Predictamancy

[drachefly]

My 'tendrils' notion fits with that - everyone has a fate in the sense of they are going to make choices and something is going to happen to them, but not everyone's fate in that sense is one with such heavy implications that it sends signals back in time. As far as predictamancy is concerned, they haven't got a fate.

[Housellama]

My 'tendrils' notion fits with that - everyone has a fate in the sense of they are going to make choices and something is going to happen to them, but not everyone's fate in that sense is one with such heavy implications that it sends signals back in time. As far as predictamancy is concerned, they haven't got a fate.

Tendrils, fixed points, strings, they all seem to be different aspects of the same thing. If we look at Narrative-Time like Einstein's idea of spacetime, we can see Fate acting like gravity. Every one and every thing has a different weight on the fabric of Narrative-Time. Some things barely make an impression, some things are so 'heavy' that they punch through and create singularities. These are Taz's fixed points. Since this is a 4-dimensional weave, including chronological-time, singularities can punch through back to a previous time. Those are your predictions, and Drachefly's tendrils. Since most of these objects move, an object's path can be traced through narrative time as it moves through the weave, interacting with other objects, being drawn toward the singularity (or singularities). Those paths would be my strings.

This works on a number of levels, since the fate of each individual object would interact with the fate of other objects, changing the courses of both objects. A system like that is largely mechanistic, a place where causality rules. You can account for free will by allowing for a certain amount of variation. Free will isn't absolutely free, especially in a place like Erfworld. In every situation, there are a limited number of responses available to every actor. So you leave a little play in the system and you account for an object bouncing this way instead of that.

This also handles Delphie's 'non-fated' units. It's not that they have no fate at all, it's just that their fate is negligible when compared to a fate-heavy object like Wanda or Jillian. They have plenty enough fate to affect those objects similar to themselves, when not under the influence of a greater force. E.g. our Jetstone archers and their romances. It also handles things like Battlespaces and Jillian's ambush fairly easily. If we look at Erfworld as something like LaPlace's deamon, it could take into account the possible variation (i.e. free will) in each object's path easily enough to be able to make accurate predictions.

[Shai_hulud]

Except "The demon of the place" has a counterpart in the setting, Mathamancy. And they can only make predictions in a probabilistic form.

[Nnelg]

Mathamancy is by no means mutually exclusive with Pedictamancy (if anything, setting certain probabilities to 100% would make things easier for Mathamancers). Math can describe a non-causal system just as well as a causal one.

We know there are non-causal links in Erfworld time... From an event back to the Prediction, and from a battle to the beginning of the turn. It is irrelevant how these point-to-point connections form.

"Fate" is not necessarily a quality that certain units possess. All it means is that, from an in-universe (in-time) perspective, it is not known that they will survive to take part in some certain event. So again, from an in-universe perspective, there is nothing "protecting" them from dying. (Although, technically speaking there's nothing "protecting" units with a fate either except the laws of causality).

[drachefly]

Llama, I was not trying to say that those aspects of the ideas were all that distinct - but our models do differ in that mine is more of a self-consistently generated block universe which in most ways is causal.

[bladestorm]

This discussion seems to ignore Delphies claim that non fated units don't have any "fate" at all. Wanda and Jillian have a fate, not other people. Everyone else can do pretty much whatever they want as long as it doesn't change those two peoples fates.

You could replace the word "fate" with "name" and still be valid for most of that statement. Some units are popped with a Fate, and they almost always have a Name. They may not know it until they need it. Other units are just popped. No name, no fate, no ability to do anything other than what they are popped to do. I wonder if Stanley didn't have a name other than Piker until he found the Hammer. Then at that point, he simply 'knew' that he had a name, and what it was, much like how when Wanda popped, she didn't even know she had a name until she was asked what it was.

From a narrative point of view, the less something impacts the story (or Fate), the less we know about it. Until an NPC has a name, it's just fodder. Once it has a name, it can play a small role in the story (or have a small affect on Fate). Once they get a family and a backstory, they have a much bigger impact. Once you get a unit to the level of detail that it can start making decisions, it starts being affected by all sorts of outside forces -- Duty, Loyalty, Fate, et al.

[Shai_hulud]

Which still ignores everything that Delphie said on the subject. It would be one thing to argue she is an unreliable source of information, but you're not even doing that. You're just blatantly ignoring what the text says. I can't begin to understand why you would do that.

[Nnelg]

This discussion seems to ignore Delphies claim that non fated units don't have any "fate" at all. Wanda and Jillian have a fate, not other people. Everyone else can do pretty much whatever they want as long as it doesn't change those two peoples fates.

You could replace the word "fate" with "name" and still be valid for most of that statement.

