Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Adam Getchell <acgetchell@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Old news
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 20:02:48 -0700
>Adam, that's old news... read the warning label on Nintendo or Playstation
>games some time. :)

For that matter, so is DNA computing, quatum computing and qubits, cloning,
etc. etc. Don't play those much anymore, now that there's Starcraft and
Quake II and Unreal ...

Hey, most of Physics except Quantum and General Relativity was invented
2-300 years ago ... ;-) Well, the newest TOE (theory of everything)
involves P-Brane topology (superstrings are old hat). Of course, we still
don't have quantum gravity down.

Studying Physics reads like a long list of physicists names: Killing
vector, Poynting vector, Minkowski space, Lagrangian, Novikov
self-consistency principle, Chandrasekhar limit, Hermitian
self-adjointness, Lorentzian wormholes, Saha equation, Higg's vector boson,
Lie groups, etc. etc.

Physicists in SR should be in for quite a shock ... magic is going to blow
wide open thermodynamics and particularly space-time theories. So you
should feel free to drop the above names as "technobabble" for those
theoretical occultists out there ...

[All of them except the Saha equation (which is the average ionization
fraction of an ionic gas at a given temperature) relate in some form to
General Relativity and/or TOEs which naturally must be revised in the face
of magic.]

>Duct tape is like the Force: There's a Light side, a Dark side, and it
> binds the Universe together.
>Robert Watkins -- robert.watkins@******.com

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 2
From: "Ubiratan P. Alberton" <ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR>
Subject: Re: Old news
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 19:00:43 -0300
Adam Getchell wrote:
>
> Physicists in SR should be in for quite a shock ... magic is going to blow
> wide open thermodynamics and particularly space-time theories. So you
> should feel free to drop the above names as "technobabble" for those
> theoretical occultists out there ...

> [All of them except the Saha equation (which is the average ionization
> fraction of an ionic gas at a given temperature) relate in some form to
> General Relativity and/or TOEs which naturally must be revised in the face
> of magic.]

When dealing with magic, IMHO, ALL Physics turns to useless
tachnobabble...
Magic doesn't obey physics.

Bira
Message no. 3
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Old news
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 08:58:09 +1000
Bira writes:
> When dealing with magic, IMHO, ALL Physics turns to useless
> tachnobabble...
> Magic doesn't obey physics.

Bzzzzztttt... the magic of SR clearly obeys rules and has observable
behaviour. Just because the current theories don't fit doesn't mean that
magic doesn't obey physics. Nuclear bombs don't obey the old Newtonian
theories very well, either.

--
Duct tape is like the Force: There's a Light side, a Dark side, and it
binds the Universe together.
Robert Watkins -- robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 4
From: Caric <caric@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Old news
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 22:20:27 -0700
> From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>

> > When dealing with magic, IMHO, ALL Physics turns to useless
> > tachnobabble...
> > Magic doesn't obey physics.
>
> Bzzzzztttt... the magic of SR clearly obeys rules and has observable
> behaviour. Just because the current theories don't fit doesn't mean that
> magic doesn't obey physics. Nuclear bombs don't obey the old Newtonian
> theories very well, either.


I might quick on the buzzer there, until you can put forth the theories
that magic seems to *consistently* obey you can't make that statement.

Caric
Message no. 5
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Old news
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 15:59:29 +1000
Caric writes:
> > Bzzzzztttt... the magic of SR clearly obeys rules and has observable
> > behaviour. Just because the current theories don't fit doesn't mean that
> > magic doesn't obey physics. Nuclear bombs don't obey the old Newtonian
> > theories very well, either.
>
> I might quick on the buzzer there, until you can put forth the theories
> that magic seems to *consistently* obey you can't make that statement.

Says who? Just because no theory exists doesn't mean that the rules don't
exist. For a more sensible answer, however: SR Magic clearly obeys rules.
They are documented in the main book and the source book.

