235 réponses à ce sujet

[Vigilant111]

May I raise a point again about the validity about Catalyst's statement: I think the law of averages dictates that a surprising event will occur after the cycle (experiment) has repeated itself for long enough

A lot of the synthesis supporters tend to ignore this view, I have raised this point a few times on synthesis support threads, but no one seems to notice

[Cypher_CS]

Which surprising event would that be, according to the law of averages?

[Cypher_CS]

HellbirdIV wrote...

So your argument is, "Even though it hasn't happened in 100% of observed cases, that doesn't mean it won't happen!"

No. That's not my argument.
My argument - again, not justifying the base assumptions of the Catalyst's logic, just the logic itself - is that you don't have any observed cases.

HellbirdIV wrote... 
The Catalyst's argument relies on synthetics being inherently malicious and always violently revolting against their creators, ultimately exterminating not only them, but all organic life. That's exactly what the Catalyst says and the whole basis for his stupid "salvation through destruction" idea. 

Please provide me with a direct quote, or a YouTube video, where those are stated?

HellbirdIV wrote...  
Well no. Even a full-scale nuclear bombardment turning a garden world into a radioactive ball of slag wouldn't affect a "galactic engine" (a ridiculous concept, the energy and material requirements to build such a thing would far surpass the need for such a thing to exist) in the slightest because it does not in fact impact anything beyond its own atmosphere.

Even grand scale interstellar war with spaceships and laser cannons won't have any noticable impact because your theoretical silliness is powered by the stars themselves. It's not cancer, it is more similar to the billions of internal bacteria in our bodies that have no noticable impact on our daily existence.

You did not understand the concept.
The concept is not a being that is physically connected throughout the stars. But rather where something like QEC is the Nervous system of Planets, each planet being a Node in the system.
It's not about the physical destruction itself, it's about the end result of the physical destruction leaving those Nodes dead, uncommunicative.

Think of it, for example, like if the Internet was a "living" being.
You got a war in Russia - Nuke russia, and whole chunks of the Internet are dead - because of servers and communications. Now, this living being may have had redundancies stored elsewhere (Google servers), but it has now become much slower - because a chunk of it's communications network is down, permanently, and there's much more needed time to invest in retreiving data from those redundancies instead of the original decentralized parts in Russia.
Then, you have a similar war in Japan. Then Yurope (). Then US....

How smart or how alive is this theoretical AI is now?

[Hjelsao]

I'm less interested in evidence that disproves it than in evidence that proves it. The star kid is trying to convince Shepard that it is an inevitability, and so, the burden of evidence rests entirely on him. Don't know about you, but I'd like something more concrete than "nah, dude! It's totally going to happen!" which is basically what he puts forth.

[Cypher_CS]

Hjelsao wrote...

I'm less interested in evidence that disproves it than in evidence that proves it. The star kid is trying to convince Shepard that it is an inevitability, and so, the burden of evidence rests entirely on him. Don't know about you, but I'd like something more concrete than "nah, dude! It's totally going to happen!" which is basically what he puts forth.

Again, that's a valid stance.

And most definitely, one of the major problems with the ending is it's abruptness.
Sure, we talk about AI turning on organics throughout all of the ME trilogy - but it never takes center stage except for the Geth/Quarian conflict.
Even EDI seems rather a sideshow.

The ending takes this concept and just puts it center stage - abruptly.
No argument there that it's a problemetic way of doing this. It's a bad way of doing this.

Now, people who are, for example, well versed in such ideas of AI in Sci-Fi and the TS - or, rather, not well versed but recently versed in it, as in recently playing other games with such ideas or reading books with them - probably won't take the idea so foreign like. Won't take so much umbrage at it.

Others will.

Again, it's the abruptness that's the problem here.
Or, for Taboo's sake - relevance

[Computron2000]

The base problem is that the reaper kid is dealing with absolutes. He needs to take a statistics class.
You make a statement "Apples are always red". Someone shows you a green apple. Your first statement is already wrong because always = 100%.

