9087 ответов в этой теме

[Sisterofshane]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...



And you would argue that we HAVE the ability to destroy them completely?  I would argue that luck and chance have been the only things that have delayed the cycle from continuing, at which point the Catalyst then decides to involve you with it's course correction.  And there is no way of telling if the limitations you speak of are self-imposed (such as EDI CHOOSING to be "good") or not.

Besides, your last paragraph holds no wieght in this argument because in the Mass Effect universe, we are shown that AI is capable of lying and with-holding truth.  If we can accept that we are capable of traveling faster than the speed of light, then we can surely suspend disbelief when it comes to an AI's basic capabilities.

I don't! I thought I had stressed ad nauseum that none of the choices are ethical. None of them are good options. I see detroy as a way to reset the doomsday clock to zero. It Destroys the Reapers.

The limitations of complexity are not self imposed. At some point you simply cannot progress further. That is what I am saying.

The Catalyst is more than capable of withholding information. My point is is that he has no bearing on anything because he doesn't provide evidence. He simply states something. It doesn't matter if it's a lie or not. His opinion is irrelevant.

I understand this, however we do not know for certain whether the Catalyst has reached this endpoint, or has found himself engrossed in a task with which he has (for lack of a better word) stalled the process of his own growth.

And, as to the evidence, this is why we are discussing this here - it is still possible for Bioware to rectify this ending without fundamentally changing it or strinking it all together.

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Taboo-XX:
(1) Vacuum energy exists in amounts several orders of magnitude greater than the total energy output of the galaxy.
(2) There is no indication of every atom of every organic being being affected. My scenario is more akin to one action per organic being. But I grant that the *process* of Synthesis, if not the result, stretches credibility. That's why this is in the realm of "sufficiently advanced technology".

For things that are still possible with hard science, I suggest studying the Orion's Arm Universe Project. Even things that cannot be explained by any technology you can imagine still may be physically possible, and as long as they aren't proven physically impossible, they can be used in hard SF. And ME isn't even hard.

So just forget about this line of reasoning. It is not valid.

I will again cite Steven Pinker:

There is not the slightest reason to believe in a coming singularity. The fact that you can visualize a future in your imagination is not evidence that it is likely or even possible. Look at domed cities, jet-pack commuting, underwater cities, mile-high buildings, and nuclear-powered automobiles — all staples of futuristic fantasies when I was a child that have never arrived. Sheer processing power is not a pixie dust that magically solves all your problems.

Exponential growth is not a predictor of a singularity. Just because you can see potential growth doesn't mean it will ever reach said point. The idea is hypothetical. We have stagnated technology wise because we are limited by our enviroment. There are too many variables that impact such things. 

[Taboo]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...



And you would argue that we HAVE the ability to destroy them completely?  I would argue that luck and chance have been the only things that have delayed the cycle from continuing, at which point the Catalyst then decides to involve you with it's course correction.  And there is no way of telling if the limitations you speak of are self-imposed (such as EDI CHOOSING to be "good") or not.

Besides, your last paragraph holds no wieght in this argument because in the Mass Effect universe, we are shown that AI is capable of lying and with-holding truth.  If we can accept that we are capable of traveling faster than the speed of light, then we can surely suspend disbelief when it comes to an AI's basic capabilities.

I don't! I thought I had stressed ad nauseum that none of the choices are ethical. None of them are good options. I see detroy as a way to reset the doomsday clock to zero. It Destroys the Reapers.

The limitations of complexity are not self imposed. At some point you simply cannot progress further. That is what I am saying.

The Catalyst is more than capable of withholding information. My point is is that he has no bearing on anything because he doesn't provide evidence. He simply states something. It doesn't matter if it's a lie or not. His opinion is irrelevant.

I understand this, however we do not know for certain whether the Catalyst has reached this endpoint, or has found himself engrossed in a task with which he has (for lack of a better word) stalled the process of his own growth.

And, as to the evidence, this is why we are discussing this here - it is still possible for Bioware to rectify this ending without fundamentally changing it or strinking it all together.

He has reached his endpoint because he can longer process variables until Shepard arrives. He is caught in the feedback loop I describe. Look at it this way. He sees no better solution than what he has now, that is until Shepard intervenes. He did not contemplate Synthesis before because he saw no reason to stop the loop.