Physics has no laws for nature to obey. Physics is the study of nature, in
an attempt to describe how it works. If a particular fact or event doesn't
fit the theory, it means the theory is broken, not that a theory isn't
possible.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 6
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Old news
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 12:26:24 +0100
And verily, did Robert Watkins hastily scribble thusly...
|
|Bira writes:
|> When dealing with magic, IMHO, ALL Physics turns to useless
|> tachnobabble...
|> Magic doesn't obey physics.
|
|Bzzzzztttt... the magic of SR clearly obeys rules and has observable
|behaviour. Just because the current theories don't fit doesn't mean that
|magic doesn't obey physics. Nuclear bombs don't obey the old Newtonian
|theories very well, either.

I think magic does actually obey the laws of thermodynamics.
Energy and matter can not be created or destroyed, only changed into another
form of energy or matter.

That's what magic IS. It's the conversion of astral energy into physical
energy or matter, and vice versa.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| Finalist in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 7
From: "RazorGirl ." <chumlikin@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Old news
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 05:13:49 PDT
>> I might quick on the buzzer there, until you can put forth the
theories
>> that magic seems to *consistently* obey you can't make that
statement.
>
>Says who? Just because no theory exists doesn't mean that the rules
don't
>exist. For a more sensible answer, however: SR Magic clearly obeys
rules.
>They are documented in the main book and the source book.

Just because the book says so, doesn't make it so. The book just lays
out the types of magic that have worked consistently with most common
results. Take the Shadowrun Companion. It talks about changing the way
magic works to mess with your "been there cast that" bored magicians.
The book has to have a set of RPG rules in order to play it and
represent it fairly. That doesn't these same rules represent it wholly
and completely. Magic may work in according to the rules, but the rules
may not be all that magic can do.

"You came in that thing? You're braver than i thought."
Star Wars was funny on so many levels.


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 8
From: Brian Moore <mooreb@****.FAC.COM>
Subject: Re: Old news
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 11:39:11 -0400
"Ubiratan P. Alberton" <ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR> said:
> ...
> When dealing with magic, IMHO, ALL Physics turns to useless
> tachnobabble...
> Magic doesn't obey physics.

Let me guess, you play Shamans? They use emotion and inspiration to
make their magic.

On the other hand, Hermetic Mages use hard sciences including physics
and mathematics to develop their magic.

And in any case, as someone else has already pointed out, physics is
simply the study of physical laws. The laws exist whether or not a
physicist has discovered them. The open minded physicists of the Sixth
World probably accept that magic has always been a part of the Laws of
Physics, but a part that they couldn't measure in the Fifth World.
Now they are using Mages to figure out the REAL Laws of Physics.

Imagine a physicist trying to figure out how to make a fusion reactor
using Magic for heat transfer. The basic problem involved in making a
Fusion reactor is letting the heat of the reaction out while keeping
the reaction contained and going. He finds a mage, talks about temperature
altering spells, and sets up some experiments to measure how Magic can
alter the thermodynamics equations he's familiar with. He makes up new
theories, tests them, and generally goes through the scientific process
to determine exactly HOW magic can affect heat transfer. Next thing you
know, he has a working fusion reactor that contains a quickened spell to
transfer some heat out of the reaction. All because he figured out the
physics of thermodynamics combined with magic.

--
Brian Moore, mooreb@***.com | I wrote up a nice script to truncate all News&
First Albany Corp. Sysadmin | Mail sigs that are greater than 4 lines long.
standard disclaimers apply | It is still in beta testing due to an off-by-
Message no. 9
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Old news
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 12:59:18 -0400
At 05:13 AM 8/19/98 PDT, you wrote:

>Just because the book says so, doesn't make it so.

What else are we left to work with then?

>The book just lays
>out the types of magic that have worked consistently with most common
>results.

We're (or at least I) not simply referring to the game rules and mechanics,
but also the "fictional" in-game accounts of how magic works, such as the
theories of Kano and whatnot.

