235 réponses à ce sujet

[Umbrage_89]

why wage war if you can destroy a planetary system by killing off the sun?

[CaptainZaysh]

@Computron2000: Von Neumann probes armed with cameras and nukes.

[Vigilant111]

Rane7685 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Rane7685 wrote...

Arent synthetics immortal. So long as they reproduce (build machines) at a rate to replenish and grow their numbers won't they (given enough time) be able to eradicate organic life? They just need to be able to conquer at a rate faster then the creation of new life. Then so long as remain viable they would eventually destroy all organic life. But I could be wrong

Not immortal, just last longer but then so are the Asari

a cell duplicates faster than machines, that's why reapers chose to convert organics into reaper troops rather than to find extra material to build their own troops

Are you sure thats the lore because I could swear I remember conversations with Legion regarding his immortality. Also the reapers purpose is to preserve organic life in their synthetic shell. I thought it was implied that this was to be forever.

I think immortality refers to the knowledge that they already got because they can share knowledge readily, and not in the physical sense, reapers are not invincible if they land on planets, there's bound to be some wear and tear, not to mention some planets are harsher than others

Reapers's purpose is to harvest and stop chaos, not preserve

[Cypher_CS]

Orumon wrote...

Cypher_CS wrote...
....

In your reply to my argument against the infinity clause: Yes, but then, isn't using the infinity clause is a popular way of enforcing arbitrary arguments without providing proof. The Catalyst states this is how it will always be, without providing ANY examples to back it's argument.

Since it doesn't, Shepard can only provide one example to back the catalysts argument (barring the catalyst itself): The Citadel minor AI who tried to blow itself and Shepard up.

There are lots of counter arguments.

I agree, and I've pointed that problem myself.
This is exactly like Pascal's Wager, in that he assumes the benefits of Believing in God are infinite.

However, again, I am not saying you must believe the Catalyst's logic. I am only saying you must listen and understand that it has a logic behind it. You are free to try and disprove it (well, unfortunately, not in the game you aren't), but you can also do the Prudential math and pick a choice...

In point of fact, since you can't actually disprove it within the game - and we've already been over why Geth and EDI aren't proof against - you are left with only one possible way of disproving it. Or, rather, two. Destroy and Control. Let them fall where they may, so to speak.
Synthesis, in this case, would be the Prudential best choice. Again, only mathematically speaking and assuming we don't go inventing horror scenarios on what Synthesis actually does.

[Cypher_CS]

Computron2000 wrote...

Feel free to tell me how permanent sterilization of the entire universe can happen by said "post TS Ultimate Intellignce"?

Oh, thank you so much for allowing me the opportunity to... feel free to reply.

First of all, we aren't talking about Universe, just Galaxy.
Maybe that point wasn't made strongly enough before. But we are talking about a Finite space. A Galaxy is Finite, even if you assume, without proof, mind you, that the Universe is Infinite.

That's said... well, there's no Secondly, really.
Because, if you take into consideration that the Galaxy is Finite, the laws of Probability take a minor step back.
No! I'm not saying they don't count, I'm saying the equation changes from an Infinite to the Finite, in this case.
Which means, there wouldn't be much of a problem to sterilze the entire Galaxy by... hell, simply dropping massive amounts of Bleach on planets.
Yes, I'm exaggerating the power of Bleach on purpose here.

Also, it's not really about erasing it from ever arising again. But more about maintaining their... deadness.
Big difference here, oh Computational one.

[Computron2000]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Computron2000 wrote...

Feel free to tell me how permanent sterilization of the entire universe can happen by said "post TS Ultimate Intellignce"?

Oh, thank you so much for allowing me the opportunity to... feel free to reply.

First of all, we aren't talking about Universe, just Galaxy.
Maybe that point wasn't made strongly enough before. But we are talking about a Finite space. A Galaxy is Finite, even if you assume, without proof, mind you, that the Universe is Infinite.

... No we are talking about TIME not space. I have already said time and time again. NEAR INFINITE TIME.