[Ieldra]

@Taboo-XX:
You miss the point. Again. As long as something is not proven to be impossible under the existing limits of scientific understanding, you can speculate about circumstances under which it may be possible. That's what SF does - speculate about things that might be possible. Using the singularity in an hard SF context is perfectly valid, and as I said - ME isn't even hard SF.

One good example is traversable wormholes. We know that *if* they exist, there must be "negative mass" involved. We have no idea if that's possible, but the mathematical formulations of our scientific theories do not rule out the possibility. So, we cannot assume traversable wormholes are impossible, and they can be used in hard SF.

Take local FTL as a counterexample. This *is* proven to be impossible in current understanding, by mathematical results within a theory with great experimental evidence to support it. It is thus not appropriate to use this in hard SF.

The God debate is different because nobody has as yet managed to even define God in scientific terms. Any such attempt has been rejected by believers and/or resulted in contradictions, thus impossible. God is conceptually beyond denial or confirmation, SF concepts like the singularity can be proven or disproven by future evidence. We do not *yet* know if a singularity is possible.

Edit:
I give up. You don't even understand the implications of the things you're quoting. We are not talking about the real world, we are talking about an SF universe that uses speculative concepts all over the place.

Сообщение изменено: Ieldra2, 20 Май 2012 - 07:51 .

[Sisterofshane]

@ Taboo, only if we believe that the Crucible was not first introduced by the catalyst himself. I think there is much evidence to imply that Catalyst indeed foresaw the need to have an endpoint to the cycle, which makes the end point self-imposed.

Again, the problem is with the telling of the story, not with the idea itself.

[BatmanTurian]

Although I don't agree with Synthesis as my ending of choice, as I have said before, I respect and understand your interpretation of the ending at face value, Ieldra. I think everyone has their reasons for the choices they make and we shouldn't denigrate others if that choice is where their heart is leading them. After all, ME is just a fictional universe we're just romping around in and your decisions have no real-world effects. If Synthesis makes you happy and makes sense, all power to you. I'd be the first to stand up and say you have a right to believe what you wish to believe based on logic you find sound.

Сообщение изменено: BatmanTurian, 20 Май 2012 - 07:56 .

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...
You miss the point. Again. As long as something is not proven to be impossible under the existing limits of scientific understanding, you can speculate about circumstances under which it may be possible. That's what SF does - speculate about things that might be possible. Using the singularity in an hard SF context is perfectly valid, and as I said - ME isn't even hard SF.

I don't miss the point. I simply believe that if YOU are going to use real-world comparisons to cement your ideas I have no reason no to use them in my own. You cannot assume that my judgements are invalid because of this.

No you don't. You are not creating any semblence of disbelief in such a regard. Beliving that FTL travel is possible because we have projects being worked on RIGHT NOW that are working to disprove the theory of relativity.

Seeing something that has not bearing on the story up until that point and simply dismissing it's innocuity to suspension of disbelief insults your intelligence. You have no more information about it than I do. All we can do is make comparisons on what we know. You try and explain why it is possible. Why is it so hard for you to accept that I want to explain in a counter argument why it is impossible?

Сообщение изменено: Taboo-XX, 20 Май 2012 - 08:03 .

[Taboo]

-

Сообщение изменено: Taboo-XX, 20 Май 2012 - 08:03 .

[Hadeedak]

Whether or not singularity is a real threat is largely irrelevant, since Mass Effect is science fiction. Science fiction, particularly novels, adores singularity. It's a thing that most people can envision, fear, and to some extent, relate to. But we can't envision it without using real world analogues. It's possible I'm missing something, but I have no problem with synthesis in science fiction in general. Now I would argue it's poorly foreshadowed and seems a bit tacked on, but that's true of the ending in general.

Сообщение изменено: Hadeedak, 20 Май 2012 - 08:11 .

[Ieldra]

@Taboo_xx:
(1) I am still waiting for you to show why singularity should not be used as a concept in an SF universe.
(2) It was you who started the real-world comparisons, not I. I have just used the same tactic against you.
(3) You make unfounded assumptions about the Catalyst.
(4) I have yet to see you demonstrate that you understand what you're saying. I see only statements without a context and no fundament.
(5) You have strange ideas about the limits of synthetics, which have proven invalid in the ME universe. I believe Sisterofshane has already pointed that out.
(6) Regarding FTL: To paraphrase you: that people try to work around the limits of relativity doesn't mean that it's possible. The mathematical equations say it isn't, not without wormholes. Should they manage it, relativity will have been overturned and the limits of current understanding will change. You can, btw, apply the same reasoning to the singularity: we are trying to build AI, and once the processing power of ur computers is high enough we'll try to build a seed AI. The only difference is that even now, there is no theory that prevents it from being regarded as possible. Very much unlike FTL.