Take the Shadowrun Companion. It talks about changing the way
>magic works to mess with your "been there cast that" bored magicians.
>The book has to have a set of RPG rules in order to play it and
>represent it fairly. That doesn't these same rules represent it wholly
>and completely. Magic may work in according to the rules, but the rules
>may not be all that magic can do.

Or it may simply be that we don't understand all of the rules. I'm
positive that the "chaos" magic from SRCo and CalFree can eventually be
explained and have rules or laws applied to them, in-game theories that is.
It's a simple matter of time, observation and experimentation.

Remember that magic hasn't been around in Shadowrun for all that long; the
first university programs were offered in the mi-2020s and things like
Anchoring weren't discovered until 2053. It's a science in it's infancy.

But it is clear that in-game magic does obey certain rules and laws. There
are certain exceptions, obviously, but those exceptions do not invalidate
the rules.

Erik J., ThD, University of Arizona
Message no. 10
From: "RazorGirl ." <chumlikin@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Old news
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 11:33:03 PDT
>But it is clear that in-game magic does obey certain rules and laws.
>There are certain exceptions, obviously, but those exceptions do not
>invalidate the rules.
>Erik J., ThD, University of Arizona

Yeah, that may be true. But I just get the feeling that Magic doesn't
operate as an absolute science like physics or chemistry. I seems to be
more like a Pseudo science, like psychology. Tons of people doing
statisticly valid experiments with scientificly proven results. But
still contradicting and postulating new theories all the time.

There is a hard core science aspect of Psych. Neruo-physiology or
neuro-chemistry. I am not talking about that side of the discipline. I
am talking about the behaviorists, personality profilers and other
operational psychologists.

Magic seems to be able to produce quantifiable results. So does Psych.
But psych seems to throw all the rules out the door every 50 years. Some
stuff stays, (eg: elementary psycho-analysis) but whole new theories
come in. Magic could work that way too.

With physics, you are describing the laws of the universe. Magic is
describing the effects of a gradually growing energy pattern on the
universe. What is true when the mana is low is different from when it is
medium from when it is at it's peak.

So, I feel you can't hold any rules of magic as hard and fast. It's more
like, this is the best explanation for the moment. Use it until
something changes. Laws of thermo-dynamics and gravity are not likely to
change anytime soon. Our understanding might, but the absolutes won't.


"You came in that thing? You're braver than i thought."
Star Wars was funny on so many levels.


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 11
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Old news
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 16:19:22 -0400
At 11:33 AM 8/19/98 PDT, you wrote:
>>But it is clear that in-game magic does obey certain rules and laws.
>>There are certain exceptions, obviously, but those exceptions do not
>>invalidate the rules.
>>Erik J., ThD, University of Arizona
>
>Yeah, that may be true. But I just get the feeling that Magic doesn't
>operate as an absolute science like physics or chemistry. I seems to be
>more like a Pseudo science, like psychology. Tons of people doing
>statisticly valid experiments with scientificly proven results. But
>still contradicting and postulating new theories all the time.

Ouch. I know lots of people that would be terribly offended if you called
Psychology a pseudo-science.

Remember that pyschology is a very new discipline, created in this century;
chemistry and physics have been subjects for rigorous scientific
examination and experimentation for centuries.

I'm personally convinced that given enough time, psychology will be as
"hard" a science as chemistry for example. It should be able to eventually
(it may take a few millenia) predict exactly what a person should do in any
given situation.

>Magic seems to be able to produce quantifiable results. So does Psych.
>But psych seems to throw all the rules out the door every 50 years. Some
>stuff stays, (eg: elementary psycho-analysis) but whole new theories
>come in. Magic could work that way too.

Of course it does. But that doesn't in any way mean that magic doesn't
have laws. A theory works for a while, but is eventually either proven
wrong or superceded by anothe theory. Psychology is a very young science;
in shadowrun, so is magical theory.

>With physics, you are describing the laws of the universe. Magic is
>describing the effects of a gradually growing energy pattern on the
>universe. What is true when the mana is low is different from when it is
>medium from when it is at it's peak.

