982 réponses à ce sujet

[Wayning_Star]

If I may summarize this in one sentence (correct me if I got it wrong): Synthesis is no solution because if there are un-synthesized ultra-advanced synthetics in other galaxies - and there likely will be - they'll still stamp all life out in our galaxy once they get here.

You know, that's actually an excellent argument for galactic civilization to advance as fast as it can. And which choice provides the fastest advancement? Synthesis. It's implied that it takes organics to the same level synthetics have in terms of capabilities, and hints at further advancement beyond anything imaginable at present. If that isn't enough, nothing will be enough, but at least we'll have tried. None of the other choices provide a better chance. Also, I think this is clearly a scenario of the kind I've described above: a long-term threat beyond our responsibility to account for, something post-Event civilization will have to take up as a challenge.
[/quote]

I figure the real reason for synthesis is the fact that all those species absorbed are lost to the MEU. A very big dent in evolution and the growth of all the aforementioned. All because technology got stuck on stupid. We made the problem,well, some distantly past organics might of, but then, it's not explained if totally synthetic life forms didn't pop up somewhere. Spac is very big. But running with the clues we have, there's no reason to consider what 'might happen' with civilizations not in existance in the known MEU. Many provide that argument as a miracle straw man defense of other choices.

[OGWS]

This thread is the pinnacle of speculations

[Wayning_Star]

OGWS wrote...

This thread is the pinnacle of speculations

rofl

(but...mine are soooo much better!!!)

[Sarevok Synder]

Wayning_Star wrote...


(but...mine are soooo much better!!!)

No...

[Sarevok Synder]

Wayning_Star wrote...


I figure the real reason for synthesis is the fact that all those species absorbed are lost to the MEU. A very big dent in evolution and the growth of all the aforementioned. All because technology got stuck on stupid. We made the problem,well, some distantly past organics might of, but then, it's not explained if totally synthetic life forms didn't pop up somewhere. Spac is very big. But running with the clues we have, there's no reason to consider what 'might happen' with civilizations not in existance in the known MEU. Many provide that argument as a miracle straw man defense of other choices.

Ah...... under standard FTL, a Ship could reach Andromeda in 571 years. Just think what a race that's hundreds of millions of years more advanced could do.

[Ieldra]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
If I may summarize this in one sentence (correct me if I got it wrong): Synthesis is no solution because if there are un-Synthesized ultra-advanced synthetics in other galaxies - and there likely will be - they'll still stamp all life out in our galaxy once they get here.

You know, that's actually an excellent argument for galactic civilization to advance as fast as it can. And which choice provides the fastest advancement? Synthesis. It's implied that it takes organics to the same level synthetics have in terms of capabilities, and hints at further advancement beyond anything imaginable at present. If that isn't enough, nothing will be enough, but at least we'll have tried. None of the other choices provides a better chance. Also, I think this is clearly a scenario of the kind I've described above: a long-term threat beyond our responsibility to account for, something post-Event civilization will have to take up as a challenge. We don't even know if intergalactic travel is feasible. I certainly wouldn't urge anyone to choose Synthesis because it provides the best chance of avoiding being wiped out by extra-galactic un-Synthesized synthetics.

No it's not. The cycles all advanced along the lines the Reapers chose. So there was little difference between their tech. The "benefits" will be minimal. A Species for outside hasn't had this handicap, they will likely be more advanced by hundreds of millions of years. Good luck catching up.

I call that fatalism. Am I understanding you right: you're saying our best efforts at catching up (Synthesis) are doomed to futility because we'll be wiped out anyway, and that's why we shouldn't even attempt it? That sounds suspiciously like "Oh, I'll rather lie down and die now, because surely our civilization won't last beyond a hundred million years." Thank you very much. Even if it's true - and you have no data to support it's inevitable - I wouldn't want to adopt such a stance. I'd rather advance as fast as I can, using the collected knowledge of a hundred million years. It actually *is* implied that post-Synthesis advancement is beyond the Catalyst's ability to predict. 

