55528 réponses à ce sujet

[paxxton]

HellishFiend wrote...

*facepalm* I made no "implications" in the examples I gave. 

You go right on believing what you want to believe. 

Oh, really?

HellishFiend wrote...

Dogs are mammals.
Ralph is a dog.
Therefore, Ralph is a mammal.

Dogs are amphibians.
Ralph is a Dog.
Therefore, Ralph is an amphibian.

 The catalyst controls the reapers.
The goal of the mass effect storyline is to stop the reaper threat.
Therefore, supplanting the catalyst will satisfy the goal of the mass effect storyline.

As you surely read in a logic textbook you mentioned, therefore (or implies) is => which is a symbol denoting an implication.

Modifié par paxxton, 19 mai 2012 - 12:33 .

[Rifneno]

Big G13 wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

paxxton wrote...


So you say that (0 and 1) => 0 that is 0 => 0 which is 1.

And I say (1 and 1) => 1 which is 1.

So logically we both agree but what differs are the interpretations of the procedure. You need to show why I can't choose a specific logical value (0 or 1) for a particular statement. Otherwise, your point is invalid. I'm sorry.

I dont have to show you anything because thus far you have failed to demonstrate a firm understanding of the subject matter. Read a logic textbook, and then we'll talk. 

What the hell, why are you guys making such a big deal out of logic?

Define the operation '( )AND( )' such that when both channels contain true quantities, then the result of the operatiion will be also true. Define Z( , ):=()AND()
Now let X, Y be both true, then Z(X,Y) = (X)AND(Y) is true per definition.

Now, analogously define further operations like ()OR() and negation NOT() and you get the basics of boolean logic. With that you can do whatever you want to. From proving that true is not false, to that the Catalyst is deceiving you.
There, logic, it's an axiomatic thing, ok?

This is an English forum. Please speak English while here. Thank you. :happy:

Get a load of this one: http://masseffect.wi...nets#Properties

[MaximizedAction]

Rifneno wrote...

Big G13 wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

paxxton wrote...


So you say that (0 and 1) => 0 that is 0 => 0 which is 1.

And I say (1 and 1) => 1 which is 1.

So logically we both agree but what differs are the interpretations of the procedure. You need to show why I can't choose a specific logical value (0 or 1) for a particular statement. Otherwise, your point is invalid. I'm sorry.

I dont have to show you anything because thus far you have failed to demonstrate a firm understanding of the subject matter. Read a logic textbook, and then we'll talk. 

What the hell, why are you guys making such a big deal out of logic?

Define the operation '( )AND( )' such that when both channels contain true quantities, then the result of the operatiion will be also true. Define Z( , ):=()AND()
Now let X, Y be both true, then Z(X,Y) = (X)AND(Y) is true per definition.

Now, analogously define further operations like ()OR() and negation NOT() and you get the basics of boolean logic. With that you can do whatever you want to. From proving that true is not false, to that the Catalyst is deceiving you.
There, logic, it's an axiomatic thing, ok?

This is an English forum. Please speak English while here. Thank you. :happy:

Get a load of this one: http://masseffect.wi...nets#Properties

This is why I fell in love with Mass Effect. It just all tried to be scientifically correct in the ME1 days.
What happened...

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 19 mai 2012 - 12:21 .

[Big G13]

Rifneno wrote...

Big G13 wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

paxxton wrote...


So you say that (0 and 1) => 0 that is 0 => 0 which is 1.

And I say (1 and 1) => 1 which is 1.

So logically we both agree but what differs are the interpretations of the procedure. You need to show why I can't choose a specific logical value (0 or 1) for a particular statement. Otherwise, your point is invalid. I'm sorry.

I dont have to show you anything because thus far you have failed to demonstrate a firm understanding of the subject matter. Read a logic textbook, and then we'll talk. 

What the hell, why are you guys making such a big deal out of logic?

Define the operation '( )AND( )' such that when both channels contain true quantities, then the result of the operatiion will be also true. Define Z( , ):=()AND()
Now let X, Y be both true, then Z(X,Y) = (X)AND(Y) is true per definition.

Now, analogously define further operations like ()OR() and negation NOT() and you get the basics of boolean logic. With that you can do whatever you want to. From proving that true is not false, to that the Catalyst is deceiving you.
There, logic, it's an axiomatic thing, ok?