True. And you should be able to describe how mana/magic should function in
those different environments. We can predict how an oxygen atom will
behave in different states right now (though not by me). I fail to see any
reason why given enough time, thought and experimentation we shouldn't be
able to do the same with magic.

>So, I feel you can't hold any rules of magic as hard and fast. It's more
>like, this is the best explanation for the moment. Use it until
>something changes. Laws of thermo-dynamics and gravity are not likely to
>change anytime soon. Our understanding might, but the absolutes won't.

The rules are there. Our understanding of those rules changes, and there
are clearly rules that thaumaturgists in Shadowrun haven't even discovered.

Erik J.

Gee, can you tell that I'm a bit hermetic in thought?
Message no. 12
From: "Ubiratan P. Alberton" <ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR>
Subject: Re: Old news
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 22:16:47 -0300
Robert Watkins wrote:
>
> Bira writes:
> > When dealing with magic, IMHO, ALL Physics turns to useless
> > tachnobabble...
> > Magic doesn't obey physics.
>
> Bzzzzztttt... the magic of SR clearly obeys rules and has observable
> behaviour. Just because the current theories don't fit doesn't mean that
> magic doesn't obey physics. Nuclear bombs don't obey the old Newtonian
> theories very well, either.

Well, it may obey rules and observable behavior, but that still
doesn't
mean it obeys _Physics_. It has it's own set of rules. Nuclear bombs
aren't
a good comparison, either, they are nowhere near magic and do obey
physics.
Newton is behind the SOTA :) .

And, speaking of physics, do you think that by 2060 there would be
reactionless drives for spaceships? Using those annoying reaction
rockets it's too damn complicated...

Bira
Message no. 13
From: "Ubiratan P. Alberton" <ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR>
Subject: Re: Old news
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 23:11:46 -0300
Brian Moore wrote:
>
> "Ubiratan P. Alberton" <ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR> said:
> > ...
> > When dealing with magic, IMHO, ALL Physics turns to useless
> > tachnobabble...
> > Magic doesn't obey physics.
>
> Let me guess, you play Shamans? They use emotion and inspiration to
> make their magic.

I am the Game Master. I play 30 billion people at the same time :) .

> On the other hand, Hermetic Mages use hard sciences including physics
> and mathematics to develop their magic.

No, they use _magical_ formulae and rituals. And their magical
view gets applied to everything else (they compare other things to
magic). It's not magic as science, but science as magic :) .
<snip>

Physics and magic are separate things, IMO. In 2060, probably the
more
"weird" physical theories have found practical applications (for,
example,
to build that fusion reactor), but no magic is involved in it.
If magic obeyed physics, why would it be so hard to enchant a
technologically complex object (wich is totally built using Physics
and other sciences)?
Also, few scholars can handle magic theory and physical sciences at
the
same time, and these are rare and highly prized individuals (I'm not
making
any of this up, for the canon followers. See Grimmy 2).

Bira
Message no. 14
From: "Ubiratan P. Alberton" <ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR>
Subject: Re: Old news
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 22:49:09 -0300
>
> I think magic does actually obey the laws of thermodynamics.
> Energy and matter can not be created or destroyed, only changed into another
> form of energy or matter.
>
> That's what magic IS. It's the conversion of astral energy into physical
> energy or matter, and vice versa.
> -------

Astral space and mana aren't matter or energy in the sense that
science
defines it. Magic has its own rules, and it doesn't act according to
anything else :).

Bira
Message no. 15
From: Adam Getchell <acgetchell@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Old news
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:52:07 -0700
> And, speaking of physics, do you think that by 2060 there would be
>reactionless drives for spaceships? Using those annoying reaction
>rockets it's too damn complicated...

No, not unless we can prove the existance of negative matter (distinct from
antimatter) and find some to use. Then one could have a true reactionless
drive. There are several papers by Dr. Robert L. Forward that discuss this.

A fusion rocket, preferable fueled by antimatter, would be more efficient
than the chemical ones we have today. Ion rockets don't develop enough
thrust to be useful unless you're very patient (the one on the current NASA
explorer puts out thrust equivalent to the weight of a peice of paper; it
takes a day to change velocity by 10 m/sec).

