[quote]Saphra Deden wrote...
Except it isn't... we've already adapted much of it. Thanix, EDI, and even the implants Cerberus experimented with. We understand all the basic concepts about how Reaper technology works and have already successfully repurposed some of it to suit our needs. [/quote]
If we have the basic theory in place to the extent we can adapt it, then reaper technology isn't anything more than 5 minutes into the future. It doesn't have any of the strategic value you're pushing for.
A great example being proteins. These things are a basic of biochemistry. From discovering them to their potential structure (as in what they're made of) to their functions, it took us about 80-90 years. Doing it in 6 mo. means it is the same, but with
minor feats of engineering.
[quote]Arijharn wrote...
Which is entirely academic because of one
thing you're (consistently) overlooking. We
do understand (to
some degree) Reaper technology. It isn't voodoo magic, we understand the
fundamentals (if not being able to currently duplicate them atm) of
Reaper tech because we are using quite a bit of it already anyway.[/quote]
Science doesn't work that way! There isn't a ''fundamental'' to understand. That doesn't even make sense. It would be like saying we understand how TNF-Alpha works because we understand elementary chemistry.
[quote]Consider the Thanix. It's a Reaper weapon that Turian's managed to not
only duplicate, but also
miniaturize, all within the space
between 6-8 months and two years since the Battle of the Citadel. To
boot, we got the Thanix presumably without culling some 'lesser' species
along the way to melt down.[/quote]
That's Bioware plot magic. Reaper technology is as useful (or dangerous) as Bioware wants it to be, in the same way that Quarians just tell evolution and immunology to go **** itself and die. If you want to engage in fantasy wishful thinking, be my guest.
But let's say you are right - the impressive thanix cannon is
so basic that it effectively takes weeks to understand it. That means the difference between the thanix cannon and our current weapons is non-existent. There's effectively no point to scrounging for reaper tech when we can build our own.
[quote]Matriarch Aethyr or whatever her name is even goes so far as to say that
they should start 'making their own mass relay's' which seems to me
that we're of sufficient technological state to do so (even if we may
not at the moment, fully understand it -- but that's because we also
haven't
tried).[/quote]
Like I said: if reaper technology is so close to ours, the argument is is ''neccesary'' to understand it flies out the window.
[quote]What magical technology has the Reapers deployed? Not even
Indoctrination is some great unknown, as they've already started to
'study' it, whether it's Cerberus, Kahlee Sanders or even the remnants
of Saren's research (and in any case, those would surely provide some
use as stepping stones if nothing else).[/quote]
I didn't say it was magical. I said that if it is as advanced as you claimed, then it's useless. And if it is similar enough we can understand it, it is
also useless because we can just design our own independently.
Of course, this is the other issue with ME as a setting: the reason the reapers win, more often than not, is because technology
stagnates. The other races don't develop new things. Humanity, in the 20-30 years they took to come on the galactic stage, made dramatic advances (medigel, the normandy) which were unheard of for the other races, because humans actually went out and researched.
[quote]The
difference between the technological level between the
Reapers and us at the moment is the method of
producing them. The
theoretic's we understand because we've already demonstrated our
ability to do so, whether from understanding how to 'press the buttons'
to make the Mass Relay work, to actually understanding
how they
work. From understanding how a Reaper 'is wired' in order to
specifically develop
algorithms that take advantage of it.[/quote]
Do you even know what an algorithm is? Or is this one of those Bioware moments where we're just using fancy computer terms?
[quote]As another example; we know how Collector Beam Rifle's work (to a large
degree), but we can fill in the missing bits of our knowledge by looking
at it's 'printing press' to see how the Collector's themselves solved
the problem so we can make adjustments on our own.[/quote]
None of which is useful. If it's close enough we can follow the logic of the mechanism when the complex whole is in front of us, it means we 1) already know what it does 2) already know how it does it. Which means we can built it any time we want. If not, then it's essentially like saying that by ''analyzing'' the human body we could ''easily'' fill in the missing pieces about how things like consciousness works.
[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...
I agree with your point that we need a
theoretical framework to understand Reaper technology and that we'd
start in the middle of the usual path and would have to work backwards.
But then, that's similar to the way we always find scientific
principles: treat Reaper artifacts like any natural phenomenon whose
workings you seek to uncover.[/quote]
Well, no. Scientific discovery doesn't work that way. Observation is useless. You have to understand what you're observing before you're observing it.
[quote]So let me modify my phrasing and to some extent, the scenario: we
should study Reaper technology in order to understand the principles it
is built on. Note that I have given no time frame. Once we understand
the principles, then the Reaper artifacts will help in turning that
understanding to certain applications. It is also quite possible that we
will then build other applications based on the same principles,
diverging from the path the Reapers developed along.[/quote]
That creates a deeper problem. Reaper technology would run on two things: 1) underlying natural processes based on physical laws and 2) engineering feats. Sufficiently advanced engineering feats would, to us, look like undiscovered natural processes.