This is an English forum. Please speak English while here. Thank you. :happy:

Get a load of this one: http://masseffect.wi...nets#Properties

Just when I thought I could'nt feel any dumber. To that point, here is my simple logic. IF star brat controls the Reapers, THEN star brat must die. end of line.

[estebanus]

Big G13 wrote...

Just when I thought I could'nt feel any dumber. To that point, here is my simple logic. IF star brat controls the Reapers, THEN star brat must die. end of line.

Now THAT is a bottom line I can accept!

[spotlessvoid]

Bg13 That makes absolute sense

[MegumiAzusa]

So please disprove any of this if it's that easy:

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Organics might develop a synthetic race that would destroy all organics. This is the base assumption. This can happen and therefore you can't deny it.
Add to that that Reaper tech isn't perfect. They too can be destroyed. So they have to find a way to prevent that. They are using some of their non aggressive tech to have Organics use that. As a result they develop on paths they desire, meaning the chance to randomly develop a technology superior to the Reapers is much much smaller.
So now to prevent Organics from building the synthetic overlords every x years you eradicate every Organic that is over a threshold y in technological evolution.
This would destroy this race, but to "save" it they "store" them in Reaper form. The Reaper tech isn't perfect. Because of that you can only convert some of the species.

Additionally: as we can see from the Overlord DLC the 50k years are cutting it quite close. This is why they leave one Reaper behind to monitor the situation. Weren't it by chance the combined AI created from Davids mind and VI and Geth would have overtaken and destroyed everything, this is quite a strong theme in Overlord. And as you could experience it could just as easily overtake organics.

[spotlessvoid]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

So please disprove any of this if it's that easy:

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Organics might develop a synthetic race that would destroy all organics. This is the base assumption. This can happen and therefore you can't deny it.
Add to that that Reaper tech isn't perfect. They too can be destroyed. So they have to find a way to prevent that. They are using some of their non aggressive tech to have Organics use that. As a result they develop on paths they desire, meaning the chance to randomly develop a technology superior to the Reapers is much much smaller.
So now to prevent Organics from building the synthetic overlords every x years you eradicate every Organic that is over a threshold y in technological evolution.
This would destroy this race, but to "save" it they "store" them in Reaper form. The Reaper tech isn't perfect. Because of that you can only convert some of the species.

Additionally: as we can see from the Overlord DLC the 50k years are cutting it quite close. This is why they leave one Reaper behind to monitor the situation. Weren't it by chance the combined AI created from Davids mind and VI and Geth would have overtaken and destroyed everything, this is quite a strong theme in Overlord. And as you could experience it could just as easily overtake organics.

You haven't proven that saving organics is their actual goal, therefore your assumption that this is their true motive colors the rest of your thought process

[RealStyli]

I'm still laughing at Big G13's signature... Hilarious.

Anyway, I've just finished playing Palaven again and one line from Vega really stood out when they're chatting away about Earth on the way to rescue Victus: "Leaving the fight just pisses me off"...

I just thought that was funny when you think about the ending. You've established a character who hates to run away from a fight and yet he does exactly that with Joker and the rest at the end.

It's only a side note but I thought I'd share. If nothing else, I just want to show my continued support for I.T.

[MegumiAzusa]

spotlessvoid wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

So please disprove any of this if it's that easy:

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Organics might develop a synthetic race that would destroy all organics. This is the base assumption. This can happen and therefore you can't deny it.
Add to that that Reaper tech isn't perfect. They too can be destroyed. So they have to find a way to prevent that. They are using some of their non aggressive tech to have Organics use that. As a result they develop on paths they desire, meaning the chance to randomly develop a technology superior to the Reapers is much much smaller.
So now to prevent Organics from building the synthetic overlords every x years you eradicate every Organic that is over a threshold y in technological evolution.
This would destroy this race, but to "save" it they "store" them in Reaper form. The Reaper tech isn't perfect. Because of that you can only convert some of the species.

Additionally: as we can see from the Overlord DLC the 50k years are cutting it quite close. This is why they leave one Reaper behind to monitor the situation. Weren't it by chance the combined AI created from Davids mind and VI and Geth would have overtaken and destroyed everything, this is quite a strong theme in Overlord. And as you could experience it could just as easily overtake organics.

