Book 2 – Page 111

Page by page discussion of the comic.

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby dirocyn » Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:13 am

Zeku wrote:It is impossible for "fate" to exist. It is the grade AAA manifestation of spiritualiazation, moralization, and personal delusion.

It's the purest form of personal delusion, because it is purely tautological. It defines it's own existence by itself, with no external factor.
<snip>
But fate itself is a childish, stupid dead end. Every post on it makes me value the forum less.


Clearly fate is contrary to your personal religious or philosophical framework, and this discussion is making you uncomfortable. Please remember Erfworld is fiction, and is full of things that do not exist in ordinary reality. If Erfworld can have crap golems, flying carpets, and a magic hammer that occasionally turns walnuts into pigeons, it can also have fate. Fate is one of the three axes of magic, it exists within some framework and we haven't yet seen enough about it to fully understand how that works on Erfworld. Anyway, it's a comic book. It's allowed to be childish and stupid. Crap golems.

Also, the concept of fate is very important to a number of religions--particularly Catholicism, but also Norse heathen religions and the ancient Greeks (Delphi Temple) and voodoo (Marie Laveau), just to name a few. Your post is tantamount to saying people who practice those religions are childish and stupid. This does not reflect well on you.
dirocyn
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 3:07 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby drachefly » Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:32 am

effataigus wrote:
ManaCaster wrote:Sheesh, there is clearly no point in discussing this any further. Could you just tell me how much faith you actually have that this theory will play out?
Oooh! Put quatloos on it!


This is exactly what that thread was for. /me does a little dance.
User avatar
drachefly
 
Posts: 1594
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:36 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby arkerpay » Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:33 am

dirocyn wrote:Also, the concept of fate is very important to a number of religions--particularly Catholicism...


Just want to clarify this here. From the Catechism:

"By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, an outstanding manifestation of the divine image."

God, however, has foreknowledge of all events. Thus "fate" is merely a logical extension of His foreknowledge.
arkerpay
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:07 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby Sky Schemer » Fri Jun 28, 2013 10:08 am

╒╦╧╬╩╦╦╛ wrote:
Sky Schemer wrote:
Sir_Dr_D wrote:I don't think it is a matter of her thinking she is a better stategist then those around her. It is just a matter of her not having the patience to wait. She has a plan, so she acts on it, thinking fate will protect her.


This was more or less Sylvia's approach, too.


Ooooo, burn!


She did that, too. ;)
Sky Schemer
Erfabet Supporter!
Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:39 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby ╒╦╧╬╩╦╦╛ » Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:19 am

Sky Schemer wrote:
╒╦╧╬╩╦╦╛ wrote:
Sky Schemer wrote:
This was more or less Sylvia's approach, too.


Ooooo, burn!


She did that, too. ;)


That was the joke really :P
3 Naughtymancers of different disciplines walk into a bar... wait, forget what I just said. A shockmancer and a croakamancer walk into a bar.
User avatar
╒╦╧╬╩╦╦╛
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 1:54 pm
Location: Québec, Canada

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby Zeku » Fri Jun 28, 2013 2:14 pm

dirocyn wrote:
Zeku wrote:people who practice those religions are childish and stupid. This does not reflect well on you.


Im not sure I agree that those religions believe in fate (as I'm defining it) but if they do, then my conclusion is more accurate than ever. It can reflect in any direction it wants to.
Zeku
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:35 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby ManaCaster » Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:05 pm

Zeku wrote:It is impossible for "fate" to exist. It is the grade AAA manifestation of spiritualiazation, moralization, and personal delusion

It's the purest form of personal delusion, because it is purely tautological. It defines it's own existence by itself, with no external factor....

THIS IS NOT FATE, IT IS THE MEDDLING OF AN EXTERNAL BEING.

Does it matter? "Fate" is presumably the will of the Titans, just like Fate is sometimes said to be the will of God. It is a perfectly acceptable name for the force in question. Just like "God" is a suitable metaphor for the collective will of the universe, whether or not any actual cosmic super beings exist. It's not a big deal.

drachefly wrote:
effataigus wrote:
ManaCaster wrote:Sheesh, there is clearly no point in discussing this any further. Could you just tell me how much faith you actually have that this theory will play out?
Oooh! Put quatloos on it!


This is exactly what that thread was for. /me does a little dance.

OK. I'll post an offer on that thread if you're interested, Whispri.
ManaCaster
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:06 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby multilis » Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:51 pm

"t is impossible for "fate" to exist. "

It is obvious possible for fate to exist. For example: We can not prove we are not living in a computer simulation, etc, just as those in erfworld can't. In such a computer simulation, it is possible to pre-calculate end results, manipulate results, etc, in fashion similar to what occurs by "Fate" in Erfworld. For example, I can generate a "random new world" in many games. If I choose a non random seed such as 103713, the map will always look the same in the end.