The thing with science is that you're flying absolutely blind. You don't know if you're ever on the right track, and it's impossible to know (because you can never know you're actually explaining your phenomenon versus just having a fluke theory). Reaper technology can dramatically undercut our understanding by leading us to the
wrong answers that seem to work (because they work with repear tech) without ever teaching us how to build them or build
outside of them.
The argument is that Reaper tech might have benefits. Sure. But the downside is that it essentially restricts our creativity, because we
have to re-invent the framework that reapers (or their creators) used to see the world to get the technology to work.
[quote]Which would mean:
(1) That understanding *will* help in
protecting us from further threats of the same nature, though that will
not happen fast enough to be of use in the war (In my original claim, I
said this was an after-the-Reapers scenario)
(2) It may or may not
help us understand mass relays. It will help if mass relays are based on
the same principles as other Reaper technology, which isn't all that
far-fetched.[/quote]
(1) It may never happen. To give you an example: we understand the basis of many genetic illnesses. We cannot protect against many of them. If we have two sides researching reaper technology,, there is no need for them to discover the same phenomena, use the same frameworks, or explore the same processes. So even
if it was an after-reaper scenario, you could still have 2 entirely different weapons develop (a super thanix cannon and ultra-indoctrination) and if you haven't researched both to the same level as the developing entity, then you can't protect yourself against them at all.
2. We don't need reaper tech to understand mass relays. We know this, because the protheans build one without reaper pieces.
[quote]About the dangers of Reaper technology:
Nowhere have I said we
should put the stuff to general use without having understood it (though
I don't think there will ever be agreement about not using mass relays
anymore). As I said elsewhere, it's possible that after some big
accident Reaper artifacts are parked in a remote location for five
hundred years while people figure out how to deal with it. However, that
doesn't lessen the pressure to understand it.[/quote]
Why would we not use the mass relays? You're treating different technological advances and tools as equivalent. Destroying every reaper and reaper war-tech (e.g. Dragon's Teeth) != eschewing mass relays.
More generally, you can't ''figure out'' how to use something without experimenting on it. And that's supposing that reductionism works. Maybe we need intact reapers to get reaper tech, and otherwise everything is useless. This is all wishful thinking, and relies on hoping that the technology (if we suppose it's sufficiently advanced to actually be useful) is safe to study.
[quote]As for my claim that some faction will inevitably study Reaper
technology after the war, no, that is not ridiculous and I uphold it.
It's just the opposite in fact: I find the assumption that everyone will
agree to leave the stuff alone ridiculous. It is uncertain whether they
will be successful in a short time, but someone will study it and
someone will eventually be successful in understanding the principles
it's based on. That might happen tomorrow or in a thousand years, but
since we cannot assume it won't happen tomorrow, we cannot afford not to
study it ourselves. [/quote]
What's ridiculous is that you take for granted that 1) it will work and they will succeed instead of 2) they will all be indoctrinated and die. Without understanding reaper technology, predicting what will happen when if someone gets a hold of it is just an test of who can come up with the best hypothetical to justify their position.
It's absolutely certain they can't suceed in a short time unless the technology is
so similar that non-reaper tech can make those same advances in similar time. We can clearly assume this, because we've already assumed it is sufficiently advanced to be worth studying over investing R&D into non-reaper technology.
And no, infinite study time does not mean you can understand the principles.
Science does not work that way! Humanity tried to understand the human body since the dawn of recorded memory, but until we had one particular theoretical framework (ours) we made no advances. And it isn't clear how much we know at all. Maybe reaper techn is based on segmenting reality an entirely different way, and our theoretical framework makes it impossible to ever understand reaper tech. A good example being conservation of mass with phlogiston, or ether. And before you say that we rejected those theories, that was because we could have empirical tests - it's not clear that's even possible for reaper technology.
[quote]Also, what Arijharn said. We already understand it in part, and as
far as we know, it might actually work based on principles we already
know. We don't know how deep that understanding goes, but it's a start. I
think that if we can win the war against them, then it is plausible
they aren't so far advanced it would take a thousand years to understand
their technology. [/quote]
Here is the analogy: in the 18th century they understood basic chemistry. They eventually developed the concept of what a protein is. If you gave them a biological treatment agent (these are proteins we now use to treat certain conditions) and told them ''it heals people, go!'' the odds of them even being able to what it is basically is zero. There's no framework for understanding. There's no mechanism for them to work under. Even though the could tell you the chemical formula, there wouldn't even be a way to approaching what the bag contained.
And the thing is, that would be an intact substance that's a fundamental biological building block. They could easily replace to continously use up in experiments, before trying to artificially synthesize it.
With ''reaper pieces'' you'd give Newton half of a jet engine and a wheel and a third of a wheel and ask him to figure out how it goes faster than sound.
Modifié par In Exile, 27 juin 2011 - 03:16 .
Retour en haut
Increased understanding of scientific and technological principles is, as a rule, always desirable. Exceptions need justification.