You haven't proven that saving organics is their actual goal, therefore your assumption that this is their true motive colors the rest of your thought process

Even if they don't it doesn't make the premise and reasoning invalid. The task was to establish that the logic is sound, not if it's telling the truth.

Modifié par MegumiAzusa, 19 mai 2012 - 12:48 .

[Big Bad]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

*snip*

The Guardian's logic is sound.
Organics might develop a synthetic race that would destroy all organics. This is the base assumption. This can happen and therefore you can't deny it.

I'd actually like to take issue with the part I bolded.  The Guardian doesn't say that organics might create synthetics that will destroy all organics.  His entire line of reasoning is premised on the assumption that organics will inevitably create synethics that will destroy all organics.

There is, obviously, a big difference between "might" and "inevitable." 

[Xavendithas]

byne wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Xavendithas wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Unschuld wrote...

paxxton wrote...
From Organics' perspective. Assume for a moment, however unthinkable this might seem, that the Reapers are in fact saving life by not allowing it to develop means to destroying itself. It's unpleasant for organics who aren't given a chance to try and annihalate themselves but it's necessary to preserve life.

Then to organics, Shepard is the biggest jerk of this cycle. This requires us, as organics, to realign ourselves to the Reapers' logic which we've been fighting for three games. I get it. Life needs to be pruned to make way for new life. Transcendence. Great. This totally makes me feel better about my "friends" (Garrus, Tali, Kaidan etc.) that I've grown to love through the three games, who's relationships could be said to be the core around which Mass Effect revolves. I'm totally not betraying them, I'm helping them against their will.

I see their logic, and I still reject it.

*spit*

That's why you should choose Control and save them by changing Reapers' "programs". Destroy actually kills them all (they are all partially synthetic). Of course this is that only if IT is wrong.

No. No. Just...No.

Even if IT is wrong and the endings are literal, I will gladly walk over and shoot that fraking tube. Every. Time.

Really? And then what?

And then we accomplish what we were trying to do all 3 games. Destroying the Reapers.

To quote godchild: "You will lose everything that you are" if you pick control. Theres no changing the Reaper programs in it. You're gone. You're the new Catalyst.

To quote the Geth Prime who shows up in Tali's place at the end if you side with the geth over the quarians: "We will not relinquish sentience. There will be no further compromise with the Old Machines."

Even the Geth know there should be no compromise. Destroy the Reapers or you betray everything you and all your allies have fought for.

Haha, thanks Byne. I went disc golfing and couldn't reply in a timely fashion to that.

[MegumiAzusa]

Big Bad wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

*snip*

The Guardian's logic is sound.
Organics might develop a synthetic race that would destroy all organics. This is the base assumption. This can happen and therefore you can't deny it.

I'd actually like to take issue with the part I bolded.  The Guardian doesn't say that organics might create synthetics that will destroy all organics.  His entire line of reasoning is premised on the assumption that organics will inevitably create synethics that will destroy all organics.

There is, obviously, a big difference between "might" and "inevitable." 

In an infinitely long timespan that might becomes inevitable. It's like letting a monkey type on a keyboard for an unlimited amount of time. It is inevitable that it writes every poet that was and will be written.

[Big Bad]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Big Bad wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

*snip*

The Guardian's logic is sound.
Organics might develop a synthetic race that would destroy all organics. This is the base assumption. This can happen and therefore you can't deny it.

I'd actually like to take issue with the part I bolded.  The Guardian doesn't say that organics might create synthetics that will destroy all organics.  His entire line of reasoning is premised on the assumption that organics will inevitably create synethics that will destroy all organics.

There is, obviously, a big difference between "might" and "inevitable." 

In an infinitely long timespan that might becomes inevitable. It's like letting a monkey type on a keyboard for an unlimited amount of time. It is inevitable that it writes every poet that was and will be written.

If our time horizon is infinite, this whole discussion becomes pointless.  Organics would create synethetics that would destroy them, and eventually the synthetics would go "extinct" (it might happen, therefore it will happen based on your argument!) and then biological life would evolve all over the galaxy again and eventually create synthetics that would destroy them, and then....

If we looking at events from the perspective of infinity, then whole reaper cycle is useless because even if life is destroyed it will evolve again and again and again.  Nothing matters when you're talking about an infinite timescale.