Err... I have absolutely no idea what you're going on about. You seem to be discribing how Plot Armor works, not in-universe Predictimancy (besides, cannonically all units in Erfworld have names).

I don't know about anyone else, but my explaination was merely a mathematical model for a theoretical non-causal system (non-causal in the mathematical sense, meaning depending on the future). All the theories I've agreed with, including Shai_hulud's, are merely alternate models that can be applied to that system, from various points of view.


In Shai's model, we are taking an in-universe, non-omniscient point of view of a non-paradoxical timeline. Now, any unit for which there exists relevent data about their future can be labeled as "fated", and the data itself as their "fate".

If there were to pass any event that would preclude such a "fate" from occuring, it would create a paradox. Since one of the postulates is that we are in a non-paradoxical timeline, therefore no such event may come to pass.

While technically there are no limits being imposed on anyone's 'freedoms', this effect can make it appear is if an external force were acting on the system to 'preserve' these unit's "fates". (In actuality, this is an illusion brought on by our lack of omniscience.) Regardless, it still appears as if non-"fated" units have more 'freedom'.

[Shai_hulud]

In Shai's model, we are taking an in-universe, non-omniscient point of view of a non-paradoxical timeline. Now, any unit for which there exists relevent data about their future can be labeled as "fated", and the data itself as their "fate".

That's not what I'm claiming at all. I'm saying it's possible for there to actually be no "future" for that unit at all, even from a 4th dimensional point of view. Their future might really be "undecided" even from "outside" of the universes timeline. That's what Delphie seemed to be claiming anyway.

[Nnelg]

That's not what I'm claiming at all. I'm saying it's possible for there to actually be no "future" for that unit at all, even from a 4th dimensional point of view. Their future might really be "undecided" even from "outside" of the universes timeline. That's what Delphie seemed to be claiming anyway.

I defined my out-of-time view as specifically omniscient, with the entirety of all four dimensions simultaneously knowable. Therefore, it is by definition possible to determine any unit's "future", as from an out-of-time view it is no different from its "past".

But this doesn't have anything to do with Delphie's theories, since she's working from an entirely in-time perspective.

[Shai_hulud]

Therefore, it is by definition possible to determine any unit's "future", as from an out-of-time view it is no different from its "past".

And I'm arguing that a 4 dimensional view point doesn't have to assume a deterministic universe. You refuse to acknowledge a possible set of physical laws where that would make sense, seemingly because you can't separate you're starting assumptions about how our world might work from a fictional universe.

Ok, to make what I'm describing more clear, look at the image on this page: http://www.aetherco.com/narcissist/
Note how there is main body, and then a lot of bubbles/possible futures/probability clusters. An example is given the name "second thoughts". Does this picture help get across the idea of a "wide" road of possible futures, even from the perspective of someone outside of time? Imagine that image, but the "future turns" Sizemore mentioned are in a state of quantum uncertainty(to misuse a scientific term) and the past turns have "collapsed" into the timeline.

[drachefly]

Okay - just to be clear - you hadn't made it clear that that was where you were going.

[Shai_hulud]

Yeah sorry, I'm pretty bad at communicating without visual aids... and I'm not even saying that's how it really works. Just that there's a way for how the casters described it to make sense, even if they are wrong.

[Nnelg]

Well, the way the casters described it already makes sense. In fact, to me it makes more sense with a deterministic universe than a non-deterministic one (if I'm inferring the proper meaning of the word "deterministic").

[TazTheTerrible]

I think it works both with a deterministic and non-deterministic one. Where it gets weird for me is the "partially deterministic" bit. If whatever force is responsible for making things predetermined isn't capable of doing so for all of the universe but only limited aspects, it shouldn't be infallible. If the totality of the universe is too complex to predict, things shouldn't always go as planned.

Again, this is what brought me to my idea of two possible explanations. One being the deterministic universe where things without fate are only "seemingly" fate-less from a predictamancer's point of view, probably because some leeway is needed in order for the universe to be able to reach a state of self-consistency (roughly drachefly's concept). The other is the non-deterministic option where the force behind Fate has some sort of narrative purpose (possibly conscious) and in this case the existence of the fate-less is leeway necessary because of certain limitations of that force. In this case this force would be very good at predicting, but not perfect and it would make use of the world around the predicted "fixed points" to ensure they come to pass.
The second option is consistent with, but not necessitated by, Delphie's message to Jillian. The line "It is why you exist at all" could be indicative of this, suggesting that when things get off track a bit, Fate will step in and rearrange matters or even create new players in order to bring the world's heading back to the original prophecies.

I personally like the second option better, but because of its narrative value more than the evidence supporting it. Evidence-wise both options seem roughly equally plausible. From a narrative viewpoint though, making the force behind Fate a conscious or at least purposeful actor, potentially even with its own motivation, has a lot more dramatic and narrative potential I feel.

