235 réponses à ce sujet

[frylock23]

Cypher_CS wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

I am trying to explain that there is no such thing as a law of averages.

We don't know what the bare probability of a TS developing in any one scenario is; the Star Child doesn't tell us.

You can roll a 6-sided die and there is one probability that you will receive any one result. You can roll the same six sided die over and over, and just because you may not have rolled one particular result in anyof your previous rolls does not increase your chances of getting that result in the next throw. You still have same base probability of getting that result as you had the first time you threw the die. The base chance never changes.

You keep saying that it only takes once. And I say that since we don't know what the base probability of the scenario is, it may very well be worth the gamble.

Yes, the probability will always be 1/6.
However, say for each of those results, there's a different pay off. A different utility.
For:
1, you get 10$
2, you get One Million Dollars (Dr' Evil voice!)
3, you get the entire combined fortunes of Bill Gates, Queen Elizabeth (well, her worth, at least, wtih all assets), and... EA. - that's like...150BN$?
4, you get all profits for you and your family and all your decendants for eternity, from all mining endevours in the Sol system. Say it's 10 Gazzillions?
5, you get  pay a fine of 100$.
6, you pay a fine of all your savings, all your relative's savings and enter a program of fines from here till eternity where all your decendents will live indentured in servitude just to pay off these fines. Say... -Infinity?

Now, calculate the Expectancy of that and see if you get a positive number or a negative number.
Here's a clue - it's Negative.

P.S.
I wasn't the one talking about the Law of Averages.

And we get one reality, one chance to develop. The catalyst has artificially forced us down the path numerous times.

We flip the coin once.

So, what's the base probability? We don't know because we aren't told. If the chance is minute enough. I'd rather go with the chance of encountering singularity over the certainty that all advanced life will be wiped out every 50,000 years to prevent something that may not ever happen.

Going back to my cat, even with all his tumors and the knowledge that every year one of them may turn malignant and kill him, not one of them has done so yet. Sure, it could happen tomorrow, but it also could not happen tomorrow. At this point, it's equally likely that he dies of old age as it is that he dies of cancer.

The point of all that is that you can't know, I can't know, Star Brat can't know and neither can Shepard. Not based on what little we are given to go on.

The pessimist can say that it's inevitable that it will occur and take some kind of drastic action against a potential Bogeyman. The optimist can say that it's but one possibility out of many and without better evidence to justify drastic action there is no reason to go all in against it.

[Computron2000]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Computron2000 wrote...
You should reread the entire thing to gain some actual context on what i am talking about. I am pointing out that "created" and "creator" example of using EDI as a example that reaper kid is right requires the poster to define WHAT is the created and WHO is the creator.
Your question on literalness is poor because you fail to understand that the sentence requires definition else you end up with the sentence meaning different things todifferent people depending on what the listener assumes.
A easy to understand example. A salesman tells you that he is selling a luxurious place to you. But thats all he says. Tell me what exactly is he selling you? You don't know because you need to answer this question
What does "luxurious" mean to you? To a child in somalia? To Bill Gates? to the salesman himself?

Sorry, but that analogy is not really that apt.
Creators and Created, the absolute broadest senses, imply a line of... assembly, of succession or, well, creation.
Where as Luxury is completely relative.
Yes, Creators and Created can and do have relative meanings, as you've examplified, but they still rely on that sense of implied succession.
And that is all that matters here. All that matters.
And yes, I understand that you're trying to use that example to negate arguments of EDI in Support of Synthetic Rebellion.
But, again, it is enough she rebells against one of those you examplified. Doesn't need to be all.
Never mind that I, personally, do not hold to this entire debate of Geth or EDI being examples of rebellion, simply because it's completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. They aren't proof of either side (though, yes, they do prove that both probabilities are larger than 0).

Regardless of whether you think the analogy was apt or not, it has done its job as you have clearly understood a point made. I have bolded the part for easy reference.

Please do keep in mind the entire conversation on probability on a near infiite scale. ALL possible events WILL occur. you have admitted that the probabilty is greater than 0. Hence it will always occur as time approaches infinity, which you have indirectly admitted that reaper kid's statement (based on your stand it is referring to inevitability) is not the only true statement that can be made.

Cypher_CS wrote...

Computron2000 wrote... 
At which point your assumption is incorrect and is the basis of the failure of your argument. Think carefully. You assume that said creature who has itself arisen from the physical laws of the universe is capable of rewriting the physical laws of the universe and/or the laws of probability to ensure that something that has happened before will NEVER happen from now until near infinity.