Humans can predict the weather right now with our very limited computing power. Given computers millions of times more powerful and a means to manipulate some details, eg satellites that orbit earth and aim some extra light at different areas of earth, it may be possible to mostly control the weather. Thus in far future day, the emperor of earth could declare, "Every year on my birthday it will be sunny weather in my capital city and representatives of the peoples will come and cheer my greatness" And thus his decree is fated to happen! The weather is manipulated, a vast computer network watches all emails, words, actions of all people, powerful computers find any that don't like the emperor and arrange "accidents" for them, and humans are selectively breed to be the emperor's best friends (similar to dogs breeds today). Government could also embed a chip into the heads of every human, so that each is tracked, and if required manipulated with electric pulses and/or drugs. As result 99.99999% chance that what the emperor of earth decrees happens, his word is "Fate". (The world government is smart enough to only decree what they can predict and manipulate to come true)

If humans can build self-replicating machines and computer continues to improve then obviously one day it may be possible to have such an "emperor" here. NSA with only a small fraction of worlds computer budget can already capture details on much of world's communications, and process vast amounts of data. We can already build machines that manipulate weather to small degree, and a good politician with enough power "can fool most of people most of time", eg google "night of long knives".
multilis
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby Zeku » Fri Jun 28, 2013 7:36 pm

multilis wrote:In such a computer simulation, it is possible to pre-calculate end results, manipulate results, etc, in fashion similar to what occurs by "Fate" in Erfworld


I don't think you followed the argument. Whether the simulation is deterministic or not, it's still not fate. It is either causation or chaos.

The "emperor" in your example is also not fate, he is a manipulator.

And to the other poster

It 100% matters what the agent of control is. If we just call it 'fate' it is an assumption that predestination exists, without knowing the form. This is not predestination, since you don't even know for sure that you are predestined. It's "speculation" which is not the same as fate, by any definition.

My gripe is that Fate is capitalized like it's a real thing. Sure, Fate magic exists within Erfworld. That simply means that the predictamancers are gloriously effective at narrowing down divergent possibilities into one outcome that they desire, or it means that the read the signs which reference to an external being's will, or..... they observe the holistic, total effect of all causal events within Erfworld.

This last possibility would mean that "early events" guarantee very specific outcomes at a later time in Erfworld. (These are the first few words in the comic) In other words, the butterfly effect works differently in Erfworld. But that is just Erfworld determinism, not Fate. This would imply that the Erfworld Big Bang decided how everything was going to turn out billions of years ahead of time. That works for me, but it makes Erfworld a universe without any free will, or decision making power.

What is Parson then? If Fate exists, how is he making decisions? Is he destroying a purely deterministic world with his decision making power? Doesn't that make him a God? What is 'Fate' in the presence of a God?
Zeku
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:35 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby multilis » Fri Jun 28, 2013 7:53 pm

Words like Fate, omnipotent, etc can mean different things.

For example "if God can do anything can he make a rock so big that he can't move it?"

An ancient definition for omnipotent "God" was instead simply more powerful than everyone else combined, no one could stop him rather than infinity power.

"Fate" with capital letter can mean similar thing. We use capitalized emphasis even for titles of important people and other nouns, eg the Dungeon Master.

Greeks, Romans, Norse etc had gods of Love, War, Death, Fates, etc, each able to do a stronger than anyone else but usually still limited manipulation of their sphere of influence.
Last edited by multilis on Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:08 pm, edited 3 times in total.
multilis
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby Aquillion » Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:00 pm

Zeku wrote:I don't think you followed the argument. Whether the simulation is deterministic or not, it's still not fate. It is either causation or chaos.

The "emperor" in your example is also not fate, he is a manipulator.

And to the other poster

It 100% matters what the agent of control is. If we just call it 'fate' it is an assumption that predestination exists, without knowing the form. This is not predestination, since you don't even know for sure that you are predestined. It's "speculation" which is not the same as fate, by any definition.

My gripe is that Fate is capitalized like it's a real thing. Sure, Fate magic exists within Erfworld. That simply means that the predictamancers are gloriously effective at narrowing down divergent possibilities into one outcome that they desire, or it means that the read the signs which reference to an external being's will, or..... they observe the holistic, total effect of all causal events within Erfworld.

This last possibility would mean that "early events" guarantee very specific outcomes at a later time in Erfworld. (These are the first few words in the comic) In other words, the butterfly effect works differently in Erfworld. But that is just Erfworld determinism, not Fate. This would imply that the Erfworld Big Bang decided how everything was going to turn out billions of years ahead of time. That works for me, but it makes Erfworld a universe without any free will, or decision making power.