Even at that you're still acting like it's inevitable, the peace between the Geth and Quarians prove it isn't. Like the Starbrat you are acting out of fear, not logic or necessity.

How long will that peace last - un-Synthesized - once the quarians realize how much the geth will advance once their megastructure is completed? The Catalyst makes no prediction about single conflicts, it simply states that there will a conflict between organics and synthetics that will wipe out organics, by implication on a time frame not much longer than a cycle. I don't necessarily have to believe that, no, but the Catalyst conversation heavily implies that it has data to back it up, even if it doesn't show us the millions of lines of calculations that lead to the conclusion.

BTW, don't tell me my motivations, damn it. This is a really annoying habit of the anti-Synthesis faction. You have no idea what I am thinking or feeling beyond what I tell you, so just stop pulling these strawmen out of your hat.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 juillet 2012 - 07:00 .

[Mystiq6]

I just want to do a little thread plugging since this thread is the basis for some thoughts I had on using Synthesis as the cannon ending:
Mass Effect 4 + Synthesis as the canon ending = Awesome?

[Wayning_Star]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...


I figure the real reason for synthesis is the fact that all those species absorbed are lost to the MEU. A very big dent in evolution and the growth of all the aforementioned. All because technology got stuck on stupid. We made the problem,well, some distantly past organics might of, but then, it's not explained if totally synthetic life forms didn't pop up somewhere. Spac is very big. But running with the clues we have, there's no reason to consider what 'might happen' with civilizations not in existance in the known MEU. Many provide that argument as a miracle straw man defense of other choices.

Ah...... under standard FTL, a Ship could reach Andromeda in 571 years. Just think what a race that's hundreds of millions of years more advanced could do.

so?, good for them. I guess that would just end up being a waiting game, or DLC, eh?

[Sarevok Synder]

Ieldra2 wrote...


I call that fatalism. Am I understanding you right: you're saying our best efforts at catching up (Synthesis) are doomed to futility because we'll be wiped out anyway, and that's why we shouldn't even attempt it? That sounds suspiciously like "Oh, I'll rather lie down and die now, because surely our civilization won't last beyond a hundred million years." Thank you very much. Even if it's true - and you have no data to support it's inevitable - I wouldn't want to adopt such a stance. 

No, I'm saying that if Starbrat is right, it can't be prevented. But since it's "solution" is doomed to failure anyway, I've no resaon to take its "predictions" seriously either. The only actual threat is it and the Reapers, so they will be dealt with first.

How long will that peace last - un-Synthesized - once the quarians realize how much the geth will advance once their megastructure is completed? The Catalyst makes no prediction about single conflicts, it simply states that there will a conflict between organics and synthetics that will wipe out organics, by implication on a time frame not much longer than a cycle. I don't necessarily have to believe that, no, but the Catalyst conversation heavily implies that it has data to back it up, even if it doesn't show us the millions of lines of calculations that lead to the conclusion.

BTW, don't tell me my motivations, damn it. This is a really annoying habit of the anti-Synthesis faction. You have no idea what I am thinking or feeling beyond what I tell you, so just stop pulling these strawmen out of your hat.

So you are acting out of fear of what may happen, it's that simple. Nobody can predict the future, including Starbrat, especially Starbrat. It is the real and present danger, not what may happen in the future.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 06 juillet 2012 - 07:18 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
If I may summarize this in one sentence (correct me if I got it wrong): Synthesis is no solution because if there are un-Synthesized ultra-advanced synthetics in other galaxies - and there likely will be - they'll still stamp all life out in our galaxy once they get here.