Says who?
If it can sterilize worlds, then yes.

Eh, the laws of probability called and asked you to remember that it works throughout the universe, 24/7, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

I already placed it in easy to remember form and posted it before but i will now post it again in CAPS in case you somehow missed it.

IF IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE, IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN, BUD.

Cypher_CS wrote...
And sure, there's the probability that new life will arise in another few billions. But, again, that life will be doomed to a similar fate - much earlier than the current Organics.

Interestingly, your statement here recognizes what i pointed out hence implying you already know the answer to your "Says who?" question.

Note that a few billion years is nothing when we are comparing to near infinity. Also do note that age of the earth is around ~4.54 billion while life was estimated to be around 3.8 billion years old. This means life arose on earth 750 million years after the planet formed. Not complex life in the beginning of course, but organic life. And this is on one planet, in one star system, in one galaxy. Also keep in mind that stars are still being born even now.

Do note that your statement i quoted is talking about "Organic life will arise but synthetics will kill it before it becomes intelligent" and is thus not your original statement where some supreme synthetic intelligence makes magic happen and the laws of the universe and/or probability are rewritten.

Before i point out the problems with this new statement, to prevent recursive arguments (i get these a lot), can you tell me whether you have any other valid point that supports the "Organic life will never occur again", keeping in mind the laws of probability and my sentence in CAPS? If no, i will take it that this is settled.

Modifié par Computron2000, 01 juin 2012 - 08:14 .

[ohiocat110]

Vigilant111 wrote...

I like the virus bit u raised, but I am afraid that synthesis supporters are gonna say "oh synthetics will survive just like humans had survived the black plague... but yes it shows that synthetics also have weaknesses and their growth can be limited, that reflects my point about them being created by organics and carry similar organic properties, they are tangible, they are not ghosts or any entity that is entirely incomprehensible to organics

Taking a step back away from Synths versus Organics to Created versus Creator, we finally find a candidate species that was a threat to expand out of control...the Krogan.

Mass Effect gives us no example of a rampantly hostile synthetic species that was created by organics. But the Krogans were a rampantly hostile organic species that were elevated/created by the organic Salarians. The Salarians then cleaned their own house with the Genophage and bought the Krogan back under control.

They were created to deal with another out of control organic species in the Rachni...which were strongly hinted to have become hostile through Indoctrination by the MF-ing Reapers that are supposed to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

So every rampant hostile threat to organic life, Organic or Synthetic,  (Heretic Geth, Krogan, Rachni) all have direct paths back to Reaper interference. Compared to no evidence at all of any naturally hostile and expansionist species, especially created synthetics.

[BP20125810]

What's to stop sythetics form nuking every planet habitable for organics. Anyway, there is only about 10 or so planets that have species with technology evolved enough to sustain a galactic war everu 50,000 years. Unless you think that cavemen could put up a good fight against geth, it's going to be a quick war. And you also have to take into account the fact that synthetics as evolved as the geth can reproduce nearly infinetly.

These factors, accounted with the fact that organics NEVER die of old age, results in the Catalysts logic. The OP raised a great point, but I just believe that Catalyst's logic far supersedes that of humans. And therefore, it's just too difficult to really understand him/her.

[frylock23]

BP20125810 wrote...

What's to stop sythetics form nuking every planet habitable for organics. Anyway, there is only about 10 or so planets that have species with technology evolved enough to sustain a galactic war everu 50,000 years. Unless you think that cavemen could put up a good fight against geth, it's going to be a quick war. And you also have to take into account the fact that synthetics as evolved as the geth can reproduce nearly infinetly.

These factors, accounted with the fact that organics NEVER die of old age, results in the Catalysts logic. The OP raised a great point, but I just believe that Catalyst's logic far supersedes that of humans. And therefore, it's just too difficult to really understand him/her.

Why would they? Why would they need to? Geth are programs, not platforms. They don't have the quite the same hierarchy of needs that organics do and it's not expressed in quite the same way.

Not only that, but you're talking about wiping out ALL organics, not just intelligent ones. All out nuclear war on earth wouldn't wipe out all life on the planet. We might wipe out all humans, but we'd be survived by life.

[BP20125810]

frylock23 wrote...

BP20125810 wrote...