Oh and please do remember that time goes BOTH WAYS. Not just years, centuries, millenia but also micro, nano and picoseconds

Cypher_CS wrote...
That's said... well, there's no Secondly, really.
Because, if you take into consideration that the Galaxy is Finite, the laws of Probability take a minor step back.
No! I'm not saying they don't count, I'm saying the equation changes from an Infinite to the Finite, in this case.
Which means, there wouldn't be much of a problem to sterilze the entire Galaxy by... hell, simply dropping massive amounts of Bleach on planets.
Yes, I'm exaggerating the power of Bleach on purpose here.

Also, it's not really about erasing it from ever arising again. But more about maintaining their... deadness.
Big difference here, oh Computational one.

 
So now you admit your initial point of sterilizing organics permanently cannot happen? Which i pointed out in my post asking for your method of permanently sterilizing organics? And for which i received a useless reply? This is exactly the recursive discussions i mentioned i wanted to avoid.

Seriously this is why i dislike discussing objective things with people who don't understand the scientific background and can only use subjective stuff to attempt to excuse it.

Modifié par Computron2000, 08 juin 2012 - 11:43 .

[Cypher_CS]

Computron2000 wrote...
Oh and please do remember that time goes BOTH WAYS. Not just years, centuries, millenia but also micro, nano and picoseconds

How is that exactly Both ways?
Seems still kinda one way to me.


To put it all in a nutshell, you want me to prove to you that it is possible to sterilize a galaxy (again, NOT universe, cause with Finite space comes finite time, mind you, as in, there's a limit to how much to do, so there can also be a limit to how long it would time - time and space are interwoven that pesky kind of way), because you claim it is impossible. Right?

Well, I'll tell you what, please explain to me why you are so sure that it is impossible and we'll continue the debate (despite your childish statements) from there. K?

[MadCat221]

I realized something... during the Protheans' cycle, the only reason that synthetic life wiped out organic life was because of the Reapers. The Protheans already realized the danger of the cold logic of AI; it's the reason why the Protheans made their monolithic empire. The Reapers were a self-fulfilling prediction.

And in this cycle, if you play the cards right, Catalyst is even more wrong: unlike him, the two major AI groups (EDI, Geth), learn to evolve beyond mere cold logic like him.

And another reason the Catalyst is wrong: "Synthesis" is not the end of evolution. The only end of evolution of a species is extinction. There is no "perfect state" of evolution, only "most optimal for survival in an environment". So Catalyst has been doing plenty of ending of evolution.

Modifié par MadCat221, 08 juin 2012 - 02:25 .

[Computron2000]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Computron2000 wrote...
Oh and please do remember that time goes BOTH WAYS. Not just years, centuries, millenia but also micro, nano and picoseconds

How is that exactly Both ways?
Seems still kinda one way to me.


To put it all in a nutshell, you want me to prove to you that it is possible to sterilize a galaxy (again, NOT universe, cause with Finite space comes finite time, mind you, as in, there's a limit to how much to do, so there can also be a limit to how long it would time - time and space are interwoven that pesky kind of way), because you claim it is impossible. Right?

Well, I'll tell you what, please explain to me why you are so sure that it is impossible and we'll continue the debate (despite your childish statements) from there. K?

Really? Infinite whole numbers vs infinite splitting of fractions? It doesn't register at all? 

And finite space = finite time? *facepalm* You really don't understand what space time means do you?  You think they are the same because you saw it in a physics article...

Since i already asked the question first, do show some common courtesy of answering the question or admitting you have no idea. Here's the question again. How you sterilize the galaxy permanently since you say it can be done.

Modifié par Computron2000, 09 juin 2012 - 11:36 .

[Cypher_CS]

Woah there, when you Assume... and all.

It doesn't matter if it's a whole number or a fraction - it still goes the same way forward. Time, that is.
Even if you constantly add a smaller and smaller fraction to your TIME counter, you still have Time going the same way. That's how Humans perceive time. There is no other way. It is the same direction. The same way....
Further more, that's frakking Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

What's with the facepalm?
You assume something that I have not actually stated. You proclaim victory where there is none. And you give me a facepalm? Really?

No, finite space does NOT equal finite time. And I didn't say it does.
I only meant - and it is quite easily understandable from what I originally wrote - that if your problem was with Infinite Space (i.e. the Universe), then yes, it would have to take Infinite Time to accomplish. However, if your problem is a Finite Space (i.e. Galaxy), then it only stands to reason that there is at least one solution - and probably more - that is of Finite Time.