Edit:  to clarify - what I mean is that if the timescale is infinity then everything that can happen will happen and will do so over and over again, so there is no reason to provide special protection for organics via the reaper cycle since they will go extinct and arise and go extinct and arise an infinite number of times regardless of what the reapers do.

Modifié par Big Bad, 19 mai 2012 - 01:05 .

[spotlessvoid]

[quote]MegumiAzusa wrote...

So please disprove any of this if it's that easy:
[quote]MegumiAzusa wrote...

Organics might develop a synthetic race that would destroy all organics. This is the base assumption. This can happen and therefore you can't deny it.
Add to that that Reaper tech isn't perfect. They too can be destroyed. So they have to find a way to prevent that. They are using some of their non aggressive tech to have Organics use that. As a result they develop on paths they desire, meaning the chance to randomly develop a technology superior to the Reapers is much much smaller.
So now to prevent Organics from building the synthetic overlords every x years you eradicate every Organic that is over a threshold y in technological evolution.
This would destroy this race, but to "save" it they "store" them in Reaper form. The Reaper tech isn't perfect. Because of that you can only convert some of the species.

Additionally: as we can see from the Overlord DLC the 50k years are cutting it quite close. This is why they leave one Reaper behind to monitor the situation. Weren't it by chance the combined AI created from Davids mind and VI and Geth would have overtaken and destroyed everything, this is quite a strong theme in Overlord. And as you could experience it could just as easily overtake organics.[/quote]


Conflict stems from the competition over resources. Sustenance, shelter, power, whatever. If an abundance of resources are available, then the best course for self preservation is mutual cooperation in the name of creating a less dangerous environment. Respect of an individuals right to free choice is the best method, when resources are abundant, to ensure ones own right to free choice.
The idea that the Reapers are doing this for benevolent reasons is beyond me. Self determination is the natural right of all sentient beings. A self actualized being should know this and simply offer the choice of ascension to Reaperhood. Additionally, outside of organics being a useful resource for them, what is the inherent need for organic life? If we just pose an inevitable threat, why risk anything by keeping organics around? Clearly, organics serve some function to Reapers

So, to me, this leaves only the possibility that the Reapers are harvesting for their own benefit. Be it for sustenance, reproduction, or to prevent any potential threat to the Reapers future survival.

However, given that the Reapers have shown to have no problems with extended periods in dark space and have obviously mastered ftl, what is their attachment to staying within the confines of this galaxy? If we pose a future threat to them, they could ultimately just leave. And if they were truly benevolent, then why would future organics advanced enough to reach them in dark space even attack them at all?

It all seems to point to the reapers having a need for harvesting organics. A need purely driven by self interest. Meaning organics are a resource, and therefore the Reapers would never be sacrificed for the sake of organics.


Therefore, starchild is lying/wrong about saving organics for the sake of organics. Which contradicts his whole premise, making his entire line of reasoning after that automatically false.

[MegumiAzusa]

Big Bad wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Big Bad wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

*snip*

The Guardian's logic is sound.
Organics might develop a synthetic race that would destroy all organics. This is the base assumption. This can happen and therefore you can't deny it.

I'd actually like to take issue with the part I bolded.  The Guardian doesn't say that organics might create synthetics that will destroy all organics.  His entire line of reasoning is premised on the assumption that organics will inevitably create synethics that will destroy all organics.

There is, obviously, a big difference between "might" and "inevitable." 

In an infinitely long timespan that might becomes inevitable. It's like letting a monkey type on a keyboard for an unlimited amount of time. It is inevitable that it writes every poet that was and will be written.

If our time horizon is infinite, this whole discussion becomes pointless.  Organics would create synethetics that would destroy them, and eventually the synthetics would go "extinct" (it might happen, therefore it will happen based on your argument!) and then biological life would evolve all over the galaxy again and eventually create synthetics that would destroy them, and then....

If we looking at events from the perspective of infinity, then whole reaper cycle is useless because even if life is destroyed it will evolve again and again and again.  Nothing matters when you're talking about an infinite timescale.

Nazara and Legion both stated that time is irrelevant for them so you have to look at it with infinity in mind. "We have no beginning, we have no end. We are limitless." this alone states the assumption is that they don't plan on getting extinct. Also through mass effect fields organic life can be inhibited from ever evolving again.