At best you can say "Apples tend to be reddish when the number of apples approaches infinity". However, it still does not mean that any apples out of near infinite apples will be reddish.

[StElmo]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Common sense proves the Catalyst is wrong. Dead wrong.

/thread

[CaptainZaysh]

The OP wrote...
I suppose it's possible that the galaxy would one day be packed wall to wall with killer robots, but exceedingly improbable.  Hardly the certainty that the Catalyst makes it out to be.

This is the killer quote, because if you read up on the concept of Von Neumann probes you find that it's not improbable at all.

It has been theorized that a self-replicating starship utilizing relatively conventional theoretical methods of interstellar travel (i.e., no exotic faster-than-light propulsion such as "warp drive", and speeds limited to an "average cruising speed" of 0.1c.) could spread throughout a galaxy the size of the Milky Way in as little as half a million years.

Ticonderoga117 wrote...
/thread

Modifié par CaptainZaysh, 31 mai 2012 - 10:58 .

[Harorrd]

But why use the relays when you got FTL? because 50 000 years nonstop FTL Speed to travel from one side of the galaxy to the other is not worth it, The relays fix this issue.

[Dean_the_Young]

unoriginalname1133 wrote...

Well, considering that organic life is still around, the assumption that the Catalyst is working from has obviously NEVER happened. So we still have more known cases of synthetics being peaceful.

In this cycle?

Our sample size is the Geth, the Reapers, EDI, and that AI on the Citadel. All Geth were complicit in the genocide of the Quarians in the morning war, well past any 'necessary for self-defense' arguments, but since the Geth did suffer a factional split we can split them into two groups: Heretics and non-Heretics.

'Peaceful' synthetics include non-Heretic Geth and EDI.

Hostile synthetics include Heretic Geth, Reapers, and the AI on the Citadel.


Even if we remove the Reapers because they don't really consider themselves synthetics and are unnatural organic-synthetic hybrids, that still leaves us a 50-50 division on peaceful vs. non-peaceful synthetics... and that's only if we ignore the past decisions of the 'true' Geth.


If we start factoring in Javik, then the numbers get significantly more lopsided.


There's only been one known non-hostile uncontrolled synthetic race, and that is EDI. Who is a warship/sex-bot which certainly has been instrumental in a lot of deaths.

[Mims]

What about life in other galaxies? Is the singularity taking that into account?

I just really, really doubt a singularity could ever occur on the level the Catalyst claims. You can't 'wipe out' organic life. That isn't how it works. At the end of the day, synthetic life can't come from nothing. Organic life? All you need is the right set of conditions. Synthetic life would have to destroy almost every planet in the galaxy to be sure it never happened again. And even THEN, who knows?

And there's still other galaxies that could eventually impact all of this.

[Luigitornado]

Sorry. I still don't find holes in its logic. It operates on a higher logic with time on its side. If it says the pattern has repeated itself with (more times than we can fathom), then I don't find it hard to believe that it could very well be telling the truth.

Synthetic life may very well not wipe out all organic life or sterilize the galaxy, but that doesn't mean that organic life would be better off with synthetic overlords.

[shodiswe]

lordofdogtown19 wrote...

He's also assuming synthetics would be hostile towards organics (proven wrong by Geth and EDI)

Also he assumes organics couldn't win a war against synthetics (proven wrong by the Protheans in the Metacon War)

It was also proven by the quarrians, they would have won in ME3 if the reapers hadn't intervened and helped the geth. Though attacking the geth in the first place was wrong imo.

[ReXspec]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Shhhhhhhh. You'll upset the Synthesis people.

No but seriously. It's pretty bad.

nnh... this.  Another reason why I hate the technological singularity theory because that it goes off hypothetical logic and eventuality.

Seriously, you can say anything in the known universe will "eventually happen," but trying to throw that sort of logic into evolutionary patterns and personal choice?  That is sheer nonsense.