/thread for today.

[Taboo]

1) I have already addressed this. Suspension of disbelief occurs when you can explain something with validity in your Universe. Even you have admitted that Synthesis is a huge WTF moment. It is not explained and as such I pass it off as bad writing. We sit here and struggle to interpret something that Bioware had no intention of doing originally.

2) In the opening paragraph you mention real world scientific theories and assumptions. You present nothing different than from what I do.

3) As do you. My opinions are no less valid than yours. This is Bioware's fault.

4) The same to you. That is my point. It has no bearing on anything. It is not science.

5) Synthetics are artificial beings. They are not organic. They are not substrate dependent. They lack the enzymes needed to evolve and adapt. I would recommend any book on evolution for that, particularly anything by Richard Dawkins. If we were the same there would be no need for Synthesis.

6) A singularity has no precursors at this time. There is no sufficient evidence to explain even the possibility of one occurring. You can only speculate. They have test results RIGHT NOW that explain why we may be close to overturning the Theory of Relativity.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Essentially with the tech singularity, we end up with the "Rice on the Chessboard" problem. Okay, what is this, and I get +1 Internetz for this.

You have a chessboard which has 64 squares on it. According to legend, vizier Sissa Ben Dahir presented an Indian King Sharim with a beautiful, hand-made chessboard. The king asked what he would like in return for his gift and the courtier surprised the king by asking for one grain of rice on the first square, two grains on the second, four grains on the third etc. The king readily agreed and asked for the rice to be brought. All went well at first, but the requirement for 2 to the (n − 1) power grains on the nth square demanded over a million grains on the 21st square, more than a trillion on the 41st and there simply was not enough rice in the whole world for the final squares. (from Wiki)

This is why we run out of resources getting to the technological singularity. There are simply not enough resources to achieve it. There probably are in the entire universe if you include dark matter, but definitely not on our world, and very likely not in our galaxy.

__________________________________________________________

The Catalyst I agree is stuck in a loop and cannot see a way out of the loop until the Crucible is attached to the Citadel and Shepard arrives. "The Crucible changed me." It provided a temporary hardware upgrade until Harbinger destroys it, and allows the Catalyst to come up with up to three solutions to the dilemma, but the Catalyst is still bound by its original program and thus cannot make the choice itself. It needs Shepard to make that choice.

The change that the Crucible imposes on the Catalyst indicates that the Catalyst itself, although an AI is not at the technological singularity.

* The Catalyst being an AI has self-preservation code. It wants to survive. Its interests lie in Control and Synthesis, not Destroy.

The endings as they currently stand are vague, and all we can do is hope the EC clears up this oversight.

[TheCrazyHobo]

OP, I am respectfully disagreeing with you in regards to Synthesis and here are some of my reasons:

1. Why is Synthesis needed? The Writers in these series since Mass Effect 2 have shown that AI are just like us with EDI, Legion and the True Geth. They have shown us that diverse beings CAN come together and find a common ground. In Mass Effect, once you listen to the AI, you find that they are not much different than you and I.

2. How was the change happen? First, let us look at it from the organic point of view. Our DNA is made up of the four bases,GTCA, and we do not know what type proteins the Turians, Quarians and Javik use. So for Synthesis to work on a human, for example, it must somehow combine our DNA with the Synthetic equivalent. The problem is Synthetics do not have an equivalent. Mass Effect AI like EDI are programs with "Blue Boxes" full of quantum computing chips. So this means that Synthesis somehow added a "blue box" to our DNA structure. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this will not work, and this is even before we get to the synthetics.

3. My last point is that the ability to do "Synthesis" does not seem within the Reaper's capabilities. It is one thing to do major genetic rewrite of species like the Collectors, but adding new "information" is God -Like. The Reapers just simply do not possess the technological power to do so as presented throughout the series. Besides, we would still have different types of DNA seeing as Quarains/Turians/Javik still look like they did before, so it really doesn't solve anything. Now instead of Geth killing us we have Robo-Batarians killing us, thanks Shepherd!