What is Parson then? If Fate exists, how is he making decisions? Is he destroying a purely deterministic world with his decision making power? Doesn't that make him a God? What is 'Fate' in the presence of a God?
But the thing is, in Erfrworld, we know what Fate is (more or less.) It's a cheat. It's an explicit magical force or supernatural law (the distinction is not necessarily meaningful in Erfworld) that manipulates events towards specific ends. You might object to people calling that "fate" (since, yeah, it doesn't match what some people mean when they use the term), and sure -- you're not wrong in saying that Fate in Erfworld more properly resembles a discrete external being.

But it's not like that's a new thing, either -- I mean, it's not like that definition of Fate (as a specific actor or set of actors who directly manipulates the world towards certain ends, generally determined by what they say is "necessary") is at all new. In fact, our very word for Fate, comes from the term for the three Greek goddesses (the Moirai, or Fata) who supposedly spun out the destiny of all things. Fate, as originally defined by the Greeks, was entirely governed by explicit manipulators! In fact, it isn't a stretch to say that one definition of Fate, in a religious world, is "the plan written by the gods."

Erfworld is sort-of a religious world -- its Titans take the place of gods -- so it's not-unlikely that Fate is something they designed, a grand plan which they designed the magic of the universe (or one axis of its magic) to consciously enforce. This is no different than the vast majority of interpretations of Fate throughout real-world history.
Aquillion
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 4:45 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby effataigus » Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:33 pm

multilis wrote:Words like Fate, omnipotent, etc can mean different things.

For example "if God can do anything can he make a rock so big that he can't move it?"
Well, if you are omnipotent, then among your powers would be the power to be no longer omnipotent, no? Wouldn't that be all that making that rock would be?

Never struck me as a paradox, but mebbe I'm missing something.
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 – Page 111

Postby Pokota » Fri Jun 28, 2013 10:31 pm

As an aside, the problem with the omnipotence paradox is that it's treated like an either/or scenario when "all powerful" includes the power to limit - and unlimit - self.
zyxophoj wrote:Also, it depends rather heavily on Wanda ... not being Wanda.
User avatar
Pokota
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:55 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby LordAcme » Sat Jun 29, 2013 12:38 am

effataigus wrote:
LordAcme wrote:Even after all the arguments put forth, I still can't lay the blame for every bad outcome she's been involved in on her shoulders. To do so presupposes that she should have the qualities of a strategist instead of a Chief Caster. The fact that in Kingworld she's acting as a commander doesn't obviate the fact that she's had Chief Warlords and Parson counseling her every move.
I think you are misunderstanding the "charges" I level at her, so to speak. I am not saying that her interference results in bad outcomes. Quite the contrary, I think our good friend Manos is working very hard to make her poor decisions work out okay for her (on timescales of a book or longer).

No, the criticism is that she presupposes that she has all of the qualities of a strategist as well as a chief caster, when she does not. She ignored, cut off, or ditched her chief warlord, the enemy's former chief warlord and her loyal slave, and her future chief warlord all within the span of 3 panels or so leading up to Kingworld... because she thought she knew better than them.


Ok, sorry if I misread your points. It's tough to catch nuances in a forum debate :) I do agree that she got overconfident there. She is the fated one, she's on a roll crushing everything in sight, she's got her main enemy right in the sights of a very big army and a surprise force custom designed to trash their kind of force. PLUS she can mass decrypt entire armies from the fallen and those units rise with full hitpoints, move and loyalty.

So yeah, she was riding for a fall there, and Jillian did a Charlie Rule 9 on her bigtime. We'll see if this constitutes a lesson learned for her. (Not all that confident though, she's still got that zealot look on her face :\ )
LordAcme
I am a Tool!
I am a Tool!
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 10:20 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby Whispri » Sat Jun 29, 2013 8:40 am

ManaCaster wrote:
drachefly wrote:
effataigus wrote:Oooh! Put quatloos on it!

This is exactly what that thread was for. /me does a little dance.

OK. I'll post an offer on that thread if you're interested, Whispri.

a) I tried a bet along those lines, over a year ago. I kept it open for quite a while. No one bit. There has to come a point when the time is up so to speak.
b) I'm not interested in using that thread for Boop contests and am almost mildly vexed with whoever it was brought it up. Quatloo bets should be for fun, not for headbutting. I would thus reject a bet motivated by such reasons on principal.
c) I have over ninty quatloos in outstanding bets at the moment and I would prefer to wait until a few have been settled before making further bets.
d) If I did want to make a bet along those lines, I could find better potential returns for a lower stake by entering a pool that's open at the moment.
e) Finally, that bets really a bit of a goal post shift. We were discussing viabilty, not probability.

effataigus wrote:Zilfallon makes an interesting point. Maggie is also bad at listening to the people she is responsible to, and drove the plot forward in a big way through her disobedience in the beginning of book 2 issue 2. However, unlike Wanda who ignores everyone, Maggie has mostly ignored Stanley, and I can identify with that. This is not a case of Maggie not deferring to a superior tactician. This was her insisting upon deferring to the best tactician she knew. She did then blunder in getting TGMTTA involved, but she did that in an attempt to aid Parson in the way she thought was best, and, while underhanded, she didn't disobey Parson there to my memory.