[MaximizedAction]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

So please disprove any of this if it's that easy:

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Organics might develop a synthetic race that would destroy all organics. This is the base assumption. This can happen and therefore you can't deny it.
Add to that that Reaper tech isn't perfect. They too can be destroyed. So they have to find a way to prevent that. They are using some of their non aggressive tech to have Organics use that. As a result they develop on paths they desire, meaning the chance to randomly develop a technology superior to the Reapers is much much smaller.
So now to prevent Organics from building the synthetic overlords every x years you eradicate every Organic that is over a threshold y in technological evolution.
This would destroy this race, but to "save" it they "store" them in Reaper form. The Reaper tech isn't perfect. Because of that you can only convert some of the species.

Additionally: as we can see from the Overlord DLC the 50k years are cutting it quite close. This is why they leave one Reaper behind to monitor the situation. Weren't it by chance the combined AI created from Davids mind and VI and Geth would have overtaken and destroyed everything, this is quite a strong theme in Overlord. And as you could experience it could just as easily overtake organics.

Come to think of this, the Catalyst 'promises' Shepard what a certain religion promises their followers after they die. Some extremist individuals in that religion use that to bring their followers into a faster death. Shepard does indeed have to have faith. What a deceptive little brat.

Also, the logic does seem sound if we assume all the maybes and mights. By offering their own technology prematurely -- violates Prime Directive -- they interfere and thus influence the technological development of the galaxy. And the logic of the Reaper is to "force them into desired paths of development" thus leaving everyone in the open for an invasion.

The thing with preventing advanced synthetic lifeforms resembles a fear from competition from other synthetics taking the place of the Reapers. By harvesting organics at a certain tech. threshhold y allows them to have a sufficiently good tasty organic 'food' but also stops right before they can create powerful enough synthetics that pose a threat to the Reapers.
A plan so simple an idiot could have devised it!

[Big Bad]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Big Bad wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Big Bad wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

*snip*

The Guardian's logic is sound.
Organics might develop a synthetic race that would destroy all organics. This is the base assumption. This can happen and therefore you can't deny it.

I'd actually like to take issue with the part I bolded.  The Guardian doesn't say that organics might create synthetics that will destroy all organics.  His entire line of reasoning is premised on the assumption that organics will inevitably create synethics that will destroy all organics.

There is, obviously, a big difference between "might" and "inevitable." 

In an infinitely long timespan that might becomes inevitable. It's like letting a monkey type on a keyboard for an unlimited amount of time. It is inevitable that it writes every poet that was and will be written.

If our time horizon is infinite, this whole discussion becomes pointless.  Organics would create synethetics that would destroy them, and eventually the synthetics would go "extinct" (it might happen, therefore it will happen based on your argument!) and then biological life would evolve all over the galaxy again and eventually create synthetics that would destroy them, and then....

If we looking at events from the perspective of infinity, then whole reaper cycle is useless because even if life is destroyed it will evolve again and again and again.  Nothing matters when you're talking about an infinite timescale.

Nazara and Legion both stated that time is irrelevant for them so you have to look at it with infinity in mind. "We have no beginning, we have no end. We are limitless." this alone states the assumption is that they don't plan on getting extinct. Also through mass effect fields organic life can be inhibited from ever evolving again.

You yourself just said that anything that can happen will happen given an infinite amount of time, so the reapers will go extinct and life will arise again.  That's your logic, not mine.

[MaximizedAction]

Big Bad wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Big Bad wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Big Bad wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

*snip*

The Guardian's logic is sound.
Organics might develop a synthetic race that would destroy all organics. This is the base assumption. This can happen and therefore you can't deny it.

I'd actually like to take issue with the part I bolded.  The Guardian doesn't say that organics might create synthetics that will destroy all organics.  His entire line of reasoning is premised on the assumption that organics will inevitably create synethics that will destroy all organics.

There is, obviously, a big difference between "might" and "inevitable." 

In an infinitely long timespan that might becomes inevitable. It's like letting a monkey type on a keyboard for an unlimited amount of time. It is inevitable that it writes every poet that was and will be written.

If our time horizon is infinite, this whole discussion becomes pointless.  Organics would create synethetics that would destroy them, and eventually the synthetics would go "extinct" (it might happen, therefore it will happen based on your argument!) and then biological life would evolve all over the galaxy again and eventually create synthetics that would destroy them, and then....