Of course, a fusion/plasma rocket would leave a nasty radioactive trail ...
I've got a large textbook on antimatter and its applications if someone
really wanted to know ... suffice it to say that it's possible, even
plausible, if they were to build enough particle accelerators to
manufacture the stuff.

Yet another odd research project occuring at UW ... ;-)

> Bira

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 16
From: Wiebke & Birger Timm <WiebkeT@********.DE>
Subject: Re: Old news
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 12:41:23 +0200
Erik Jameson wrote:

> I'm personally convinced that given enough time, psychology will be as
> "hard" a science as chemistry for example. It should be able to eventually
> (it may take a few millenia) predict exactly what a person should do in any
> given situation.

I don't think so. It's just like the theory of chaos (which I like very
much)...Yes there are rules, there are laws and formulas which things obey,
but you can't predict what will happen. Think of a pinball machine for
example. We know all physical basic elements which the ball obeys. But you're
not able to tell where it will be at which time, which exact direction it will
take, etc.Or the weather. Scientists know most rules but they can't predict
weather for more than a few days, a week at most...
So knowing the rules and laws does not neccessarily mean you can predict
everything. That is because those rules are too complex. And the rules of
magic are very complex. So are those of psychology.

Blix
Message no. 17
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Old news
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 11:34:21 -0600
Wiebke & Birger Timm wrote:
/
/ Erik Jameson wrote:
/
/ > I'm personally convinced that given enough time, psychology will be as
/ > "hard" a science as chemistry for example. It should be able to
eventually
/ > (it may take a few millenia) predict exactly what a person should do in any
/ > given situation.
/
/ I don't think so. It's just like the theory of chaos (which I like very
/ much)...Yes there are rules, there are laws and formulas which things obey,
/ but you can't predict what will happen.

Ditto. Because people are contantly changing (language, culture,
education, knowledge, population, environment, etc) psychology is
constantly changing. There are some basic rules that apply to everyone
99% of the time, but there aren't very many of those.

/ Scientists know most rules but they can't predict
/ weather for more than a few days, a week at most...

:) Want to hear something funny? No one can predict the weather.
What meteoroligists have done is compile statistical data on weather
patterns. They then compare that statistical data to the current
weather pattern. The past when this (or a similar) weather patterns
have occured they know what's happened. They then figure that whatever
has happened the most in the past the most will happened again.

They have no formula for predicting what's going to happen. None,
nada, zip.

Here's a pilot's maxum: You can usually trust current conditions. You
can plan your flight using a 2 hour forecast. You're taking your
chances with a 6 hour forecast. Don't even look at the 12 hour
forecast.

Basically, you can trust what you're currently experiencing and that's
it.

/ ...the rules of magic are very complex. So are those of psychology.

So Magic Theory is one of the Humanities. Somehow that makes perfect
sense :)

-David
--
"Earn what you have been given."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 18
From: Adam Getchell <acgetchell@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Old news
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 10:49:27 -0700
>:) Want to hear something funny? No one can predict the weather.
>What meteoroligists have done is compile statistical data on weather
>patterns. They then compare that statistical data to the current
>weather pattern. The past when this (or a similar) weather patterns
>have occured they know what's happened. They then figure that whatever
>has happened the most in the past the most will happened again.
>
>They have no formula for predicting what's going to happen. None,
>nada, zip.

Well, not quite. There is an equation that predicts how many hurricanes
will occur in the Atlantic that has been dead on. It was published in
Nature and Scientific American. It seems that the most important factor is
the rainfall in the western Sahara region.