What's to stop sythetics form nuking every planet habitable for organics. Anyway, there is only about 10 or so planets that have species with technology evolved enough to sustain a galactic war everu 50,000 years. Unless you think that cavemen could put up a good fight against geth, it's going to be a quick war. And you also have to take into account the fact that synthetics as evolved as the geth can reproduce nearly infinetly.

These factors, accounted with the fact that organics NEVER die of old age, results in the Catalysts logic. The OP raised a great point, but I just believe that Catalyst's logic far supersedes that of humans. And therefore, it's just too difficult to really understand him/her.

Why would they? Why would they need to? Geth are programs, not platforms. They don't have the quite the same hierarchy of needs that organics do and it's not expressed in quite the same way.

Not only that, but you're talking about wiping out ALL organics, not just intelligent ones. All out nuclear war on earth wouldn't wipe out all life on the planet. We might wipe out all humans, but we'd be survived by life.

Javik makes a couple good points regarding the fact why synthetics may turn on us, and many themes of ME3 lead into that point of the created turning on the creator.  Shepard turned on Cerberus (technically) Geth turned on quarians. Krogan turned on everyone else (The salarians didn;t exactly create them, but they did uplift, which is kinda similar)

The point i'm getting to is that while yuo personally may not believe syntheics will turn on organics, it seems as if ME3 was designed to portray that very notion.  Also, if you take Shepard out of the equation, and he isn't eternal, the geth still fight the quarians.  Many people use this as proof twards the Catalyst being wrong, but that is only due to Shepard, who is, according to ME3 the biggest badass in the galaxy. (except for Marauder Shields of course)

[Vigilant111]

BP20125810 wrote...

Javik makes a couple good points regarding the fact why synthetics may turn on us, and many themes of ME3 lead into that point of the created turning on the creator.  Shepard turned on Cerberus (technically) Geth turned on quarians. Krogan turned on everyone else (The salarians didn;t exactly create them, but they did uplift, which is kinda similar)

The point i'm getting to is that while yuo personally may not believe syntheics will turn on organics, it seems as if ME3 was designed to portray that very notion.  Also, if you take Shepard out of the equation, and he isn't eternal, the geth still fight the quarians.  Many people use this as proof twards the Catalyst being wrong, but that is only due to Shepard, who is, according to ME3 the biggest badass in the galaxy. (except for Marauder Shields of course)

No its not proof, but I don't think it is portraying that notion exactly, it is the reapers that need to be destroyed not the Geth, the reapers have no personal attachment to the organics in this cycle since they were not created by them, to me reapers are a third party meddling with other people's business and why are reapers so keen on destroying the organics, why don't they dedicate themselves to educate organics and destroying synthetics?

[Vigilant111]

@Ieldra2

The excellent wording of ur arguments made me quizzy the first time I answered ur post, this is my second take on responding to your post

You presuppose that synthetics would have a morality based on organics' priorities.

If they don't then they are no better than the reapers, not BASED on, but take into consideration

Morality is not a question of sentience, only reflection on morality is.

Translation: reflection on morality is the question of sentience...okay

Our basic sense of morality is not the result of rational thought, but of biology and cultural imprinting.

No arguments here, but no relevance, I believe Geth has culture, but not appearant yet

We construct rational universal systems based on that sense, but those systems are not the root of our morality.

Translation: we construct law systems based on reflection on morality, again no relevance

Were they that, questions of morality wouldn't trigger irrational emotional responses more often than not.

Morality does not always trigger irrational emotional responses, sometimes lengthy thoughts are required to decide what is right and what is wrong, sometimes people kill because of hate without carefully considering what is right or wrong, or they have a FALSE sense of morality

Let me ask you: would you hesitate to remove an anthill from your garden; knowing that your intervention will kill most of the ants, because of a sense of morality?

Ants are a bad analogy to organics, even though on a technological level they are way behind, but they have evolved to become more than primitive animals, they have a sense of humour, they are interested in things other than food or sexual reproduction, the only way I see synthetics wiping out organics is that synthetics are threathened, if their interests are deprived to this extreme extent then morality and rationality would both dictate:"defend our society from evil organics, it is not right for them to just steal our resources away without asking", note that NOT ALL organics will be affected, just the threathening ones, it is very very tiresome and fruitless to try to wipe out every bit of organics, synthetics are better than that

I am desperately trying to make the Geth and EDI to sound like organics, because only that way would justify their survival, yet your view is making them sound like the average robots that has no feelings at all, only rationality dictates their actions

Please do refer to my original posts on page 7 and 8 of this thread, thank you:)

Modifié par Vigilant111, 02 juin 2012 - 03:58 .