If we looking at events from the perspective of infinity, then whole reaper cycle is useless because even if life is destroyed it will evolve again and again and again.  Nothing matters when you're talking about an infinite timescale.

Nazara and Legion both stated that time is irrelevant for them so you have to look at it with infinity in mind. "We have no beginning, we have no end. We are limitless." this alone states the assumption is that they don't plan on getting extinct. Also through mass effect fields organic life can be inhibited from ever evolving again.

You yourself just said that anything that can happen will happen given an infinite amount of time, so the reapers will go extinct and life will arise again.  That's your logic, not mine.

Careful there with the 'infinities'. Use them where necessary, but not everywhere.
You two are talking about different 'infinites' here. Please agree on which one you mean.

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 19 mai 2012 - 01:11 .

[MegumiAzusa]

MaximizedAction wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

So please disprove any of this if it's that easy:

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Organics might develop a synthetic race that would destroy all organics. This is the base assumption. This can happen and therefore you can't deny it.
Add to that that Reaper tech isn't perfect. They too can be destroyed. So they have to find a way to prevent that. They are using some of their non aggressive tech to have Organics use that. As a result they develop on paths they desire, meaning the chance to randomly develop a technology superior to the Reapers is much much smaller.
So now to prevent Organics from building the synthetic overlords every x years you eradicate every Organic that is over a threshold y in technological evolution.
This would destroy this race, but to "save" it they "store" them in Reaper form. The Reaper tech isn't perfect. Because of that you can only convert some of the species.

Additionally: as we can see from the Overlord DLC the 50k years are cutting it quite close. This is why they leave one Reaper behind to monitor the situation. Weren't it by chance the combined AI created from Davids mind and VI and Geth would have overtaken and destroyed everything, this is quite a strong theme in Overlord. And as you could experience it could just as easily overtake organics.

Come to think of this, the Catalyst 'promises' Shepard what a certain religion promises their followers after they die. Some extremist individuals in that religion use that to bring their followers into a faster death. Shepard does indeed have to have faith. What a deceptive little brat.

Also, the logic does seem sound if we assume all the maybes and mights. By offering their own technology prematurely -- violates Prime Directive -- they interfere and thus influence the technological development of the galaxy. And the logic of the Reaper is to "force them into desired paths of development" thus leaving everyone in the open for an invasion.

The thing with preventing advanced synthetic lifeforms resembles a fear from competition from other synthetics taking the place of the Reapers. By harvesting organics at a certain tech. threshhold y allows them to have a sufficiently good tasty organic 'food' but also stops right before they can create powerful enough synthetics that pose a threat to the Reapers.
A plan so simple an idiot could have devised it!

That is my point. It doesn't matter if the reasoning behind them is benevolent or not. The same system and reasoning works in both. I simply pointed out that the logic of what is conveyed is sound. If it's true is quite a different story.

[Rifneno]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Big Bad wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

*snip*

The Guardian's logic is sound.
Organics might develop a synthetic race that would destroy all organics. This is the base assumption. This can happen and therefore you can't deny it.

I'd actually like to take issue with the part I bolded.  The Guardian doesn't say that organics might create synthetics that will destroy all organics.  His entire line of reasoning is premised on the assumption that organics will inevitably create synethics that will destroy all organics.

There is, obviously, a big difference between "might" and "inevitable." 

In an infinitely long timespan that might becomes inevitable. It's like letting a monkey type on a keyboard for an unlimited amount of time. It is inevitable that it writes every poet that was and will be written.

Except:

1. Given an infinite timespan, the Reapers are meaningless because eventually something would beat them.
2. It's generally accepted that the universe has a finite lifespan.  There's quite a few scientific theories on how it will end, but it's more a "which one will make it to the finish line first" than an "are any of these really possible?" thing.
3. Even if the universe itself won't die, we'll eventually be without stars.  The gas clouds that form them are finite.  One day, there will be no stars.  Try to imagine organic life surviving without stars.
4. Scientists also theorize that time is finite.  In a few billion years, everything will stop.  Forever.  Time itself will be over.

Need I go on?  There's lots of ways things can end before synthetics go Skynet on us.  So no, it is not inevitable.  You can't kill something that's already dead.

[Fingertrip]

MaximizedAction wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...

