't  
meet his criteria might well be proven to be fair, as his criteria  
for fairness might simply be wrong.)

>> 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.
>
> And maybe that unwritten law is that all Axiom 33's are the same :).

I'm pretty sure that isn't ever going to be a scientific theory, even  
in the game-world.

> I
> mena without a working theory of cosm mechanics,

Did someone call for a crusade against the canon? (Sorry, refers to  
another thread.)

What would such a theory cover, and what questions should it answer?  
(I'm not asking for you to give me such a theory, just asking about  
what holes you think should be filled.)

>> 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.
>
> It is a fundamental limit in our universe.

Definitely, as we understand it now, and probably for the future. I'm  
just acknowledging that there may be a way around it, assuming the  
right circumstances are present.

> Without knowing more about
> how the universe works etc there is no way to figure out if that limit
> is restricted to this cosm,

Easiest assumption: In the same cosm, the laws of physics are exactly  
the same at all axiom levels. More, they are very nearly exactly the  
same across all cosms, save for those cosms which need alternate  
physical laws (like the Nile or a Steampulp reality). And in those  
cosms, World Laws must be present.

>> 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).
>
> In the laws of Social theory, Arrows law is pretty much the
> thermodynamics of social theory...

Well, voting systems theory. In terms of social theory, it's actually  
a complex nit that Arrow picked: a set of criteria which voting  
systems must meet in order to be fair. Since no system can meet  
these, which is provable mathematically, all voting systems must be  
unfair. QED.

However, this is only true if Arrow successfully encapsulated a set  
of fair criteria. He may not have.

> but at a certain point the ability
> of the living to interact with the unliving surpasses it.

>> 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'."

> The next rule that can be
> devised from the original rules is that the higher the axiom, the more
> one axiom can 'emulate' anohter [magic vs tech, social vs spiritual].

This I do not agree with. It may be an observation ("You know, the  
more powerful magic gets, especially with regards to wishes, the more  
it seems to resemble the Spirit axiom."), this doesn't make it a  
rule. Any resemblences are coincidental, not evidence of an abstract  
underlying general rule.

More, the axioms shouldn't be developed with this in mind, but rather  
as internally coherent systems that follow the core definition of the  
axiom ("Tech tools operate according to the laws of physics"). Then,  
resemblences would be coincidental and apt, not arbitrarily imposed  
and hence artificial and illogical.

> The third thing that can be said is that none of us are aware of what
> a 33 universe would look like because we are limited by our own world
> views.

This is often advanced as an argument, but it isn't of necessity  
true. Torg is fiction, as such we can apprehend what it is, because  
humans wrote it, basing it on human literature. Thus, we can  
apprehend what a "33" cosm is like, because we created it. It is  
whatever we say it is.

;)
---
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