Modifié par ReXspec, 31 mai 2012 - 01:35 .

[Shaigunjoe]

I don't know if its fair to say the reapers cannot survey every planet in the galaxy for life. They have been doing it for a long time and(as far as we can tell) they have never 'missed' one. Although, I do think there has been a problem with inconsistent reaper strength represented in the series though.

[ReXspec]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

unoriginalname1133 wrote...

Well, considering that organic life is still around, the assumption that the Catalyst is working from has obviously NEVER happened. So we still have more known cases of synthetics being peaceful.

In this cycle?

Our sample size is the Geth, the Reapers, EDI, and that AI on the Citadel. All Geth were complicit in the genocide of the Quarians in the morning war, well past any 'necessary for self-defense' arguments, but since the Geth did suffer a factional split we can split them into two groups: Heretics and non-Heretics.

'Peaceful' synthetics include non-Heretic Geth and EDI.

Hostile synthetics include Heretic Geth, Reapers, and the AI on the Citadel.


Even if we remove the Reapers because they don't really consider themselves synthetics and are unnatural organic-synthetic hybrids, that still leaves us a 50-50 division on peaceful vs. non-peaceful synthetics... and that's only if we ignore the past decisions of the 'true' Geth.


If we start factoring in Javik, then the numbers get significantly more lopsided.


There's only been one known non-hostile uncontrolled synthetic race, and that is EDI. Who is a warship/sex-bot which certainly has been instrumental in a lot of deaths.

That is still leaving the unknowns of organic/synthetic choice, adaptation, and evolution to the exceedingly cynical logic that all synthetics will "eventually" try to destroy organics.

Murdering people to prevent them from being murdered makes absolutely no sense.  Murdering people to prevent something bad from happening to them makes even less sense and yet, this is the circular logic the star brat is trying to argue.

To give an analogy on my perspective of the Geth:  I'm not going to hedge my bets by saying something bad is going to happen to me in my lifetime and just seal myself in a proverbial bubble until I die because there still is the possibility that something (whatever that something may be) good will happen to me.

Technological Singularity follows the logic that given enough time, something bad (i.e. AI's will extinguish all organic life) will happen, despite the present evidence to the contrary (as you cited, the non-heretic Geth being generally benevolent and wanting to help their creators in addition to the rest of the Galaxy).

We cannot hedge our bets by saying something "will happen with enough time" and proverbially off ourselves.  What should happen is that we should look at the evidence that contradicts the star brats logic, and say, "I think we'll take our f*cking chances," and hope for the best.

Modifié par ReXspec, 31 mai 2012 - 01:50 .

[Alexius]

The problem with that pattern is that it repeats, not by itself, but because it is enforced. Thus, it’s easier to say that it has happened and will continue to happen because things have never been allowed to “just be”. There’s no way to know if a different result is possible because the Reapers themselves have prevented it and therefore they have denied themselves the proof they need to make their point valid.

Of course, their argument is problematic because they are parting from the premise that synthetics will always rebel against organics and then they look for signs of this. It should be the other way around: facts before conclusions, not conclusions before facts. Their assumption is based on a pre-fabricated premise that can only be proven by letting things be, which they don’t because of the unwanted results.

In conclusion, the Catalyst is no more certain than Shepard regarding what would happen in the future.

Modifié par AlexiusDAlex, 31 mai 2012 - 01:50 .

[ReXspec]

AlexiusDAlex wrote...

The problem with that pattern is that it repeats, not by itself, but because it is enforced. Thus, it’s easier to say that it has happened and will continue to happen because things have never been allowed to “just be”. There’s no way to know if a different result is possible because the Reapers themselves have prevented it and therefore they have denied themselves the proof they need to make their point valid.

Of course, their argument is problematic because they are parting from the premise that synthetics will always rebel against organics and then they look for signs of this. It should be the other way around: facts before conclusions, not conclusions before facts. Their assumption is based on a pre-fabricated premise that can only be proven by letting things be, which they don’t because of the unwanted results.

