613 réponses à ce sujet

[RShara]

[quote]CavScout wrote...

[quote]MissMaster_2 wrote...

Can't just be evil? How hard is that!!!?[/quote]

Logic and evil are not mutually exclusive.[/quote]

[quote]RShara wrote...

I don't see how a machine can think a
never ending loop logical. Usually, in programs, this causes a lock up
and a break down.[/quote

[Kelgair]

Golden_Boy187 wrote...

3. what synthetic life form was a threat in the last cycle? what Geth type enemy were the Protheans fighting?

Ah found it.

[A Paperback Hero]

JPVS wrote...

We cannot say the galaxy's resources are infine. New stars are born, new planets formed, etc. It may take millions of years but the Reapers are eternal, so a dozen million of years for them means nothing. Now you can argue the universe is ending but even the actual physicists can't say that for a fact. So, as far as we know, the resources are indeed infinite, although it takes millions of years to get new resources available.

In the end, the Child/Catalyst logic makes sense only if during the countless cycles it has seen, their logic has been proven true: that synthetics always turn on their creators and try to annihilate organic life. So they harvest civilizations capable of creating synthetic life, in order to allow the less advanced ones to flourish until those become capable of creating synthetic life.
However, being an AI with just calculus, once a single example against that logic was shown, the AI's logic would be destroyed and it would then be forced to accept the possibility that at least in that cycle, the synthetics wouldn't turn on their creators. And wasn't that proven by EDI wanting to help organics and getting peace between Geth and the Quarians? That is the real flaw of the game, not being able to destroy the ChildCatalyst/s logic with what the commander Shepard learned during his life.

This formulation is only accurate in a full paragon run where you allow this to happen. However your statement does make sense.

[A Paperback Hero]

[quote]RShara wrote...

[quote]CavScout wrote...

[quote]MissMaster_2 wrote...

Can't just be evil? How hard is that!!!?[/quote]

Logic and evil are not mutually exclusive.[/quote]

[quote]RShara wrote...

I don't see how a machine can think a
never ending loop logical. Usually, in programs, this causes a lock up
and a break down.[/quote

[/quote]

quote of truef.

[nicksmi56]

.......GAH I HATE THESE ENDINGS

[Biotic Sage]

JeosDinas wrote...

Joshuaaaaa wrote...

It definitely seemed to me like Organics were being preserved. I mean, did you see the "Hall of Dead Bloody Corpses" on the citadel at the very end?

Who knows. Maybe they mean't to put them all on ice, but ran out of ice.

I believe the idea is that because Reapers are partially composed using the DNA of the reaped species, there's some testament that those beings existed.

In a twisted, disturbing way, the Reapers' "preservation" method is actually more permanent than naturally living and dying.  Not saying I, as a living, sentient being want it, just that logically, if the Reapers actually believe in the inevitability of synthetics wiping out organics, they are acting pragmatically and in the best way to preserve life.

[JPVS]

A Paperback Hero wrote...

JPVS wrote...

We cannot say the galaxy's resources are infine. New stars are born, new planets formed, etc. It may take millions of years but the Reapers are eternal, so a dozen million of years for them means nothing. Now you can argue the universe is ending but even the actual physicists can't say that for a fact. So, as far as we know, the resources are indeed infinite, although it takes millions of years to get new resources available.

In the end, the Child/Catalyst logic makes sense only if during the countless cycles it has seen, their logic has been proven true: that synthetics always turn on their creators and try to annihilate organic life. So they harvest civilizations capable of creating synthetic life, in order to allow the less advanced ones to flourish until those become capable of creating synthetic life.
However, being an AI with just calculus, once a single example against that logic was shown, the AI's logic would be destroyed and it would then be forced to accept the possibility that at least in that cycle, the synthetics wouldn't turn on their creators. And wasn't that proven by EDI wanting to help organics and getting peace between Geth and the Quarians? That is the real flaw of the game, not being able to destroy the ChildCatalyst/s logic with what the commander Shepard learned during his life.

This formulation is only accurate in a full paragon run where you allow this to happen. However your statement does make sense.

Yes, of course, but EDI can still serve as an example of an AI aiding the organics on its own free will. All it takes is one flaw in the equation for it to fail.

Modifié par JPVS, 18 mars 2012 - 12:42 .

[CavScout]

A Paperback Hero wrote...

origlo wrote...

CavScout wrote...

origlo wrote...

I understand the (flawed) logic behind the Reapers, but the truth is that what they are doing is killing all organics, no matter how much time it takes. In math when you divide a number by two infinte times you get a zero in the end....

You do know this is false, right?

When we get to the point that the reapers come to "harvest" your atoms i think we can call it a zero.

infinity divided by infinite is zero. That's basic math.

 
No, it's not zero. That's basic math.

Reapers kill sentient organics into infinity. less organics allowed to evolve to sentient organics to infinity. The value is still zero as no organic species is allowed the freedom to make the choice to thrive or destroy themselves inevitably with synths .

The premise you've created your conclusion from is false, therefore your conclusion is false.

Modifié par CavScout, 18 mars 2012 - 12:42 .

[RShara]

The Metacon wars were caused by a group of organics that turned themselves into synthetic/organic hybrids and kept going until there was little of the organic left.

Sound familiar?

[A Paperback Hero]

nicksmi56 wrote...