>-David
>--
>"Earn what you have been given."
>--
>email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
>http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 19
From: Brian Moore <mooreb@****.FAC.COM>
Subject: Re: Old news
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 17:05:48 -0400
"Ubiratan P. Alberton" <ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR> said:
>
> Robert Watkins wrote:
> >
> > Bira writes:
> > > When dealing with magic, IMHO, ALL Physics turns to useless
> > > tachnobabble...
> > > Magic doesn't obey physics.
> >
> > Bzzzzztttt... the magic of SR clearly obeys rules and has observable
> > behaviour. Just because the current theories don't fit doesn't mean that
> > magic doesn't obey physics. Nuclear bombs don't obey the old Newtonian
> > theories very well, either.
>
> Well, it may obey rules and observable behavior, but that still doesn't
> mean it obeys _Physics_. It has it's own set of rules. Nuclear bombs aren't
> a good comparison, either, they are nowhere near magic and do obey physics.
> Newton is behind the SOTA :) .

It seems like you have your own definition of _Physics_ which is the study
of natural laws EXCLUDING magic. Please check your dictionary. IMHO, you
are looking at things backwards. You see magic as something that doesn't
fit the known laws of physics. I see Physics as the study of ALL natural
laws.

If you discover some new phenomena that breaks the current Laws of Physics
(like Magic, mental telepathy, FTL travel, or whatever), it's because the
LAWS are broken. You don't claim that the new phenomena falls outside the
Laws of Physics, you FIX the Laws of Physics to take the new phenomena into
account.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

--
Brian Moore, mooreb@***.com | I wrote up a nice script to truncate all News&
First Albany Corp. Sysadmin | Mail sigs that are greater than 4 lines long.
standard disclaimers apply | It is still in beta testing due to an off-by-
Message no. 20
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Old news
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 09:30:40 +1000
David Buehrer writes:
> / Scientists know most rules but they can't predict
> / weather for more than a few days, a week at most...
>
> :) Want to hear something funny? No one can predict the weather.
> What meteoroligists have done is compile statistical data on weather
> patterns. They then compare that statistical data to the current
> weather pattern. The past when this (or a similar) weather patterns
> have occured they know what's happened. They then figure that whatever
> has happened the most in the past the most will happened again.
>
> They have no formula for predicting what's going to happen. None,
> nada, zip.

Um... yes, they do. They've got a sufficently large statistical database to
allow them to make predictions along the lines of "There's an 85% chance
that we'll get rain tomorrow, and if we do, then the likely amount will be
so much". Just because the TV weatherman gives absolutes doesn't mean the
met guys issue it like that.

Weather is an example of a chaotic system. Depending on how much detail you
want, you can get good approximations.

As for your pilot's maxim, if a pilot is planning a 12 hour flight, and the
12 hour forecast indicates that the jet stream will be backing against them
all the way, they damn well will take it into account when they calculate
their fuel requirements. If the 6 hour forecast indicates a storm brewing in
the flight path, they'll make plans to get around it if necessary.

Personally, the weather forecast on Monday said that light rain was likely
on Friday (today). Guess what? It rained a bit on the way to work this
morning.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 21
From: Gabriel Birke <GorbiMail@********.DE>
Subject: Re: Old news
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 15:18:26 +0200
Brian Moore <mooreb@****.FAC.COM> said:


>> > Bzzzzztttt... the magic of SR clearly obeys rules and has observable
>> > behaviour. Just because the current theories don't fit doesn't mean
that
>> > magic doesn't obey physics. Nuclear bombs don't obey the old Newtonian
>> > theories very well, either.
>>
>> Well, it may obey rules and observable behavior, but that still
doesn't
>> mean it obeys _Physics_. It has it's own set of rules. Nuclear bombs
aren't
>> a good comparison, either, they are nowhere near magic and do obey
physics.
>> Newton is behind the SOTA :) .
>
>It seems like you have your own definition of _Physics_ which is the study
>of natural laws EXCLUDING magic. Please check your dictionary. IMHO, you
>are looking at things backwards. You see magic as something that doesn't
>fit the known laws of physics. I see Physics as the study of ALL natural
>laws.
>
>If you discover some new phenomena that breaks the current Laws of Physics
>(like Magic, mental telepathy, FTL travel, or whatever), it's because the
>LAWS are broken. You don't claim that the new phenomena falls outside the
>Laws of Physics, you FIX the Laws of Physics to take the new phenomena into
>account.