[Ieldra]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Taboo-XX:
(1) Vacuum energy exists in amounts several orders of magnitude greater than the total energy output of the galaxy.
(2) There is no indication of every atom of every organic being being affected. My scenario is more akin to one action per organic being. But I grant that the *process* of Synthesis, if not the result, stretches credibility. That's why this is in the realm of "sufficiently advanced technology".

For things that are still possible with hard science, I suggest studying the Orion's Arm Universe Project. Even things that cannot be explained by any technology you can imagine still may be physically possible, and as long as they aren't proven physically impossible, they can be used in hard SF. And ME isn't even hard.

So just forget about this line of reasoning. It is not valid.

I will again cite Steven Pinker:

There is not the slightest reason to believe in a coming singularity. The fact that you can visualize a future in your imagination is not evidence that it is likely or even possible. Look at domed cities, jet-pack commuting, underwater cities, mile-high buildings, and nuclear-powered automobiles — all staples of futuristic fantasies when I was a child that have never arrived. Sheer processing power is not a pixie dust that magically solves all your problems.

Exponential growth is not a predictor of a singularity. Just because you can see potential growth doesn't mean it will ever reach said point. The idea is hypothetical. We have stagnated technology wise because we are limited by our enviroment. There are too many variables that impact such things.

Oh my....this again. Steven Pinker is a psychologist. He has no idea if there are reasons to believe in a future singularity,. All he says is that imagination is not enough - which is trivial. Any author of fiction knows that. Proponents of the singularity have argued that there is reason to believe in it. Without giving me the actual logic behind Pinker's assertion, I am unable to judge the validity of his claims against those of the others. The thing about exponential growth: People like Ray Kurzweil do not claim that exponential processing power necessarily results in a singularity. They only claim that this kind of growth is a requirement for the development of sufficiently complex AI in a relatively short timeframe. 

Also I think people misunderstand the technological singularity as having something to do  with infinite progression. That is not the case. The term "singularity" is used here to illustrate that post-singularity AI *may* be beyond the limits of our understanding, and that this results in a future inherently unpredictable by pre-singularity minds.   

So, yet again, I ask you to demonstrate the logic behind your assertions. I also ask you to demonstrate why the concept of a technological singularity should not be used in SF. You have failed to do that so far.

@TheCrazyHobo:
Thank you for your reply. I will have to move my extended answer to tomorrow. But I think you have missed the sections "Synthesis is not a genetic rewrite" and "Simple enmity is not the problem the Catalyst tries to solve." I believe that you did not reply to my interpretation of Synthesis but you are taking the "genetic rewrite" at face value, which I believe is not advisable. I think it was a "metaphor for the dumb human" (lilitheris). Arguments against the Synthesis based on the impossibility and the nonsensical nature of a galaxy-wide genetic rewrite do not invalidate my interpretation.

Сообщение изменено: Ieldra2, 20 Май 2012 - 09:01 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I think the problem is that unless one has read Kurzweil one does not know his definition of singularity. That is the problem we are having. Definition. It's not something one can get from looking it up on Wikipedia. One needs to read his book The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology

It's a future we don't know. Yet the overview presented in Wiki look astounding. Some of them I actually hope I see in my lifetime. To think that at some point some cybernetic implants could fix medical problems, or allow people to meet with each other without having to travel 6000 miles and do so in a fully sensing virtual media rather than over something as primative as Skype.

We see the dark side of things, and the media always likes to present the dark side because quite frankly it sells.

So if we take Kurzweil's definitions of a technological singularity, I don't have any issue of it being used in Sci Fi. I think our sticking point was defining the term. Whether or not we ever actually reach the singularity is going to be another matter. Due to human nature and the fact that there will be a rebelling against tech by certain groups the singularity will get delayed either temporarily or permanently depending upon the power those groups achieve.

The problem with the Synthesis ending was the way it was presented.

Сообщение изменено: sH0tgUn jUliA, 20 Май 2012 - 09:48 .

[Sisterofshane]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I think the problem is that unless one has read Kurzweil one does not know his definition of singularity. That is the problem we are having. Definition. It's not something one can get from looking it up on Wikipedia. One needs to read his book The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology

It's a future we don't know. Yet the overview presented in Wiki look astounding. Some of them I actually hope I see in my lifetime. To think that at some point some cybernetic implants could fix medical problems, or allow people to meet with each other without having to travel 6000 miles and do so in a fully sensing virtual media rather than over something as primative as Skype.