You know, that's actually an excellent argument for galactic civilization to advance as fast as it can. And which choice provides the fastest advancement? Synthesis. It's implied that it takes organics to the same level synthetics have in terms of capabilities, and hints at further advancement beyond anything imaginable at present. If that isn't enough, nothing will be enough, but at least we'll have tried. None of the other choices provides a better chance. Also, I think this is clearly a scenario of the kind I've described above: a long-term threat beyond our responsibility to account for, something post-Event civilization will have to take up as a challenge. We don't even know if intergalactic travel is feasible. I certainly wouldn't urge anyone to choose Synthesis because it provides the best chance of avoiding being wiped out by extra-galactic un-Synthesized synthetics.

No it's not. The cycles all advanced along the lines the Reapers chose. So there was little difference between their tech. The "benefits" will be minimal. A Species for outside hasn't had this handicap, they will likely be more advanced by hundreds of millions of years. Good luck catching up.

I call that fatalism. Am I understanding you right: you're saying our best efforts at catching up (Synthesis) are doomed to futility because we'll be wiped out anyway, and that's why we shouldn't even attempt it? That sounds suspiciously like "Oh, I'll rather lie down and die now, because surely our civilization won't last beyond a hundred million years." Thank you very much. Even if it's true - and you have no data to support it's inevitable - I wouldn't want to adopt such a stance. I'd rather advance as fast as I can, using the collected knowledge of a hundred million years. It actually *is* implied that post-Synthesis advancement is beyond the Catalyst's ability to predict. 

Even at that you're still acting like it's inevitable, the peace between the Geth and Quarians prove it isn't. Like the Starbrat you are acting out of fear, not logic or necessity.

How long will that peace last - un-Synthesized - once the quarians realize how much the geth will advance once their megastructure is completed? The Catalyst makes no prediction about single conflicts, it simply states that there will a conflict between organics and synthetics that will wipe out organics, by implication on a time frame not much longer than a cycle. I don't necessarily have to believe that, no, but the Catalyst conversation heavily implies that it has data to back it up, even if it doesn't show us the millions of lines of calculations that lead to the conclusion.

BTW, don't tell me my motivations, damn it. This is a really annoying habit of the anti-Synthesis faction. You have no idea what I am thinking or feeling beyond what I tell you, so just stop pulling these strawmen out of your hat.

Umm, forever. Seriously, I doubt they will go to war again, their might be hostility here and then, but you assuming that you know for sure it won't.

[Sarevok Synder]

Wayning_Star wrote...



so?, good for them. I guess that would just end up being a waiting game, or DLC, eh?

So my scenario of Synthetics crashing the little rainbows and Synthesis party is perfectly plausible. Starbrats "solution" was doomed to failure from the start. That's assuming of course it's even right about its predictions, and considering its "solution" is ill-thought out garbage, I've no reason to take them seriously either.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 06 juillet 2012 - 07:16 .

[Sarevok Synder]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...



Umm, forever. Seriously, I doubt they will go to war again, their might be hostility here and then, but you assuming that you know for sure it won't.

Nothing lasts forever.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 06 juillet 2012 - 07:13 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...



Umm, forever. Seriously, I doubt they will go to war again, their might be hostility here and then, but you assuming that you know for sure it won't.

Nothing lasts forever.

I like that fallacy you just stated.

Modifié par Khajiit Jzargo, 06 juillet 2012 - 07:18 .

[Wayning_Star]

[quote]Sarevok Synder wrote...

[quote]Wayning_Star wrote...



Ah...... under standard FTL, a Ship could reach Andromeda in 571 years. Just think what a race that's hundreds of millions of years more advanced could do. [/quote]

so?, good for them. I guess that would just end up being a waiting game, or DLC, eh?[/quote]


So my scenario of Synthetics crashing the little rainbow s and Synthesis party is perfectly plausible. Starbrats "solution" was doomed to failure from the start. That's assuming of course it's even right about its predictions, and considering its "solution" is ill-thought out garbage, I've no reason to take them seriously either.[/quote]

yeah, irrelevent, but plausable, in your 'version' of the MEU. There is no plot link in the game that relates to that regarding synthesis or any other 'choices', as if "What if?" wouldn't equally affect all decisions. We don't know about those other species, we don't know the range of the crucible beam, other than it affects the MEU. So we cannot enterain those ideas presently as they're inefectual regarding the reaper threat "as is". Another flaw is that assumption regarding synthesis as a 'rainbow utopian' what have you. There is nothing, even Edi's closing comments, that infer any utopia will result, only that synthetics and organics have a 'better chance' at co existance, sharing the wealth of knowleges stored within the reaperships.