[Cypher_CS]

frylock23 wrote...

And we get one reality, one chance to develop. The catalyst has artificially forced us down the path numerous times.

We flip the coin once.

So, what's the base probability? We don't know because we aren't told. If the chance is minute enough. I'd rather go with the chance of encountering singularity over the certainty that all advanced life will be wiped out every 50,000 years to prevent something that may not ever happen.

Going back to my cat, even with all his tumors and the knowledge that every year one of them may turn malignant and kill him, not one of them has done so yet. Sure, it could happen tomorrow, but it also could not happen tomorrow. At this point, it's equally likely that he dies of old age as it is that he dies of cancer.

The point of all that is that you can't know, I can't know, Star Brat can't know and neither can Shepard. Not based on what little we are given to go on.

The pessimist can say that it's inevitable that it will occur and take some kind of drastic action against a potential Bogeyman. The optimist can say that it's but one possibility out of many and without better evidence to justify drastic action there is no reason to go all in against it.

Wait a second.

We don't get one roll. That's the point.
We get as many rolls as there would be Wars and Peace Times in between.
However, in the long run, if we calculate Expectancy, based on even the slightest probability, no matter how minute it is, that there will be complete extermination, the equation simply tells you NOT to make that bet.
When you calculate Expectancy, you don't just go by probabilities, you go by the utilities as well.
If you get the sum of 99.9999999% of finite peace times between wars, but you have even the 0.0000001% of Infinite Death time, the eqution is skewed the other way around.

It's a situation where The House Always Wins.
You know why the House Always Wins?
Because the Expectancy of all Casino games (or at least, most) is Negative (or rather, negative compared to your investment).
Most people don't realize this. They only care for probability "Hey, 1 in 6 is pretty good odds to bet if I can win a Million Bucks!". And sure, for most people who only come with a finite time to play, or finite money to spend on the game, it doesn't really matter.
That's where Taboo comes in. He's this guy, he has finite time on his hands, he doesn't care what will happen in a Billion years. So, that's his prerogative. Good on him.

But the Expectancy - which is basically the Sigma of Probability X Utility (or Instrumentality, in some cases) for all cases - for this would be lower than your initial investment (again, because of the Infinity in the equation).

Computron2000 wrote...

Regardless of whether you think the analogy was apt or not, it has done its job as you have clearly understood a point made. I have bolded the part for easy reference.

Say what now?
It wasn't the analogy that made me write the bold part. It was the initial example.
The Analogy has nothing to do with it. It's not appropriate. It is not... analogous.

Computron2000 wrote... 
Please do keep in mind the entire conversation on probability on a near infiite scale. ALL possible events WILL occur. you have admitted that the probabilty is greater than 0. Hence it will always occur as time approaches infinity, which you have indirectly admitted that reaper kid's statement (based on your stand it is referring to inevitability) is not the only true statement that can be made.

Yes, I've said this before.
Now look up.
That's the Prudential argument. It's a philosophical argument, really.
But the point is, since both Probabilities may and will occur, to calculate expectancy you rely on Utilities. And in this case, you may have the "good" outcome happen Millions of times in a row, but as soon as the Bad one happens (which, as you admit, must happen) - it's Game Over. The utility for it is Infinity (which is problematic, but that's a different discussion - I've already said that sure, new life can arise in another few gazzillions and the God joke I made).

But the point is, the Prudential argument here, the calculation here, tells you to hedge your bets. To find an alternative that will make the Probability of that tiniest of possible outcomes be 0, not just near it.

Yes, again, this is where we never get a chance to understand, within the game's story, how it achieves this.

Computron2000 wrote...  

Do note that your statement i quoted is talking about "Organic life will arise but synthetics will kill it before it becomes intelligent" and is thus not your original statement where some supreme synthetic intelligence makes magic happen and the laws of the universe and/or probability are rewritten. 

I've never claimed that the laws of probability are rewritten.
You are the one who claimed it as my claim.

Sterilization is possible. Maybe not in your imagination. But guess what, post TS Ultimate Intellignce is so far beyond our comprehension that this can be a breeze for it (again, theories).
Sterilization is not rewriting physical laws.
Further more, utilization, instead of sterilization, as part of it's own system, is also a possibility and then, again, this is an argument of subjugation.


 

Computron2000 wrote...   
If no, i will take it that this is settled.

I facepalmed....