We see the dark side of things, and the media always likes to present the dark side because quite frankly it sells.

So if we take Kurzweil's definitions of a technological singularity, I don't have any issue of it being used in Sci Fi. I think our sticking point was defining the term. Whether or not we ever actually reach the singularity is going to be another matter. Due to human nature and the fact that there will be a rebelling against tech by certain groups the singularity will get delayed either temporarily or permanently depending upon the power those groups achieve.

The problem with the Synthesis ending was the way it was presented.

One hundred times this, although it is interesting to note that the concept of singularity is never brought up by the Catalyst.  It only talks about the creation of synthetics leading to eventual extinction by them.  The way we get from point a to point b,  however, is never explained.

[Taboo]

 The problem is presentation, as I have stated before time and time again, firstly by Bioware and secondly by the Star Child. The problem is not implementation in Sciene Fiction. The problem is implementation in Mass Effect.


1. You do not, under ANY circumstances introduce a character of such magnitude in the last ten minutes, regardless of how much forshadwing you have had for them. They cannot be intergral to the plot action. This is incredibly poor writing. 

2. You do not, under ANY circumstances introduce a concept to an audience that they cannot readily understood at the last minute. This creates two problems with your narrative:

Verisimilitude: You must relay your narrative in a manner that is clear if you have chosen to do so in the past one hundred hours. Mass Effect was belivable in said time period and was explained with in canon lore. Synthesis and the Singularity are explained as simply being beyond our comprehension. No dice. That's a lazy narrative technique.

Perspicacity: Sudden influxes of information ****** people off,l especially when they cannot process it. Furthermore we are given all this new information to process PLUS all the information we have had before. It is not good storytelling to implement things at the last minute and leave thing unresolved. This is narrative suicide.

The problem isn't a singularity in the narrative of Science Fiction per se but the implementation of it in a narrative at such short notice and with such a forebearance on the outcome. You ****** off the audience when you do this and that is the one thing you must NEVER do.

Bioware had no intention of explaining this to us originally. We all look foolish trying to explain something that cannot be explained.

[Veneke]

@OP: Very interesting. I do see though that you haven't found a way to explain the problem the Catalyst asserts is the case without simply taking his words at face value. That was my biggest issue with regards Synthesis (I ended up picking it anyway on the assumption of narrative honesty given the late minute addition of the character).

The Dyson swarm though... that's pretty clever.

Taboo-XX wrote...

 The problem is presentation, as I have stated before time and time again, firstly by Bioware and secondly by the Star Child. The problem is not implementation in Sciene Fiction. The problem is implementation in Mass Effect.

1. You do not, under ANY circumstances introduce a character of such magnitude in the last ten minutes, regardless of how much forshadwing you have had for them. They cannot be intergral to the plot action. This is incredibly poor writing. 

2. You do not, under ANY circumstances introduce a concept to an audience that they cannot readily understood at the last minute. This creates two problems with your narrative:

Verisimilitude: You must relay your narrative in a manner that is clear if you have chosen to do so in the past one hundred hours. Mass Effect was belivable in said time period and was explained with in canon lore. Synthesis and the Singularity are explained as simply being beyond our comprehension. No dice. That's a lazy narrative technique.

Perspicacity: Sudden influxes of information ****** people off,l especially when they cannot process it. Furthermore we are given all this new information to process PLUS all the information we have had before. It is not good storytelling to implement things at the last minute and leave thing unresolved. This is narrative suicide.

The problem isn't a singularity in the narrative of Science Fiction per se but the implementation of it in a narrative at such short notice and with such a forebearance on the outcome. You ****** off the audience when you do this and that is the one thing you must NEVER do.

Bioware had no intention of explaining this to us originally. We all look foolish trying to explain something that cannot be explained.

Mostly agreeable and true, even if largely irrelevant to the point at hand. Your last sentence is just absurd, however. It's quite explainable, easily so and in many different ways in fact - the problem is that none of these explanations were given ingame. It might be foolish to continue guessing as to which explanation Bioware intended but it's hardly folly to explore some of the more likely explanations.

[Taboo]

Veneke wrote...
Mostly agreeable and true, even if largely irrelevant to the point at hand. Your last sentence is just absurd, however. It's quite explainable, easily so and in many different ways in fact - the problem is that none of these explanations were given ingame. It might be foolish to continue guessing as to which explanation Bioware intended but it's hardly folly to explore some of the more likely explanations.