[Ieldra]

@Khajiit Jzargo
Actually, I would choose Synthesis even if I believed the conflict to be avoidable. I choose it because I think it's the best future for the galaxy, irrespective of the Catalyst's claims. But I also think the Catalyst has the data to back its claims up.

@Sarevok Snyder:
If you keep that up, I'll treat you as a troll. All good leaders everywhere on this planet act pre-emptively to avoid undesired scenarios. Every single prevention measure on this planet has its rationale in that. It may be acting from fear, but I'd say it's rather rational to fear an earthquake or global warming. We may disagree about the probability of the Catalyst's scenario, but as long as you can't show it doesn't have a high probability of occurring, even radical prevention measures against something as final as extinction are justified.
Also, I don't choose Synthesis mainly because of that. It's simply a contributing factor.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 juillet 2012 - 07:23 .

[Sarevok Synder]

[quote]Khajiit Jzargo wrote...



[/quote]I like that fallacy you just stated.
[/quote]


Everything we know about the Universe shows that nothing lasts forever. Even Black Holes will die eventually due to entropy. So unless you know of something that does last forever?

[Khajiit Jzargo]

[quote]Sarevok Synder wrote...

[quote]Khajiit Jzargo wrote...



[/quote]I like that fallacy you just stated.
[/quote]


Everything we know about the Universe shows that nothing lasts forever. Even Black Holes will die eventually due to entropy. So unless you know of something that does last forever?[/quote]
Water
Look how long its been around, even if it runs out, it took millions of years. War is bound to happen, but if it happens every million years, its not worth picking synthesis is it.

[Sarevok Synder]

Wayning_Star wrote...



yeah, irrelevent, but plausable, in your 'version' of the MEU. There is no plot link in the game that relates to that regarding synthesis or any other 'choices', as if "What if?" wouldn't equally affect all decisions. We don't know about those other species, we don't know the range of the crucible beam, other than it affects the MEU. So we cannot enterain those ideas presently as they're inefectual regarding the reaper threat "as is". Another flaw is that assumption regarding synthesis as a 'rainbow utopian' what have you. There is nothing, even Edi's closing comments, that infer any utopia will result, only that synthetics and organics have a 'better chance' at co existance, sharing the wealth of knowleges stored within the reaperships.

Your posts are becoming increasingly illegible. We saw the crucible only affect the Milkyway. Yeah we can, the fact the Starbrat failed to take into account the rest of the Universe in its solution, proves it's fallible. So its predictions need not be taken seriously.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 06 juillet 2012 - 07:27 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Khajiit Jzargo
Actually, I would choose Synthesis even if I believed the conflict to be avoidable. I choose it because I think it's the best future for the galaxy, irrespective of the Catalyst's claims. But I also think the Catalyst has the data to back its claims up.

@Sarevok Snyder:
If you keep that up, I'll treat you as a troll. All good leaders everywhere on this planet act pre-emptively to avoid undesired scenarios. Every single prevention measure on this planet has its rationale in that. It may be acting from fear, but I'd say it's rather rational to fear an earthquake or global warming. We may disagree about the probability of the Catalyst's scenario, but as long as you can't show it doesn't have a high probability of occurring, even radical prevention measures against something as final as extinction are justified.
Also, I don't choose Synthesis mainly because of that. It's simply a contributing factor.