[Rane7685]

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

[Vigilant111]

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

[Orumon]

Cypher_CS 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)

Reding and Listening Comprehension are your friends. Try them out.

It assumes that AI will choose to destroy or eradicate organics. Not because they are hostile, but because of calculable considerations.
Further more, it is NOT proven wrong by Geth and EDI.
Not saying the original argument is True or False, but it deals with Invariability. And you can't disprove Invariability by a single occurance that just happened to you now.

It does not assume Organics couldn't win a war against just any synthetics - it assumes that at the apex of that post TS AI, organics will be no match for it. Which, according to all known TS theories (or most), is true.
Again, it's a philosophical debate, not an empirical one.

As for the OP.
Sorry, but those statistics, again, show nothing.
Hell, Douglas Adams showed that stitistically there's NO LIFE in the Galaxy, at all - thus any man you meet is a figment of a deranged imagination (which, I guess, DNA had plenty of).

At any rate, when we talk about post TS AI, there are several scenarios in which such an AI would be powered by the Galactic Engine itself - i.e. it will span the entire galaxy as a single entity. Making the Galaxy itself a sentient organism, more or less, on the Macro level.
So, eradicating Organics would be like your White Cells fighting a disease. Quite doable.

You also point out the very flaw in the catalysts argument here: The Catalyst believes in fate, or order or whatever it wants to call it, while every other character in the series spends their time proving him wrong on that point from the get go.

[Cypher_CS]

No, the Catalyst doesn't believe. It calculates.
That's completely different.

And, again, Destroy is a valid choice, if you believe that.

[Rane7685]

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.

[Orumon]

Cypher_CS wrote...

No, the Catalyst doesn't believe. It calculates.
That's completely different.

And, again, Destroy is a valid choice, if you believe that.

No, any argument that relies on the infinity clause to justify itself is essentially subscribing to fate, either conciously or subconciously.

Destroy, of course, IS a valid choice, and arguably would be easily the best choice if the Geth and EDI weren't slain. As it is, the whole decision is marred by a lack of information.

[jules_vern18]

Sigh. The Catalyst disproves his point just by implementing his own plan. The Reapers may be synthetic-organic hybrids - but the Catalyst is an AI, a synthetic. He has been around for millions upon millions of years and clearly has the power to destroy all organic life if he wants to.

But he doesn't. How can he argue that synthetics will invariably and inevitably extinguish all organic life when he himself - a synthetic - has spent literally eons trying to "preserve" it?

[CaptainZaysh]

Jules: the obvious answer is that the Catalyst is shackled somehow. (That would also explain why the Reapers don't seem interested in evolving their tech or expanding their mission.)

[frylock23]

Cypher_CS wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

And we get one reality, one chance to develop. The catalyst has artificially forced us down the path numerous times.

We flip the coin once.

So, what's the base probability? We don't know because we aren't told. If the chance is minute enough. I'd rather go with the chance of encountering singularity over the certainty that all advanced life will be wiped out every 50,000 years to prevent something that may not ever happen.

Going back to my cat, even with all his tumors and the knowledge that every year one of them may turn malignant and kill him, not one of them has done so yet. Sure, it could happen tomorrow, but it also could not happen tomorrow. At this point, it's equally likely that he dies of old age as it is that he dies of cancer.

The point of all that is that you can't know, I can't know, Star Brat can't know and neither can Shepard. Not based on what little we are given to go on.

The pessimist can say that it's inevitable that it will occur and take some kind of drastic action against a potential Bogeyman. The optimist can say that it's but one possibility out of many and without better evidence to justify drastic action there is no reason to go all in against it.

Wait a second.

We don't get one roll. That's the point.
We get as many rolls as there would be Wars and Peace Times in between.
However, in the long run, if we calculate Expectancy, based on even the slightest probability, no matter how minute it is, that there will be complete extermination, the equation simply tells you NOT to make that bet.
When you calculate Expectancy, you don't just go by probabilities, you go by the utilities as well.
If you get the sum of 99.9999999% of finite peace times between wars, but you have even the 0.0000001% of Infinite Death time, the eqution is skewed the other way around.

It's a situation where The House Always Wins.
You know why the House Always Wins?
Because the Expectancy of all Casino games (or at least, most) is Negative (or rather, negative compared to your investment).
Most people don't realize this. They only care for probability "Hey, 1 in 6 is pretty good odds to bet if I can win a Million Bucks!". And sure, for most people who only come with a finite time to play, or finite money to spend on the game, it doesn't really matter.
That's where Taboo comes in. He's this guy, he has finite time on his hands, he doesn't care what will happen in a Billion years. So, that's his prerogative. Good on him.

