1057 réponses à ce sujet

[The Night Mammoth]

The Angry One wrote...

Reapers are more than twice as fast as Citadel ships.

And not dependant on any of the limitations Citadel ships are, so the theoretical time in which it would take any ship we have to travel the vast distances are reality for them, and also half as long. 

Sorry, but it's a dark-age. 

[Taboo]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Reapers are more than twice as fast as Citadel ships.

And not dependant on any of the limitations Citadel ships are, so the theoretical time in which it would take any ship we have to travel the vast distances are reality for them, and also half as long. 

Sorry, but it's a dark-age. 

A dark age means technology is non existent. We can still travel.

We may even rebuild the relays.

Who the hell knows, Bioware is being so damn goofy about this.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The catalyst doesn't belong in the story. Period. That's my totally biased opinion. It's a totally lame, stupid, ass pull.

The catalyst makes assumptions, and since it seems to be hung up on chaos vs order I can guess it's using chaos theory which I can also guess the authors have not a single clue as to how the theory works.

So this brings us to a twisted version of order vs chaos or good vs evil. In every religious philosophy good is represented by order, and evil is represented by chaos. This makes the reapers good, and organics evil. Thus the catalyst represents the force returning organics to the innocent state before they discover knowledge and free will. So it perpetuates its version of Armageddon followed by a wiping of the slate every 50,000 years.

So all the endings except for the nebulous control leave us in a galactic dark age. Well maybe synthesis makes us all into one giant supercomputer and we stand around calculating the value of pi for the overlord.

It changes nothing. Writers needed to watch some old Arnold/Willis/Seagal/Robt Rodriguez movies to get a better ending. Would it have been stupid? Hell yes. Fun? Hell yes. Satisfying? Hell yes.

[The Night Mammoth]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Reapers are more than twice as fast as Citadel ships.

And not dependant on any of the limitations Citadel ships are, so the theoretical time in which it would take any ship we have to travel the vast distances are reality for them, and also half as long. 

Sorry, but it's a dark-age. 

A dark age means technology is non existent.

No, a dark age is simply a period of widespread regression of various factors of civilization. 

We can still travel.

To the next nearest system, maybe. 

Good luck traveling to the next nearest cluster.

[Taboo]

The relays aren't even destroyed in Control, you know that right?

We know nothing of what is going to happen.

Everything is up for grabs.

[The Night Mammoth]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The relays aren't even destroyed in Control, you know that right?

Reason number two why I choose it. 

[Taboo]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The relays aren't even destroyed in Control, you know that right?

Reason number two why I choose it. 

I can imagine a high EMS only disabling the Relays or something. The goal of the EC is to make a more personal ending.

Who knows though.

I get the idea that Weekes isn't very fond of the way Walters wrote the endings.

[JShepppp]

Apologies for being a natural text-wall enthusiast.

The Angry One wrote...

JShepppp wrote...

 I see Angry One, Cypher, and Jackums have had an interesting debate spanning the last few pages. I'd like to weigh in, but I was wondering if The Angry One could kind of list the points that he/she disagrees with, then I'll try to answer them too?

My main issue is simply that the Catalyst assumes that a technological singularity will inevitably lead to conflict, and then the extermination of all organic life.
Neither of these is certain, the latter is basically impossible and has never happened.

Destroy is probably your way to go; I'm guessing you already picked that.  So there's kind of 3 parts to your thing, I think, which is (a) the technological singularity, ( conflict, © eradication of organic life, all of which must successively occur (not independently) by the Catalyst. You're saying each "step" has problems, which is true. I'll start from the beginning.

Singularity: The singularity is the weakest link in the argument because by its nature it can't be proven or disproven. A hypothesis like this would be scoffed at in science by its nature, so it becomes more of a philosophical kind of argument that we can only guess at. The Catalyst believes such advanced synthetics are inevitable. 

We can see how synthetics would become that advanced. The Geth serve as an example, but basically, synthetics don't have the same needs as organics, and this lack of impediment would probably lead them to evolve faster and capitalize on their stronger traits. Eventually they'd become evolved so fast that we could never catch up. We have a head start on them, but their natural rate of technological progress seems compounded by the fact that they are byproducts of our technology itself.

Synthetics may not become that advanced , of course. There could be limitations - processing power, no self-replication, etc. - that could impede their advancement.

The technological singularity idea hinges on the idea of a self-evolving AI that eventually surpasses organics. Not only can this AI control its reproduction/replication, it can also affect its own technological progress rate, something that organics can't do. We can get smarter, but we can't effectively keep increasing the rate at which we absorb knowledge more and more ad infinitum, held back only by resources. 