.......GAH I HATE THESE ENDINGS

Agreed many of us do. That could possibly be changing, though for the better is anyone's guess.

[Lawliet89]

Someone wrote this: https://docs.google....review?sle=true

[Xandurpein]

Of course it's just one of the many inconsistencies in this stupid end, but the the writers grasp of evolution is so appallingly bad it's almost Orwelian 1984 speak.

The Starchild claims that if nature is left to follow it's path unchecked, then eventually synthetic life will destroy it's organic creators. Regardless of whther such an outcome is true or not, according to Starchild it's the way things will evolve unless checkedby the Reapers. This is evolution.

Instead Starchild proposes intervention by a God-like force to achieve what it calls "The pinnacle of evolution"; synthesis. So Starchild wants to use what is tantamount to "Intelligent design" to protect evolution from... evolution?!

It's not clever. iIt's not thought-provoking. It's just stupid....

Modifié par Xandurpein, 18 mars 2012 - 12:44 .

[RShara]

Infinity divided by infinity can result in a number of answers, but you have to apply L'Hopital's rule to it, which is actually not basic math. In basic math, dividing anything by infinity ends in an indeterminant. Otherwise, an error.

L'Hopital's Rule

But again, off topic.

[MrGPhantome]

Last point and I'm out of here. I didn't realize that so many people would be as, for a lack of a better word, dumb, as they are.

The premise is bad. You can try and add all the superfluous details like "Synthetic/organic hybrid" or replace kill with "preserve." It doesn't change the badness of the core premise.

I can't believe I have to say it like this, but:

BAD THINGS KILL THE GOOD THINGS SO THAT BAD THINGS DON'T KILL GOOD THINGS.

That is the premise of Mass Effect 3. It's a flawed contradicting premise which lead to the bull**** motivation of the catalyst and therefore the absolutely unacceptable ending.

[JeosDinas]

MrGPhantome wrote...

Last point and I'm out of here. I didn't realize that so many people would be as, for a lack of a better word, dumb, as they are.

Statements like this do very little credit to anything you say following them.

[CavScout]

MrGPhantome wrote...

Last point and I'm out of here. I didn't realize that so many people would be as, for a lack of a better word, dumb, as they are.

The premise is bad. You can try and add all the superfluous details like "Synthetic/organic hybrid" or replace kill with "preserve." It doesn't change the badness of the core premise.

I can't believe I have to say it like this, but:

BAD THINGS KILL THE GOOD THINGS SO THAT BAD THINGS DON'T KILL GOOD THINGS.

That is the premise of Mass Effect 3. It's a flawed contradicting premise which lead to the bull**** motivation of the catalyst and therefore the absolutely unacceptable ending.

It's  good thing we don't kill animials so that animals aren't killed.... oh wait.. do we cull animal populations to preserve other animal populations? Oh snap!

[Genera1Nemesis]

Keep in mind that they do not see what they do as 'killing' or 'wiping out' advanced life. They see it as ascending it. Each Reaper is a representative of ONE entire species that has been turned into Reaper form. As Legion explained, Reapers are like hive minds of billions of organic minds.

By this, then we can assume that Harbinger is the Reaper representative of the first species ever harvested. And every one of those billions of minds was fanatical in imposing this 'galactic order'.

[Blinks]

If organic evolution is chaos... wouldn't allowing them to create synthetics that destroy all organic life be allowing the cycle to naturally restore order to itself?

Or would synthetics then create organics that could destroy all synthetics?

Modifié par Blinks, 18 mars 2012 - 12:48 .

[MrGPhantome]

JeosDinas wrote...
Statements like this do very little credit to anything you say following them.

Sure because dumb people don't like be called out as being dumb.

Good day sir. I'm out.

[RShara]

Do we cull an entire animal species so that another animal species can live to be culled?

[Golden_Boy187]

Kelgair wrote...

Golden_Boy187 wrote...

3. what synthetic life form was a threat in the last cycle? what Geth type enemy were the Protheans fighting?

Ah found it.

so one may only know this for the price of 10 bucks.........and bioware said this DLC will not have a impact on the story. 

Modifié par Golden_Boy187, 18 mars 2012 - 12:51 .

[CavScout]

RShara wrote...

Do we cull an entire animal species so that another animal species can live to be culled?

I am sure plenty examples are out there of a rancher that has killed one animal to preserve another animal that was eventually brought to slaughter.

Modifié par CavScout, 18 mars 2012 - 12:51 .

[JeosDinas]

RShara wrote...

Do we cull an entire animal species so that another animal species can live to be culled?

No. But sometimes we do actively hunt predators so that they don't kill off other animal populations in a certain area.

[RShara]

http://en.wikipedia....Culling]Culling

Also doesn't meet the definition of what the Reapers are doing, since they are not breeding or trying for some specific criteria (which would actually be more cool and make more sense. The entire galaxy is their laboratory and they come every 50k yrs to check on their experiments).

[shepskisaac]

MrGPhantome wrote...

Some how Bioware apologist always turns to semantics to make their arguments seem better.

And somehow people who are set on hating on Bioware appear to be unable of understanding the key difference between synthetics with organic minds - Reapers, and synthetics with AI - the kind of synthetics Reapers are suppoused to potect organics from. Body doesn't matter, it's about the mind.