In conclusion, the Catalyst is no more certain than Shepard regarding what would happen in the future.

I agree with this.  Ironic that they try to exert a measure of control over the system, and yet their supposed logic comes to pass.  Not by the Geth's actions, but by themselves.  They are exterminating and harvesting all advanced civilizations to prevent them from being wiped out by synthetics, and yet it is them (an advanced synthetic/organic hybrid) that are doing the wiping out.

I firmly hold the belief though that the Reapers purpose is not to keep a supposed "order" or to "save us"  but harvest advanced civilizations in order to eliminate the competition and grow in strength/numbers.

Of course, that is based on my initial impression of the Reapers themselves (particularly the impressions I got from Sovereign during my conversation with him) and my profound distrust of the star brat. lol

Modifié par ReXspec, 31 mai 2012 - 02:04 .

[lillitheris]

lordofdogtown19 wrote...

Venomous Snake wrote...

lordofdogtown19 wrote...

He's also assuming synthetics would be hostile towards organics (proven wrong by Geth and EDI)

Also he assumes organics couldn't win a war against synthetics (proven wrong by the Protheans in the Metacon War)

Just because something occurs once does not mean that it's a constant. The sample size your using would not be sufficient in any type of statistics. So your conclusion is a bit biased because of one instant you want to point out. So yea geth and EDI proved this concept wrong in one situation at one small point in time but you can't make any type of intelligent guess about what will happen in the future.

Good point and that's exactly why the Catalyst's logic is flawed. He seems to think that future events will all play out the same

Incorrect. In your scenario (synthetics will not destroy organics), you have to be right every time. The Catalyst only needs to be right once. Statistically, his position is stronger.

…

Also, the 50,000 years has nothing to do with a potential synthetic life form or race wiping out all organic life. I see absolutely no reason why they would do that, but if they did, they’d have all the time in the world.

…

I think the Catalyst scheme is idiotic, but I also can’t abide poorly argued points :happy:

[Rafficus III]

Anyone else find it funny how much emphasis they place on organic beings and the hostility synthetics/Reapers hold towards all organic life? It's not like a Reaper is going to come along and see a llama and demand it to be destroyed because it is simply an organic being.

[ReXspec]

hornedfrog87 wrote...

Anyone else find it funny how much emphasis they place on organic beings and the hostility synthetics/Reapers hold towards all organic life? It's not like a Reaper is going to come along and see a llama and demand it to be destroyed because it is simply an organic being.

I think it's notsomuch hostility toward organic life, as it is hostility toward sapient life.  Although, it honestly wouldn't surprise me if Harbinger vaporized the aformentioned Llama because he saw it's existence as "an accident"  (to quote Sovereign).

[AngryFrozenWater]

You know, the genocide of advanced civilizations has nothing to do with the fight against synthetics. It is merely a rationalization. Exterminating those civilizations is the way the reapers reproduce and their way to stay on top of the food chain. The problem with the reapers is that BW made them too strong and that they had no idea how to get rid of them. In ME2 that could be avoided by using the collectors in the story. In ME3 they finally had to do something. It is no surprise that the reaper-off switch and the ABC ending were the result.

[CaptainZaysh]

ReXspec wrote...

Murdering people to prevent them from being murdered makes absolutely no sense.  Murdering people to prevent something bad from happening to them makes even less sense and yet, this is the circular logic the star brat is trying to argue.

Wait, that's not what the Reapers were doing at all.  They were murdering people to prevent them from creating a WMD (i.e. the singularity) that would be capable of permanently removing organic civilisations from the Milky Way.

[Taboo]

Organic life will arise anyway. That's the base function of the Universe.

Or will the unpredictable singularity effectively bleach the entire universe?

I mean seriously.

[ed87]

I used to be an adventurer like you, thinking about the credibility behind the catalyst... and then i took an arrow to the knee