We don't see any evidence of such an AI during the entirety of Mass Effect. The Geth are not a case because they could've been beaten without Reaper upgrades, indicating they were pre-singularity. They may have been able to self-evolve, indicating that the Catalyst came at the "right" time with the Reapers to stop them from doing so. But that's a bit of speculation again. 

The Reapers are not the singularity either. We don't see any evolution; we see the contrast, stagnation. Whether by choice or not we don't know. The Catalyst can't even change its own programming/directive without Shepard, indicating it is heavily shackled or is just a VI. 

In short, we only see arrows pointing towards the idea of the singularity. These are rather vague as they're mostly just technological progress in general. Personally, this is what makes the singularity exciting for me - it seems like something that is the answer to some subtle hints along the way (synthesis completes it too, with Geth/EDI/Legion already becoming more like organics, etc., but that's different). But of course that's my opinion; a lot don't see the singularity as being there (just as a lot don't see IT), and that's fine. The singularity is not inherently obvious. 

If the singularity isn't the case, the Catalyst's arguments will fall apart rather easily. I think this is one of the biggest disconnects. The nature of the singularity means its existence is very much a kind of metaphysical debate of sorts; I can't convince you without a shadow of a doubt that it'll occur. I can only ask you to temporarily make that assumption for the sake of understanding the Catalyst.

Conflict: The idea is that it is impossible to have 100% peace forever. War will eventually occur given enough time. Synthetics and organics will come into conflict. It could be for any reason, and any side can start it - but the Catalyst believes that they'll fight. Organics vs organics happens, of course, and maybe even synthetics vs synthetics, but the Catalyst is more interested in organics as a whole and thus their relationship with synthetics. 

Geth/Quarians prove that conflict will eventually occur. They found peace, yes, in some cases. But they still found war earlier. 

Eradication of All Organics: Post-singularity, synthetics will have the power to wipe out all organics. If they can wipe out the strongest ones (definition of singularity), they can wipe out weaker ones.

Can they also leave us alone, give peace, or help us out? Sure. They can also do a bunch of other random, unrelated things like move to a far away planet and develop jars of peanut butter for the rest of their infinite lives. 

The Catalyst isn't concerned about those other options. Such a synthetic race, though, would have the power to wipe out all organics if it chose to. And we can't really proclaim it can go one way or another because of the nature of the singularity. We can't predict what they'll value. We can guess/hope that they won't find it worth their time to genocide organics, but we don't know for sure. All our reasoning goes out the window when dealing with a form of intelligence beyond our own. If they were organics at such a level, we would be so inferior that we probably wouldn't be included in their moral code. 

The Reapers can't combat post-singularity synthetics. So if something goes wrong, everyone is screwed. 

Programmed to only worry about things "going wrong", the Catalyst probably believes such a thing is inevitable given enough time. All outcomes will eventually be realized. The peanut-butter synthetics don't matter. The ones who choose to wipe out the organics do. And nobody can stop them.

The Reapers' power is unmatched in the galaxy (until the Crucible, but that took...a while to make). The Reapers were only ultimately matched because they were stagnant. They also were strictly controlled by something (AI, VI, shackled AI...?) that stopped them from evolving or eliminating all organics. 

Post-singularity AIs would have no such constraints. 

It doesn't have to have occurred before in order to be considered a viable outcome. The nature of it means that by the time we realize it happening, it'll be too late. 

In short, the idea of exterminating all organics is also kind of like a thought exercise. Giving synthetics that kind of power is unwise given that they could (and eventually probably will at some point) become your enemy.

Basically, a lot of the Catalyst's arguments are more philosophical and stuff in nature versus actually scientific, hence its logic and way of thinking. What it proposes are very possible candidates of the future. It's just unwilling to take risks.

The Catalyst needs more for it's claims than an argument from authority. It has none.

Unfortunately, as the controller of the Reapers, we don't meet it until it absolutely must reveal itself and then its purpose. There's a view floating around that its argument doesn't matter but what does matter is that it has the power to enforce its views. This is where it gets a lot of its authority - its significance to the plot. There isn't really much of another way, given the nature of the problem, the nature of the story/Reapers (don't explain everything unless they absolutely have to; they clearly prefer just doing what they normally do without having to explain themselves), and the overall significance of the Catalyst's character. 

While it may not be good enough for some, that may be all we get because in-universe the Catalyst probably doesn't feel a need to explain itself. As a gamer, though, I admit I would've liked some more explanation. 

Don't know if this answered your points or rasied more questions and/or disagreement, but basically, the overall nature of the problem is more philosophical than purely hard science, and the nature of it makes it impossible to prove or disprove it. Whether this is brilliant (speculations) or sloppy writing is irrelevant. Disagreeing is perfectly fine as indicated by the Destroy ending. 

