639 réponses à ce sujet

[inko1nsiderate]

A Bethesda Fan wrote...


1)  But they're closely connected.

3) Jesse Ventura

1)  They are related, but only in a very technical sense.  If you change what you mean by 'fitness', then it is almost always true.  But the reality is actually very nuanced and complicated, and people spend a lot of time defining what metrics to use to measure 'fitness' in various biological systems.

3) I guess the Jesse Ventura bit is to dismiss my point without bothering to know what you're talking about, so here is a link: http://en.wikipedia....berg_principle 

As to the limits that could lead to this situation:

there are theoretical limits of information density in a biological system and essentially genetic drift is a statistical mechanics problem.  You can easily imagine that the statistical system that represents a population's genetic diversity could have conditions so that there are no large fluctuations away from the mean, and that there is no drifting of the mean. Leviathans could have the most information density in their 'genes' (or whatever analog they have to DNA), and simply steer other biological populations in the directions they wanted. 

That would, for all intents and purposes, make them the pinnacle.  Not in any 'Absolute Truth' sense, but in the relative sense that they were shaping life in the rest of the galaxy to have lower information density and that their population was already in equilibrium.

[inko1nsiderate]

HellbirdIV wrote...

inko1nsiderate wrote...

1)  Evolution isn't actually survival of the fittest.

Not sure what you mean here. Perhaps I use the term in a different way than you do, because evolution isall about survival of the fittest. Can you explain what I'm seeing wrong?

Survival of the fittest is only true if you re-define what 'fittest' means for each biological system you are looking at.  For instance: it is often taken to mean whoever passes on the most genetic material.  This is all well and good, but it isn't strictly true either.  For instance, certain traits lead to genetic dead ends but are continually passed on anyway.  The reason is, that they have some horribly non-trivial way of increasing the chances of that particular phenotype being passed on by aiding the fitness of other species.  In this respect, fitness can be thought of how easily your genes get passed on, but that is hardly what anyone means coloquially when they say 'survival of the fittest' because the actual way biologists use the idea includes stuff like altruism in ants allowing ants that don't strictly reproduce to ensure some of their alleles get passed on.  It is a statistical thing.  Some of the genes in you are in your relatives, so to increase the fitness of a particular gene, sometimes it involves helping the progeny of relatives as opposed to actually having progeny yourself.

HellbirdIV wrote...

inko1nsiderate wrote...

2)
 If a species doesn't reproduce any longer, or has exceedingly long
times between generations, the evolution of the species can effectively
be zero.

Yes, that is an evolutionary dead-end. But, as I have said, evolution is a broader abstract and not limited to species. Even when a species evolution is "effectively zero", they CAN change in the future, as long as reproduction can occur (if not, they become extinct, ergo evolutionary dead end).

You miss my point.  Take Leviathans, they could live for a really long time, and reproduce with small numbers.  If they live on the timescale of geological years, you're never going to see enough generations of Leviathans to see any appreciable evolution.  They would still be 'evolving' in principal, but for all intents and purposes they wouldn't be seen to evolve in the technical sense of the word.

HellbirdIV wrote...

inko1nsiderate wrote...

3)  There is a theoretical limit in which evolution does
not happen in a population.  It is called Hardy Weinberg principal.
 Anyone with even a rememdial biology course should probably have heard
of it.  I'm sure with a bit of information theory and statistical
mechanics, you could make analogous limits where a biological system has
reached a limit where it can no longer have a change in its overall
genetic makeup.

This discludes the constant of genetic anomalies, however. As long as reproduction occurs, mutations may occur, and mutations which benefit an individual's survival will continue.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "biological system reaching a limit", either. As far as my understanding of biology goes, it's not a matter of putting parts on top of other parts and seeing what sticks and hoping it doesn't fall apart.

I mean limit in the mathematical sense.  Hardy Weinberg equilibrium is a theoretical limit, but surely there are others.  And by mechanics I don't literally mean mechanical, I mean the study of physically dynamic systems and the field where ideas such as entropy come from.  You can imagine a situation where some order parameter of a biological system has interactions such that it is forced back to the mean regardless of random fluctuations of genetic anomalies.  This is speculation on my part, but it is at least reasonable speculation as it is a situation that can certainly exist in principal in any statistical system that is partially driven by thermodynamics.

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 09 novembre 2012 - 09:59 .

[inko1nsiderate]

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

inko1nsiderate wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...


1)  But they're closely connected.

3) Jesse Ventura

1)  They are related, but only in a very technical sense.  If you change what you mean by 'fitness', then it is almost always true.  But the reality is actually very nuanced and complicated, and people spend a lot of time defining what metrics to use to measure 'fitness' in various biological systems.

3) I guess the Jesse Ventura bit is to dismiss my point without bothering to know what you're talking about, so here is a link: http://en.wikipedia....berg_principle 

You don't have a point, I only dismissed the nonsense.
The only thing about it that is accurate is that you posted it.

Please elaborate in what way what I posted is nonsense.

[Sajuro]

xsdob wrote...

Destroy ending headcanons.
1. people are okay with no longer having synthetics.
2. all of your squadmates approve of it, joker fine with losing edi, quarians fine with losing geth.
3. catalyst is lying, this is not provable with any in game content.
4. that it's the only solution
5. that the other endings are traps
6. that the other endings are bad
7. that the other endings are somehow playing into the reapers hands and doom the galaxy.

So the op is wrong and not wrong at the same time. Rather that destroy being headcanoned, it's that people who pick destroy headcanon negative consequences onto the other endings and treat it as actual lore.