More citadel speculation:

Do you think the "unnatural calmness" that almost all the characters seem to be referring to could be an effect of the citadel itself?

That is, the desire is that particularly in times of crisis it is seen as a refuge, somewhere for all the species of the universe to take shelter, conveniently providing the required genetic material for producing a reaper capital ship?

I very much support this hypothesis.
I did notice -- besides the hair rejuvenilizating effects(WTF?) -- how Bailey and especially Udina seemed quite calm when you spoke to them in private, i.e. in their offices. Might be the invasion of course, but still even the atmosphere when standing at the Embassies, everything seemed so...hypnotized.

I now, it all might be a subjective placebo effect, but might also be of intentional design.

The Citadel would be the perfect Venus Organicstrap.

The Citadel isnt' exactly sunshine and rainbows. There's a reason C-Sec is about. I wouldn't worry to much about some conspiracy theory regarding the Citadel. I think it's done it's fair share of plot-related things now.

[MegumiAzusa]

Rifneno wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Big Bad wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

*snip*

The Guardian's logic is sound.
Organics might develop a synthetic race that would destroy all organics. This is the base assumption. This can happen and therefore you can't deny it.

I'd actually like to take issue with the part I bolded.  The Guardian doesn't say that organics might create synthetics that will destroy all organics.  His entire line of reasoning is premised on the assumption that organics will inevitably create synethics that will destroy all organics.

There is, obviously, a big difference between "might" and "inevitable." 

In an infinitely long timespan that might becomes inevitable. It's like letting a monkey type on a keyboard for an unlimited amount of time. It is inevitable that it writes every poet that was and will be written.

Except:

1. Given an infinite timespan, the Reapers are meaningless because eventually something would beat them.
2. It's generally accepted that the universe has a finite lifespan.  There's quite a few scientific theories on how it will end, but it's more a "which one will make it to the finish line first" than an "are any of these really possible?" thing.
3. Even if the universe itself won't die, we'll eventually be without stars.  The gas clouds that form them are finite.  One day, there will be no stars.  Try to imagine organic life surviving without stars.
4. Scientists also theorize that time is finite.  In a few billion years, everything will stop.  Forever.  Time itself will be over.

Need I go on?  There's lots of ways things can end before synthetics go Skynet on us.  So no, it is not inevitable.  You can't kill something that's already dead.

Except we are in a fictional universe called Mass Effect in which mass effect fields can alter the mass and therefor time as time is bound to mass.

[spotlessvoid]

@mega

Starchild lying about saving organics isn't the same as his reasoning for saving organics being logically false. I'm saying that his entire logic is false because his logic regarding his reason for saving organics is illogical.
Again, therefore everything after that first logical fallacy is false by default.

[MaximizedAction]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Big Bad wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

*snip*

The Guardian's logic is sound.
Organics might develop a synthetic race that would destroy all organics. This is the base assumption. This can happen and therefore you can't deny it.

I'd actually like to take issue with the part I bolded.  The Guardian doesn't say that organics might create synthetics that will destroy all organics.  His entire line of reasoning is premised on the assumption that organics will inevitably create synethics that will destroy all organics.

There is, obviously, a big difference between "might" and "inevitable." 

In an infinitely long timespan that might becomes inevitable. It's like letting a monkey type on a keyboard for an unlimited amount of time. It is inevitable that it writes every poet that was and will be written.

Except:

1. Given an infinite timespan, the Reapers are meaningless because eventually something would beat them.
2. It's generally accepted that the universe has a finite lifespan.  There's quite a few scientific theories on how it will end, but it's more a "which one will make it to the finish line first" than an "are any of these really possible?" thing.
3. Even if the universe itself won't die, we'll eventually be without stars.  The gas clouds that form them are finite.  One day, there will be no stars.  Try to imagine organic life surviving without stars.
4. Scientists also theorize that time is finite.  In a few billion years, everything will stop.  Forever.  Time itself will be over.

Need I go on?  There's lots of ways things can end before synthetics go Skynet on us.  So no, it is not inevitable.  You can't kill something that's already dead.

Except we are in a fictional universe called Mass Effect in which mass effect fields can alter the mass and therefor time as time is bound to mass.

Nooo, don't give them ideas for time machines

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 19 mai 2012 - 01:25 .