But the Expectancy - which is basically the Sigma of Probability X Utility (or Instrumentality, in some cases) for all cases - for this would be lower than your initial investment (again, because of the Infinity in the equation).

So, basically we disagree at this point:

You see reality as multiple rolls of the die where I see it as one.

[Cypher_CS]

Orumon wrote...

No, any argument that relies on the infinity clause to justify itself is essentially subscribing to fate, either conciously or subconciously.

That's a very arbitrary and quite abstract statement.

Orumon wrote... 

Destroy, of course, IS a valid choice, and arguably would be easily the best choice if the Geth and EDI weren't slain. As it is, the whole decision is marred by a lack of information.

Well, I personally see the Catalyst's statement regarding the casualties of Destroy (Geth, EDI, Shepard) as a Lie meant to persuade Shepard away from Destroy (Psychology->Two Sided Persuasion...).

@Frylock,
Isn't that what quantum physics is all about?

[Taboo]

 I demand that Bioware insert this into the sequence with the Star Child. At least it will make me feel better.

Anyway, the Catalyst is not lying, he is merely fallible. There is a difference.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 03 juin 2012 - 02:57 .

[Calibrations Expert]

What the Catalyst never mentions

"I have directly given the Geth the ability to murder all organic life myself, so they will murder all organic life if you don't stop them."

[Orumon]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Orumon wrote...

No, any argument that relies on the infinity clause to justify itself is essentially subscribing to fate, either conciously or subconciously.

That's a very arbitrary and quite abstract statement.

Orumon wrote... 

Destroy, of course, IS a valid choice, and arguably would be easily the best choice if the Geth and EDI weren't slain. As it is, the whole decision is marred by a lack of information.

Well, I personally see the Catalyst's statement regarding the casualties of Destroy (Geth, EDI, Shepard) as a Lie meant to persuade Shepard away from Destroy (Psychology->Two Sided Persuasion...).

@Frylock,
Isn't that what quantum physics is all about?

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.

[Computron2000]

Cypher_CS wrote...

Computron2000 wrote...  

Do note that your statement i quoted is talking about "Organic life will arise but synthetics will kill it before it becomes intelligent" and is thus not your original statement where some supreme synthetic intelligence makes magic happen and the laws of the universe and/or probability are rewritten. 

I've never claimed that the laws of probability are rewritten.
You are the one who claimed it as my claim.

Sterilization is possible. Maybe not in your imagination. But guess what, post TS Ultimate Intellignce is so far beyond our comprehension that this can be a breeze for it (again, theories).
Sterilization is not rewriting physical laws.
Further more, utilization, instead of sterilization, as part of it's own system, is also a possibility and then, again, this is an argument of subjugation.

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

Cypher_CS wrote...

Computron2000 wrote...   
If no, i will take it that this is settled.

I facepalmed....

Feel free to actually answer the question. Its not difficult. I will help you by placing it below again
"can you tell me whether you have any other valid point that supports the "Organic life will never occur again", keeping in mind the laws of probability and my sentence in CAPS?"

Still awaiting the answer to this fantastic ability to permanently prevent organic life from ever arising again anywhere in the universe from the end of ME3 until near infinity.

Modifié par Computron2000, 03 juin 2012 - 07:47 .

[Clayless]

Rane7685 wrote...

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 it's just a flaw in the English language.

They're not immortal because they can die, but at the same time the Geth and the Reapers will never die of old age if they have the resources and they can never die of sickness. The only way to kill a synthetic is to destoy it and everything it can upload itself to within range, which is why Legion dies in ME2 in the galactic core.

Time is all but irrelevant to a synthetic, only resources matter, and there is a nigh infinite amount of resources in the galaxy. So yeah they're immortal in a sense, it's just I don't think there's a word in the English language that describes their type of immortality.

[Deltateam Elcor]

 It is simple really, robots dont have the same desires as we might have.

They wont control resources as inefficiently as we do, they will consume and transform them everything in their path, simply to make more of themselves.

Its the problem of entropy, synthetics make a rather unfortuante imbalance more to the form of order.

If a synthetic form were to take hold, it would devour the universe until it was completely devoid of heat, the acceleration of heat death is really the problem here, though bioware must have completely forgot to imply it.