Likely? Are you serious? You accuse me of saying of being innocuity and then lambast me again with contradictory sentiments of your own?

Explain it.

With in canon lore.

Right now.

Сообщение изменено: Taboo-XX, 21 Май 2012 - 12:38 .

[Veneke]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Veneke wrote...
Mostly agreeable and true, even if largely irrelevant to the point at hand. Your last sentence is just absurd, however. It's quite explainable, easily so and in many different ways in fact - the problem is that none of these explanations were given ingame. It might be foolish to continue guessing as to which explanation Bioware intended but it's hardly folly to explore some of the more likely explanations.

Likely? Are you serious? You accuse me of saying of being innocuity and then lambast me again with contradictory sentiments of your own?

Explain it.

With in canon lore.

Right now.

Perhaps you should reread my middle sentence where I say that 'none of these explanations were given ingame.' OP provides some explanation as to how Synthesis can be explained and it seems to be the most likely one going. I've been keeping an eye on the Synthesis threads and so far this looks like the best one with the most likely explanation. Do you know of a better one?

P.S. I suggest you revise your understanding of the word 'innocuity.'

Сообщение изменено: Veneke, 21 Май 2012 - 01:04 .

[Taboo]

Veneke wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Veneke wrote...
Mostly agreeable and true, even if largely irrelevant to the point at hand. Your last sentence is just absurd, however. It's quite explainable, easily so and in many different ways in fact - the problem is that none of these explanations were given ingame. It might be foolish to continue guessing as to which explanation Bioware intended but it's hardly folly to explore some of the more likely explanations.

Likely? Are you serious? You accuse me of saying of being innocuity and then lambast me again with contradictory sentiments of your own?

Explain it.

With in canon lore.

Right now.

Perhaps you should reread my middle sentence where I say that 'none of these explanations were given ingame.' OP provides some explanation as to how Synthesis can be explained and it seems to be the most likely one going. I've been keeping an eye on the Synthesis threads and so far this looks like the best one with the most likely explanation. Do you know of a better one?

P.S. I suggest you revise your understanding of the word 'innocuity.'

Bioware has said they have no intention of explaining the endings. It's just bad, that's it.

You accuse me of having nothing to do with the post? You label it innocuous? Are you serious? I made that post as a direct response to the OP. You made it out to be that my sentence had nothing to do with the current situation. That's what I'm referring to. I know exactly what word I'm using and it what context. I made a typo.

None of the reasons the OP cites are explained in game either. They are speculations. You do not assign meaning to something unless you can provide evidence to show it in action. It is meaningless to try and explain it. You cannot. These are not theories, they are hypothetical, just as a singularity is.


The OP attempts to apply a rational explanation to something that cannot be explained. You are trying to explain something that is "sufficiently advanced technology" remember? If we use your explanation it is no different from magic.

I explained why it isn't possible and the OP dismissed me ad nauseum, citing that it exists in a fictional narrative. They then proceed to use the same tactic against me.

Сообщение изменено: Taboo-XX, 21 Май 2012 - 01:20 .

[Veneke]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Veneke wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Veneke wrote...
Mostly agreeable and true, even if largely irrelevant to the point at hand. Your last sentence is just absurd, however. It's quite explainable, easily so and in many different ways in fact - the problem is that none of these explanations were given ingame. It might be foolish to continue guessing as to which explanation Bioware intended but it's hardly folly to explore some of the more likely explanations.

Likely? Are you serious? You accuse me of saying of being innocuity and then lambast me again with contradictory sentiments of your own?

Explain it.

With in canon lore.

Right now.

Perhaps you should reread my middle sentence where I say that 'none of these explanations were given ingame.' OP provides some explanation as to how Synthesis can be explained and it seems to be the most likely one going. I've been keeping an eye on the Synthesis threads and so far this looks like the best one with the most likely explanation. Do you know of a better one?

P.S. I suggest you revise your understanding of the word 'innocuity.'

Bioware has said they have no intention of explaining the endings. It's just bad, that's it.

You accuse me of having nothing to do with the post? You label it innocuous? Are you serious? I made that post as a direct response to the OP. You made it out to be that my sentence had nothing to do with the current situation. That's what I'm referring to. I know exactly what word I'm using and it what context. I made a typo.

None of the reasons the OP cites are explained in game either. They are speculations. You do not assign meaning to something unless you can provide evidence to show it in action. It is meaningless to try and explain it. You cannot. These are not theories, they are hypothetical, just as a singularity is.