Ψ
Points for tenacity, but... Whispri, looks like you're still making the case that Wanda isn't a bad tactician. Sky, you listed names rather than examples in the first part, and you listed Wanda's ambition and judgment in 2 of 3 main drivers of the plot in the second. This seems to undermine your argument that Wanda's bad decisions can't be a main driver because there are much more important drivers. The good news is that I've divined that we are thinking about this differently enough that, to proceed, we would have to hash out a common definition of "bad decisions," and "driving the plot." I'm guessing that, if we did, we'd find that we agree upon some kernels of truth that we are writing about very differently. However, that would probably be a tedious conversation (not meant as an insult, it would be tedious with anyone), so I am disengaging on this matter.

Parson wanted the new Chief Warlord to be someone in Wanda's stack, as they needed the bonus. He said as much when Stanley asked him if he wanted the job himself. He was showing Stanley a list of arguments in favour of those he considered real choices for Chief Warlord at the very moment Maggie pulled a Delphie and his name wasn't on the list. So yes, she ignored him. In a way Wanda never has.

Perhaps so, but I was also responding to complaints you made about Wanda's actions. You've yet to provide an example of bad decision making on Wanda's part you're willing to defend.
Whispri
YOTD + Erfabet Supporter!
YOTD + Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 643
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 9:02 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby drachefly » Sat Jun 29, 2013 12:09 pm

Whispri wrote:b) I'm not interested in using that thread for Boop contests and am almost mildly vexed with whoever it was brought it up. Quatloo bets should be for fun, not for headbutting. I would thus reject a bet motivated by such reasons on principal


That'd be me, kind of. It wasn't for a Boop contest - I thought the betting thread would be fun, but mainly I thought it would get people to ground their thoughts more thoroughly by introducing real (if trivial) consequences to holding positions.
User avatar
drachefly
 
Posts: 1594
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:36 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby Oberon » Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:49 am

There are 21 pages of this thread which I do not care to wade though.
Has anyone suggested that Parson could have all of the dead moved into the MK, and then decrypted there? That might be the perfect cheat to get around the gates killing all non-casters.
I'm not sure what that would do for him, but it was what crossed my mind when I saw the last panel where Parson says to "Yeah, just bring them all in here. Stack 'em like cordwood" and the gate is shining over his shoulder.
How using capslock wins arguments:
Zeroberon wrote:So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.
Oberon
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby MarbitChow » Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:07 am

effataigus wrote:
multilis wrote:Words like Fate, omnipotent, etc can mean different things.
For example "if God can do anything can he make a rock so big that he can't move it?"
Well, if you are omnipotent, then among your powers would be the power to be no longer omnipotent, no? Wouldn't that be all that making that rock would be?
Never struck me as a paradox, but mebbe I'm missing something.

Making himself non-omnipotent isn't really an option, unless it means that he can't become omnipotent again afterwards, and if he can't switch between being omnipotent and not-omnipotent at will, he's not really omnipotent.
An omnipotent god who becomes non-omnipotent only when he wishes to not do something, knowing that he can become omnipotent again at any time, is functionally exactly equivalent to an omnipotent god who simply chooses not to do something.
In order to do that thing, a non-omnipotent (but potentially re-omnipotent) being simply has 1 more step he has to take in order to do it.
He either can't create a rock he can't lift, or he can't become omnipotent again after becoming non-omnipotent. In either case, there's something he can't do, and thus he's not omnipotent.
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 – Page 111

Postby Lilwik » Thu Jul 04, 2013 1:26 pm

Aquillion wrote:But the thing is, in Erfrworld, we know what Fate is (more or less.) It's a cheat. It's an explicit magical force or supernatural law (the distinction is not necessarily meaningful in Erfworld) that manipulates events towards specific ends.
Where do we know that from? In my experience Erfworld has always been vague about the exact nature of Fate.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 111

Postby drachefly » Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:44 am

Oberon wrote:There are 21 pages of this thread which I do not care to wade though.
Has anyone suggested that Parson could have all of the dead moved into the MK, and then decrypted there? That might be the perfect cheat to get around the gates killing all non-casters.
I'm not sure what that would do for him, but it was what crossed my mind when I saw the last panel where Parson says to "Yeah, just bring them all in here. Stack 'em like cordwood" and the gate is shining over his shoulder.


... uh, yeah, that came up.
User avatar
drachefly
 
Posts: 1594
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:36 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Reactions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 4 guests