How exactly is synthesis the "best" future for the galaxy again?

[darkpassenger2342]

it ends the cycle with no collateral damage.

[Sarevok Synder]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...


Water
Look how long its been around, even if it runs out, it took millions of years. War is bound to happen, but if it happens every million years, its not worth picking synthesis is it.

Water does not last forever, look up entropy and the Entropic death of the Universe, nothing will survive it. All things will eventually come to an end.

[darkpassenger2342]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...


Water
Look how long its been around, even if it runs out, it took millions of years. War is bound to happen, but if it happens every million years, its not worth picking synthesis is it.

Water does not last forever, look up entropy and the Entropic death of the Universe, nothing will survive it. All things will eventually come to an end.

especially fictional aliens in a fictional universe being attacked by fictional robots in a fictional war with fictional consequences.

Modifié par darkpassenger2342, 06 juillet 2012 - 07:30 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...


Water
Look how long its been around, even if it runs out, it took millions of years. War is bound to happen, but if it happens every million years, its not worth picking synthesis is it.

Water does not last forever, look up entropy and the Entropic death of the Universe, nothing will survive it. All things will eventually come to an end.

You failed to recognise what I wrote, I said its been around for a immense ammount of time, if war follows the same path, then we basically have everlasting peace with a few cases of hostility here and then.

[Wayning_Star]

How long will that peace last - un-Synthesized - once the quarians realize how much the geth will advance once their megastructure is completed? The Catalyst makes no prediction about single conflicts, it simply states that there will a conflict between organics and synthetics that will wipe out organics, by implication on a time frame not much longer than a cycle. I don't necessarily have to believe that, no, but the Catalyst conversation heavily implies that it has data to back it up, even if it doesn't show us the millions of lines of calculations that lead to the conclusion.

BTW, don't tell me my motivations, damn it. This is a really annoying habit of the anti-Synthesis faction. You have no idea what I am thinking or feeling beyond what I tell you, so just stop pulling these strawmen out of your hat.

[/quote]

The reaperkid is millions, maybe billions of years old. They've actually witnessed the coming of and their harvesting of races that long. They grow up, they get harvested as soon as they reach that mysterious apex of creating sentient life. Synthesis is the enevitibility,not the cycle of harvest. Organics built a very new and improved mouse trap..

[Sarevok Synder]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Sarevok Snyder:
If you keep that up, I'll treat you as a troll. All good leaders everywhere on this planet act pre-emptively to avoid undesired scenarios. Every single prevention measure on this planet has its rationale in that. It may be acting from fear, but I'd say it's rather rational to fear an earthquake or global warming. We may disagree about the probability of the Catalyst's scenario, but as long as you can't show it doesn't have a high probability of occurring, even radical prevention measures against something as final as extinction are justified.
Also, I don't choose Synthesis mainly because of that. It's simply a contributing factor.

Oh great, lets nuke somebody because someday they may be a threat. Or better yet, lets force change on them so they won't ever be. Doesn't matter that there will always be a threat from somewhere.

The fact that it plan is unworkable proves that Starbrats predictions are highly questionable. You can't show that there is a high probability that it's right. It's claims aren't falsifiable, making them worthless. All you have is its word, fear rules you.

darkpassenger2342 wrote...

Sarevok Synder wrote...

Water does not last forever, look up entropy and the Entropic death of the Universe, nothing will survive it. All things will eventually come to an end.

especially fictional aliens in a fictional universe being attacked by fictional robots in a fictional war with fictional consequences.

The point is, if some of these people had the power, they would do it in the real world to. Just look at them, Hudson has a hard on for Synthesis, so basically creates an all Rainbows all Butterflies ending, and these people go for it despite the repugnant moral position. This also speaks volumes about his world view. Thankfully his "power" and bad writing abilities are limited to fiction.

And not to worry, Bioware have killed the Mass Effect universe already.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 07 juillet 2012 - 04:05 .