The OP attempts to apply a rational explanation to something that cannot be explained. You are trying to explain something that is "sufficiently advanced technology" remember? If we use your explanation it is no different from magic.

I explained why it isn't possible and the OP dismissed me ad nauseum, citing that it exists in a fictional narrative. They then proceed to use the same tactic against me.

Reread what Bioware have said about the EC. They're providing additional clarity and closure - that's an explanation (of sorts).

Innocuous means harmless or inoffensive, not irrelevant. The post of yours that I quoted talked about the do's and don't's of storytelling and narrative. It was all quite correct, but all quite irrelevant to an explanation of synthesis.

No one suggests that Synthesis is explained ingame. If it did, this thread wouldn't exist. There is ingame evidence that can be used to substantiate the theory but it isn't explained - nothing regarding the end of ME 3 is, in point of fact. That's why we have all the speculation. The evidence the OP uses from the game itself is quite clear. I'll paraphrase (and probably leave some out): 

 - The forthcoming development of the Geth Dyson Swarm is the potential basis for a technological singularity to occur.
 - The last minute addition of the Catalyst must imply that it's telling the truth. The endings fall apart until under their own weight if this is disregarded (see Indoc theory). This is more of a narrative assumption.
 - The disparity in intelligence between the Catalyst and Shep is the excuse for the simplification of the Catalyst's goals.
 - The Catalyst's projections for 100% likelihood of creations rebelling against the Creators is the same logic used to initiate the Genophage by the Salarians.

It's a theory mate. A proposed explanation based on evidence that has yet to be confirmed as fact. It would be a hypothesis if it was based on no evidence. In other words Indoc and Synthesis explanations are theories because they use evidence to support their claims. Something like this: http://social.biowar.../index/12157093 is a hypothesis because it is simply a suggestion with no or limited facts to accompany it.

I honestly don't follow your last two paragraphs. Perhaps I'm missing a step in your thinking. I've read your previous posts and not once do you appear to explain why you believe it can not be explained. Care to share?

Сообщение изменено: Veneke, 21 Май 2012 - 01:56 .

[delta_vee]

I think what Taboo's getting at is that any explanation of the Synthesis option is entirely paratextual. We have almost nothing in-game (on the page, as it were) to support either the idea of the Singularity or the inevitability of conflict afterward. Paratext can be extremely useful in its own ways, but basic interpretation of the text should never be reliant upon it. Since the game we received was such a fundamentally literalist text, using paratextual ideas to explain it runs counter to the framework used to interpret the remainder of the game - while it may suffice for individuals predisposed to certain ideas to use them in completing the incomplete, liminal text we received, such an approach cannot be generalized or even suggested as any sort of canonical reading.

Also, I second Taboo's objections to the Singularity even in principle. The concept is primarily the product of a misapplication of Moore's Law by Ray Kurzweil and then Vernor Vinge. We're already hitting the limits of Moore's Law in chip design, and its applicability to other fields is disputed at best. As an science-fictional concept it has standing, but must be much more thoroughly explored over the duration of the text, and must present counter-arguments to the objections which have been raised by many since its inception.

[PsyrenY]

Taboo-XX wrote...

A singularity is a hypothetical issue. It is not even a theory at this point.

Bull****. The Geth freaking achieved it during ME3.

Legion: The geth were building a megastructure to house all geth, store all memories. It was to end our isolation from each other.
Shep: And the quarian flotilla attacked it?
Legion: Yes. A significant amount of programs were installed when creators began bombing. We did not have sufficient surplus hardware to save them all. Some programs could not be recovered.

This is the same Dyson Sphere he tells you about in ME2. The one that, once all of them were in it, would "increase their intelligence beyond calculable measure" and which even he admits "they do not know what the effects will be." That is a textbook singularity, dude.

[PsyrenY]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Bioware has said they have no intention of explaining the endings. It's just bad, that's it.

Source for this statement. The EC FAQ says nothing like this.

In fact, it says the exact opposite:

"For fans who want more closure in Mass Effect 3, the DLC will offer extended scenes that provide additional context and deeper insight to the conclusion of Commander Shepard’s journey."

"The goal of the DLC is not to provide a new ending to the game, rather to offer fans additional context and answers to the end of Commander Shepard’s story."


Honestly, I'm beginning to see why Bioware ignores you people all the damn time.