But that would mean that if you fixed the laws of physics then you can
explain every magical phenomenon AND reproduce it. You could build "mana
batteries" and "magicometer" (don't know where this quote comes from but
whoever made ist also said that such devices are impossible).
Maybe I am wrong but if the "physical" approach to magic should work, then
it would be a hermetical approach.
A shaman doesn't care about physics, he ... gets "tuned" to what we call
reality, not trying to understand it like a physicist. IMHO a physicist will
NEVER understand what a shaman does simply because a shaman has a way of
thinking that is completely different from the physicist.
Message no. 22
From: Gabriel Birke <GorbiMail@********.DE>
Subject: Fw: Re: Old news
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 19:23:12 +0200
Sorry that I didn't remove my mailto-Header, so I wil have to repost
everything I recieved.



>>Gabriel Birke <gorbi@*******.de> said:
>>But that would mean that if you fixed the laws of physics then you can
>>explain every magical phenomenon AND reproduce it. You could build "mana
>
>First you'd have to know the law. We can describe friction roughly. We
>don't have an exact explanation for it. Same with turbulence. Prandtl got
>aerodynamics off to its start because he recognized the boundary layer
>between laminar flow and turbulent flow. Previously, everyone was trying to
>solve the turbulent flow non-linear diffrential equations (such as
>Navier-Stokes).
>
>Speaking of which, it's no longer necessary to solve such equations
>analytically. You can also do it numerically. That's numerical analysis,
>and that's why we use computers so much, and expressions such as
>Runge-Kutta and Moulton-Bashforth predictor-corrector.
>
>I expect one can fashion an equation from statistics, and as I've
>mentioned, there is an exact equation for hurricanes.
>
>Physics will attempt to explain magic. Right now, they've got some
>observations, principles, but I doubt that they've worked out the
>principles to the extent of making mana batteries. In my world they've got
>a primitive mana sensing device, but I don't think that's FASA canon.
>
>>batteries" and "magicometer" (don't know where this quote comes
from but
>>whoever made ist also said that such devices are impossible).
>>Maybe I am wrong but if the "physical" approach to magic should work,
then
>>it would be a hermetical approach.
>>A shaman doesn't care about physics, he ... gets "tuned" to what we call
>>reality, not trying to understand it like a physicist. IMHO a physicist
will
>>NEVER understand what a shaman does simply because a shaman has a way of
>>thinking that is completely different from the physicist.
>
>Right. That doesn't invalidate physics.
>--Adam
Message no. 23
From: Gabriel Birke <GorbiMail@********.DE>
Subject: Fw: Re: Old news
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 19:08:13 +0200
Sorry, I've got problems with my mail program so I have to repost the answer
to my posting because it never reached the list...

>>Maybe I am wrong but if the "physical" approach to magic should work,
then
>>it would be a hermetical approach.
>>A shaman doesn't care about physics, he ... gets "tuned" to what we call
>>reality, not trying to understand it like a physicist. IMHO a physicist
will
>>NEVER understand what a shaman does simply because a shaman has a way of
>>thinking that is completely different from the physicist.
>
>I play a lot of pool here (or billiards). When you make a sho there's 2
>ways to do it. One would be the geometric way, actually making measurements
>on the table, figuring out compimentary angles, how much rotation to put on
>the ball to produce certain effects. If you measure all of these elements
>and reproduce them, you can reproduce shots every time.
>
>The other way is to walk up to the table, eyeball it and let fly.
>
>Both of the techniques operate under the same physical conditions, under
>the same mechanical laws. But you're looking at it in 2 completely
>different ways. One is to study and explain down to the last detail exactly
>what is happening between the ball, another ball, the cushion, etc. The
>other is an intuitive feel to the process, you're just winging it.
>
>In both cases the person is accomplishing his goal (to make the shot), he's
>just doing it in a different way. Like the difference between hermetic and
>shamanic magic. I would think that there are some underlying fundamental
>laws about the way magic would work. Hermetics try to figure out what they
>are and manipulate them to an end. A shaman intuitively understands what he
>can and can't do, and goes with the big picture and not the details.
>
>Sommers, Confirmation #23263
>"Hey, this is better than actually getting some work done."
Message no. 24
From: Brian Moore <mooreb@****.FAC.COM>
Subject: Re: Old news
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 17:34:11 -0400
Gabriel Birke <GorbiMail@********.DE> said:
> <Snip discussion of semantics and whether magic laws are physical laws>
>
> But that would mean that if you fixed the laws of physics then you can
> explain every magical phenomenon AND reproduce it. You could build "mana
> batteries" and "magicometer" (don't know where this quote comes from
but
> whoever made ist also said that such devices are impossible).