Sorry if this did not make sense. I'm sleepy and may edit when I wake up for some more clarification.

Modifié par JShepppp, 29 mai 2012 - 06:27 .

[Taboo]

Correct! Thank you JShep, FINALLY.

You cannot prove or disprove that a singularity will happen.

It's fallacious to argue about it!

[JShepppp]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Correct! Thank you JShep, FINALLY.

You cannot prove or disprove that a singularity will happen.

It's fallacious to argue about it!

Unfortunately the Catalyst brings it in so we're stuck with it lol. 

Those who disagree can walk straight to destroy. Those who agree can look to control or synthesis or, if they're super optimistic, destroy again. 

By its nature, the singularity can't be proven or disproven. It's an idea. I thought it was originally meant to elevate the ending to the "epic" level they wanted through such a metaphysical science fiction idea. 

It also wouldn't make sense to have something that would lead to a black/white ending. Perhaps this is why they looked to include it. Now the endings are grey if you believe in the singularity. If you don't, pick destroy, call the Catalyst's thoughts BS, and have a cookie. Otherwise, think about the options, make your choice, then have a cookie.

I respect any and all choices. I wanted to talk about the Catalyst's point of view in this thread though.

EDIT: Sorry if I did not make it clear earlier that the technological singularity is a theory/idea, not a fact. The Catalyst views it as a fact, and its ideas follow as a result.

Modifié par JShepppp, 29 mai 2012 - 06:37 .

[Taboo]

The Geth almost reached a singularity, or at least Legion states as much. I don't see a Dyson sphere as a singularity. It's a type two civilization device.

The Star Child doesn't provide much of anything. I don't believe him for the two reasons I presented in many other threads. He simply says something. He is neither right or wrong to me, he is irrelevant. If he cannot provide any evidence, he has no bearing in scientific reality.

And no, I'm not taking into account he's above my realm of understanding. What a load of bollocks that is.

[Cypher_CS]

JShepppp wrote...

I think there was a quote where the child basically asked if she (I think it was a girl?) could one day travel among the stars. I took it to mean that space travel isn't there yet. 

Yeah, Buzz replies with "some day".

It felt to me as well that space travel is not that common as it was.
Maybe not dark ages, but certainly not the level we see in the ME games. Maybe something like... today, where SpaceX is just getting started.

Kind of a Firefly feel of backwater worlds with little technology, but some organizations with space travel organizing and slowly building back up.
That's the feeling I got. Definitely no MRs. Or if still MRs, then no ships, or very few ships, to do the traveling through them.

[Taboo]

You don't even have to take that scene as canon either.

The whole thing is so ****ing terrible I can't even take it seriously.

[Cypher_CS]

JShepppp wrote...

Apologies for being a natural text-wall enthusiast.

That's okay, Taboo is very like minded in that regard. As am I.

JShepppp wrote... 

The Catalyst needs more for it's claims than an argument from authority. It has none.

Unfortunately, as the controller of the Reapers, we don't meet it until it absolutely must reveal itself and then its purpose. There's a view floating around that its argument doesn't matter but what does matter is that it has the power to enforce its views. This is where it gets a lot of its authority - its significance to the plot. There isn't really much of another way, given the nature of the problem, the nature of the story/Reapers (don't explain everything unless they absolutely have to; they clearly prefer just doing what they normally do without having to explain themselves), and the overall significance of the Catalyst's character. 

While it may not be good enough for some, that may be all we get because in-universe the Catalyst probably doesn't feel a need to explain itself. As a gamer, though, I admit I would've liked some more explanation. 

That!
That is the most important part to remember.
It doesn't really matter if the Singularity comes to pass or not.
It doesn't even matter if the reasoning is correct (it is), or if it's correctly based (we don't know).

All that matters is that this is their reason.
Our job is to stop the extinction cycle - we need to understand that there is a reason and then we enter a sort of prudential matrix of choices Catalyst's Wager, so to speak.

Do we risk it being correct?
Do we stay alert in case it is?
Do we go all just in case it is correct?

[Dendio1]

First of all amazing read!

Keep the OP updated with more responses, its so much more useful than having another huge thread with arguments lost in the middle.

I really enjoyed this OP, thank you for your dedication

[Taboo]

I take the risk, because I'm a stupid human.

Too bad Daisy Bell.

[AlexPorto111]

Great thread,shows some good points on the catalysts logic.

[Myrmedus]

JShepppp wrote... 

The Catalyst needs more for it's claims than an argument from authority. It has none.

Unfortunately, as the controller of the Reapers, we don't meet it until it absolutely must reveal itself and then its purpose. There's a view floating around that its argument doesn't matter but what does matter is that it has the power to enforce its views. This is where it gets a lot of its authority - its significance to the plot. There isn't really much of another way, given the nature of the problem, the nature of the story/Reapers (don't explain everything unless they absolutely have to; they clearly prefer just doing what they normally do without having to explain themselves), and the overall significance of the Catalyst's character. 