One such solution might be to bombard all planets in the Galaxy with nuclear weapons. Or even just destroy all non barren rock Planets, all Planets capable of supporting life - just blow them up.
It's a Finite number of Planets.
If you want some Sci Fi examples, build a "few" Neutrino Radiation emitters and place one in each Solar System (again, a Finite number) and just watch how Life does NOT evolve or continue to exist.

Don't talk about common courtesy when all you've done is come in and say "can't be done" and now demand proof that it can.
Did you prove it can't when you originally posted? No.

Yes, your assertion about the Universe did frame the question in a matter beneficial to your statement - citing infinite time and infinite space and just statistics.
But I've already explained the reframing of it to a Galaxy instead of the Universe, which takes the Infinity, more or less, out of the equation.

[Computron2000]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Woah there, when you Assume... and all.

It doesn't matter if it's a whole number or a fraction - it still goes the same way forward. Time, that is.
Even if you constantly add a smaller and smaller fraction to your TIME counter, you still have Time going the same way. That's how Humans perceive time. There is no other way. It is the same direction. The same way....
Further more, that's frakking Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

...Here's a word. Abiogenisis. Since its obvious you don't know it, here's the wiki article so you don't need to bother searching and trying to look knowledgable on it http://en.wikipedia....iki/Abiogenisis

There's a obvious reason on why i mention the 2 infinities. I am not talking about "time travel" or whatever rubbish you're talking about.

Molecular interaction in forming organic molecules. What is the time frame? micro? nano? pico? 0.1^100? What is the basic time frame for gauging the minimum time for organic molecule formation? 

Cypher_CS wrote...
What's with the facepalm?
You assume something that I have not actually stated. You proclaim victory where there is none. And you give me a facepalm? Really?

No, finite space does NOT equal finite time. And I didn't say it does.
I only meant - and it is quite easily understandable from what I originally wrote - that if your problem was with Infinite Space (i.e. the Universe), then yes, it would have to take Infinite Time to accomplish. However, if your problem is a Finite Space (i.e. Galaxy), then it only stands to reason that there is at least one solution - and probably more - that is of Finite Time.

So you explain that you do not mean that finite space=finite time and yet you mention the exact same thing.

Notice i never had a problem with whether it is regarding the universe or regarding a galaxy as the dimension of time is not affected by whether it is the universe or galaxy, you were the one who mentioned this.

I believe this is known as a "strawman fallacy". A textbook one.

Cypher_CS wrote...
One such solution might be to bombard all planets in the Galaxy with nuclear weapons. Or even just destroy all non barren rock Planets, all Planets capable of supporting life - just blow them up.
It's a Finite number of Planets.
If you want some Sci Fi examples, build a "few" Neutrino Radiation emitters and place one in each Solar System (again, a Finite number) and just watch how Life does NOT evolve or continue to exist.

So according to you, every star system in our galaxy is static and no longer are stars and planets created. Is this what you are saying because if it is, you better read up on star/planetary formation. Oh and you might want to realise that our galaxy is going to meld with the Andromeda galaxy in a few billion years...

Destroy non barren rock planets... So the barren rock planets are fine then? Want to read up on what Earth was like after its formation?

Neutrino radiation emitters? Do you even know what is a neutrino? Our sun gives off neutrinos, so according to you, we should not be alive. We are all zombies then? Btw, an argument based on space magic you made up. No actual scientific basis involved. Magnificent, a incredibly convincing argument if i ever saw one.

Cypher_CS wrote...
Don't talk about common courtesy when all you've done is come in and say "can't be done" and now demand proof that it can.
Did you prove it can't when you originally posted? No.

Yes, your assertion about the Universe did frame the question in a matter beneficial to your statement - citing infinite time and infinite space and just statistics.
But I've already explained the reframing of it to a Galaxy instead of the Universe, which takes the Infinity, more or less, out of the equation.

I already proven it. The laws of probability already show it. You already admitted it yourself. Want me to quote the relevant sections?

Again more of the (finite space) galaxy = finite time. Really, do you even think about your first paragraph when you write the second? 

As it stands, what you're doing is called back pedalling and you are doing a poor job of it.