We can explain black holes, but we can't build one. There's a lot that
Physics can explain but not reproduce. And more importantly, there's a
lot that Physics can't explain, but can reproduce. Most importantly,
we will never figure out ALL of the laws of Physics.

> Maybe I am wrong but if the "physical" approach to magic should work, then
> it would be a hermetical approach.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but I'll respond anyways.

You can always measure a couch to see if it will fit in a certain spot in
your home. But the world's population is about equally divided between
people who measure and people who just guess. Both methods work most of
the time, so I'd consider both of them valid.

> A shaman doesn't care about physics, he ... gets "tuned" to what we call
> reality, not trying to understand it like a physicist. IMHO a physicist will
> NEVER understand what a shaman does simply because a shaman has a way of
> thinking that is completely different from the physicist.

Sweeping generalities are NEVER correct. :-) If I recall my Myers-Briggs
personality profile information, "visionaries" are intuitive thinkers.
Just the sort of people who "tune" into reality to try to understand it,
or come up with bold new ideas to explain it. There have been a lot of
famous "visionary" physicists.

BTW, your Reply-To field is overriding the list.

--
Brian Moore, mooreb@***.com | I wrote up a nice script to truncate all News&
First Albany Corp. Sysadmin | Mail sigs that are greater than 4 lines long.
standard disclaimers apply | It is still in beta testing due to an off-by-
Message no. 25
From: "Ubiratan P. Alberton" <ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR>
Subject: Re: Old news
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 17:55:31 -0300
> It seems like you have your own definition of _Physics_ which is the study
> of natural laws EXCLUDING magic. Please check your dictionary. IMHO, you
> are looking at things backwards. You see magic as something that doesn't
> fit the known laws of physics. I see Physics as the study of ALL natural
> laws.

Sure, physics studies all natural laws. And magic doens't obey
natural
laws.

> If you discover some new phenomena that breaks the current Laws of Physics
> (like Magic, mental telepathy, FTL travel, or whatever), it's because the
> LAWS are broken. You don't claim that the new phenomena falls outside the
> Laws of Physics, you FIX the Laws of Physics to take the new phenomena into
> account.

FTL travel is physics, alright. A lot of things in SR falls into the
realm
of physics. The matrix obeys the laws of physics. Even if it's metaphor
doesn't seem to, the computer itself still does.

Magic doesn't obey tha laws of physics. Magic is. Just that.

Physicists in SR aren't out of a job. Technology advances wildly,
and many speculative theories today may be proven and being applied
in 2060.

Magic appeared in the SR world, and was integrated into society,
economy, security, etc. But even so, it has not been integrated
into physics. There aren't physical formulae do perform magic.

> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

But is still tech, not magic.

Bira
Message no. 26
From: "Ubiratan P. Alberton" <ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR>
Subject: Re: Old news
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 17:58:15 -0300
Adam Getchell wrote:

<snip>

Thanks. Now I have the info I needed to complete the background for
introducing it in my game :).

BTW, wouldn't a laser rocket be sorta like a reactionless drive?
Not in concept, but in the fact that it needs no reaction mass?

Bira

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Old news, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!