While it may not be good enough for some, that may be all we get because in-universe the Catalyst probably doesn't feel a need to explain itself. As a gamer, though, I admit I would've liked some more explanation. 

That!
That is the most important part to remember.
It doesn't really matter if the Singularity comes to pass or not.
It doesn't even matter if the reasoning is correct (it is), or if it's correctly based (we don't know).

All that matters is that this is their reason.
Our job is to stop the extinction cycle - we need to understand that there is a reason and then we enter a sort of prudential matrix of choices Catalyst's Wager, so to speak.

Do we risk it being correct?
Do we stay alert in case it is?
Do we go all just in case it is correct?

I would argue we still have power over it however, precisely because we have the ability at our fingertips to destroy it with the destroy option that gives us a measure of power in the argument.

For me personally, I didn't want to destroy the Reapers, but I also didn't want to become one myself or change every life form - I wanted them to leave and watch over the galaxy to give us another chance to keep things under control ourselves. I wanted them to act as guardians.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 29 mai 2012 - 08:27 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The reapers have interfered and guided civilizations down a particular technological path that they desire for their reasons; their purpose; and their purpose alone. This is so they can control the state of the galaxy. They will uplift synthetics for their purposes then discard them.

This time the organics are taking charge. The reapers need to be culled. I don't want them around.

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
Correct! Thank you JShep, FINALLY.

You cannot prove or disprove that a singularity will happen.

It's fallacious to argue about it!

No, it is NOT.

You may not be able to prove it mathematically, but you can do simulations. Make them good enough and put enough correct data in, and they will make pretty good predictions. Just as the salarians predictions said the development of the krogan would always result in war. There are two insecurities in this setup:

(1) It only provides a probability, not a certaintly. But a probability of 99% is enough for me to act on it.
(2) It can be changed by new information.

These things may not prove or disprove it, but I think it's very much acceptable to use it as a premise in a story. After all, you have no idea of the probabilities in the ME universe. If you accept the Catalyst as a highly advanced general AI, accepting its data is plausible, unless you have reason to doubt its motivations. That's the real problem here: not that the singularity doesn't work as a premise, because it does. But that we have no reason to think the Catalyst is friendly. That concern is only addressed through narrative structure, not through in-world information.

[Joe Del Toro]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Correct! Thank you JShep, FINALLY.

You cannot prove or disprove that a singularity will happen.

It's fallacious to argue about it!

Hey maybe some of us want to engage in fallacio, aight.

[Taboo]

Mordin talks about new variables that he didn't see before, which is why he cures the genophage and is willing to die to do it.

Variables is the key word here.

I accept that is is an advanced AI caught in a loop. He has been this way for millions upon millions of years. He has no room for self improvement. He is a machine incapable of evolving, which is why he hasn't figured Synthesis out for millions of years.

His opinion is neither right or wrong, he is irrelevant. He cannot possibly know what will happen, which is what a singularity is.

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...
Mordin talks about new variables that he didn't see before, which is why he cures the genophage and is willing to die to do it.

Variables is the key word here.

I accept that is is an advanced AI caught in a loop. He has been this way for millions upon millions of years. He has no room for self improvement. He is a machine incapable of evolving, which is why he hasn't figured Synthesis out for millions of years.

His opinion is neither right or wrong, he is irrelevant. He cannot possibly know what will happen, which is what a singularity is.

You are belaboring the same point again and again, but that doesn't make it more true. Several times now, I have posted a scenario that circumvents that problem and is compatible with all the known facts. It *is* possible that the Catalyst knows the singularity will happen with a probability approaching certainty, knows that the extinction scenario wil happen with the same probability, and that we just don't have the information to verify it.

It's perfectly valid to disbelieve the Catalyst in-world because we don't have the information to verify it and it doesn't provide it, but this is strictly a matter of trust, not of logic. There isn't any inherent logic problem with the singularity premise. Just accept it.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 29 mai 2012 - 09:11 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Ieldra2 wrote...

(1) It only provides a probability, not a certaintly. But a probability of 99% is enough for me to act on it.

No it provides a certainty alright. 

This will happen apparently. 

So it all comes down to how probable, and that needs evidence. 

I see none. 

But 99% is good. Good odds for any Greek. 

[Nemesis1812]

Someone who is so unwilling to take risks and has been so caught up in the "fear" that a singularity will happen, that he manipulates the conditions that lead to mass genocide for millions of years is NOT beyond our understanding.

This is not the evolved mind of a higher being. This is base degeneration.