[drachefly]

Have you ever taken differential equations?

Prophecies are a 'boundary value'-type problem, where instead of the boundary being, say, the beginning of time, it's limited information about the middle. It's possible to construct sets of such predictions that aren't consistent, and especially easy to do so if the 'initial' boundary is fully set. But if the prophecies are the primary constraint on the formation of the universe, it's a whole lot easier to generate solutions - you just don't get to use a boundary condition that fully specifies the beginning of time.

[mantimeforgot]

Predictamancers as they are presented in the story need "evidence" in order to make their predictions about anything which is not explicitly Fated to happen. You will notice that in both written and comic texts Predictamancers will start with a vague sense of what is going to happen; I know that you will be at this place, but not what will happen. But then as people do things and the time gets closer the Predictamancer is able to make extremely accurate predictions about what will happen.

This is readily explainable as a kind of future sight with multiple probabilities being looked at (perhaps largely intuitively); As the number of possible outcomes diminishes the confidence and clarity of sight improves.


Fated events are a whole other ball of wax, and we have insufficient insight into the cosmic workings of the world to be able to create hypotheses in which we should have a high degree of confidence. Fated events could be the result of the universe having a self-consistency principle and fated events are NEEDED in order to ensure that the universe is created (or when it is created ensures that the universe up to that point is the same as what happened). We know that each and every (at least thinking being) has a Grandiocosmic String that is their essence (or at least part of their essential characteristics). If two strings were entwined and became inseparable, then a Predictamancer might perceive the separation of the two beings as impossible, and thus they are fated to stay together (or do something together). Its possible that the Titans take an active hand in Fated Events and ensuring that they occur at any cost (for reasons ultimately unknowable to us currently). There are many more possible explanations (though they might perhaps be variations on a theme) as we have so little evidence of how Fate actually works beyond the fact that certain characters that have been told to have Fates.


The biggest question as it relates to Predicatmancy is: Does Parson have a Fate (is it even possible for him to have one)? Seeing as how he is from outside the system, then if he can have a Fate, then this significantly reduces the number of possible explanations for what Fate could be in that universe. He is very often referred to as an "instrument of fate" or thought to be unstoppable by those who might have enough experience with Fate to be able to hazard a guess, but the fact that all the Predictamancers and Thinkamancers are worried about his progress suggests otherwise. He often receives items and information dependent upon the "earth universe" (stupid meals clearly references happy meals; how could the game universe and the system of laws it has in place know this?); how does the game universe's laws process "outside interference?"


The possibility that the entire universe is a coma induced narrative vision (Saline I.V.) while harsh is one possible reason why the game universe seems to have an awareness of the earth universe. But then that doesn't explain Parson's extreme ignorance of the world (if he is generating it; it would seem a pretty strong conclusion that he would at least have a good intuitive understanding of the world if he were generating it) on the one hand, and yet he has an artifact which seems to have very few limitations in terms of what it can calculate in the game world (something an external observer or creator being might be able to do).

MTF

[Nnelg]

Predictamancers as they are presented in the story need "evidence" in order to make their predictions about anything which is not explicitly Fated to happen. You will notice that in both written and comic texts Predictamancers will start with a vague sense of what is going to happen; I know that you will be at this place, but not what will happen. But then as people do things and the time gets closer the Predictamancer is able to make extremely accurate predictions about what will happen.

This is readily explainable as a kind of future sight with multiple probabilities being looked at (perhaps largely intuitively); As the number of possible outcomes diminishes the confidence and clarity of sight improves.

Or, they're just making educated guesses.[/occamsrazor]

[mantimeforgot]

Or, they're just making educated guesses.[/occamsrazor]

Occam's Razor says that all unnecessary factors should be excluded from one's explanation; it is similar to, but by no means equal to, the common sense explanation of the "simplest" explanation is often the right one. The problem with applying Occam's Razor here is that we have very firm evidence that Predictamancers are doing more than just guessing; the things they say are fated are 100% guaranteed to happen no matter how ludicrous the odds of survival or eventual happenstance may actually be.

MTF

[Nnelg]

The problem with applying Occam's Razor here is that we have very firm evidence that Predictamancers are doing more than just guessing; the things they say are fated are 100% guaranteed to happen no matter how ludicrous the odds of survival or eventual happenstance may actually be.

Except that doesn't apply to these "extra details" you claim the Predictamancers are seeing. For instance, when Marie concludes that Haffaton will be the destroyers of Faq, we know because of future events that she is wrong. Therefore, we can conclude that this "extra detail" is some sort of guess, be it a magical or mundane form of guessing. Of the two, Occam's Razor favors the mundane explanation.