1: That or be Reaper goo, just gonna say that no one would know there were other options
2: I feel bad for you Joker, but maybe you know how Liara felt after your stupid ass got me spaced. oh and your sister was killed by some ptsd Asari commando
3-7: I don't really believe any of that, I mean except for 6 but that isn't headcannon so much as it is wariness of putting another program in charge of the Reapers and whatever synthesis is.

[inko1nsiderate]

A Bethesda Fan wrote...


I don't need to do that, you should have gotten the idea 2 posts ago.
Now you're dragging it out, you have no point.

The point that you're trolling me?  I mean, if I said something that was factually incorrect, I'd love to hear it.  I'd hate to be another physicist stomping around telling other fields how they are doing it wrong, so if I am getting the biology wrong I'd like to know so I can correct my thinking.

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 09 novembre 2012 - 10:08 .

[CosmicGnosis]

Ieldra2 wrote...

HellbirdIV wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Watch the EC epilogue and tell me again it's not about all this.

Synthesis must be about your theory?

Who's being rigid and unreasonable in this argument, again?

I am saying that a certain part of the EC epilogue is *explicitly* about prospects for an ascenscion. My interpretation may emphasize this point, but to say that theme doesn't exist in the Synthesis ending is ignorant.

You see, that's probably my biggest problem with the endings. I don't know if I should take everything as literally as possible, or consider thematic interpretations. If I take it literally, then I'd like to put the choices up for a vote, and Destroy would most certainly win. If I use thematic interpretations, then Synthesis wins because it's about taking a risk and leaping into the unknown.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 09 novembre 2012 - 10:13 .

[inko1nsiderate]

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

inko1nsiderate wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...


I don't need to do that, you should have gotten the idea 2 posts ago.
Now you're dragging it out, you have no point.

The point that you're trolling me?  I mean, if I said something that was factually incorrect, I'd love to hear it.

You didn't say anything that we know as factually incorrect or factually correct, but that doesn't mean it isn't  nonsense.

So I said something that is unprovable?  Or are you saying the idea of Hardy-Weinberg principal needs to get thrown out?  Do you actually have some biology expertise to back that up?  What is happening here is a little good-faith bad-faith.  I realize you are just jerking me around, but I'm pretending that isn't the case and trying to interact with you like I would with someone I intellectually respect.  That way if there is anything to learn because I spouted nonsense or said something factually incorrect, then I can learn it and become a better person.

Or are you upset about the terms like 'random fluctuation'?  Would you prefer if I talked about correlation lengths instead?

[KingZayd]

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

inko1nsiderate wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...


I don't need to do that, you should have gotten the idea 2 posts ago.
Now you're dragging it out, you have no point.

The point that you're trolling me?  I mean, if I said something that was factually incorrect, I'd love to hear it.

You didn't say anything that we know as factually incorrect or factually correct, but that doesn't mean it isn't  nonsense.

It's not incorrect, but it's nonsense? Does that just mean you don't understand what he's writing? I'm not aware of why his post is nonsensical.

[inko1nsiderate]

CosmicGnosis wrote...
You see, that's probably my biggest problem with the endings. I don't know if I should take everything as literally as possible, or consider thematic interpretations. If I take it literally, then I'd like to put the choices up for a vote, and Destroy would most certainly win. If I use thematic interpretations, then Synthesis wins because it's about taking a risk and leaping into the unknown.

Could you try doing both?  I play some of my Shepards more literal minded, while others are more swept up in the big ideas, and others are more swayed by a need for order and pick control.  Personally, I oscilalte between a more literal and a more symbolic interpreation depending on my mood.

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 09 novembre 2012 - 10:19 .

[inko1nsiderate]

A Bethesda Fan wrote...


If I say there is unicorns in space, that is not factually correct or incorrect.

Yes, yes, Russel's Teapot, we get it.  What exactly did I say that is Russel's Teapot?  Hardy-Weinberg, or the supposition that statistical systems governed by the laws of thermodynamics behave as statistical systems governed by the laws of thermodynamics and that the other laws of physics still hold leading to theoretical limits on physical processes?

[inko1nsiderate]

A Bethesda Fan wrote...


I would be surprised if you don't like IT with an attitude like that.

Prepare to be surprised... because I really don't like IT.

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 09 novembre 2012 - 10:23 .

[inko1nsiderate]

A Bethesda Fan wrote...


That's what I was thinking, I find it quite strange.
Do you see it as been possible?

If all of the air in this room tunneled through the wall and left me to suffocate right now, I'd be less surprised than if it turns out IT was true.

[Ieldra]

inko1nsiderate wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...
You see, that's probably my biggest problem with the endings. I don't know if I should take everything as literally as possible, or consider thematic interpretations. If I take it literally, then I'd like to put the choices up for a vote, and Destroy would most certainly win. If I use thematic interpretations, then Synthesis wins because it's about taking a risk and leaping into the unknown.

Could you try doing both?  I play some of my Shepards more literal minded, while others are more swept up in the big ideas, and others are more swayed by a need for order and pick control.  Personally, I oscilalte between a more literal and a more symbolic interpreation depending on my mood.

I support this. You get the most out of all this if you take different perspectives. That's why I'm always saying that all endings are good endings. All end the cycle, and everything else depends on perspective. Adopting different perspectives is a part of roleplaying.

[BatmanTurian]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Okay so I tried to fall asleep but it didn't work.

One more post and then I'll try again:

GUYS SERIOUSLY CAN WE STOP LUMPING EACH OTHER INTO UNFLATTERING CATEGORIES BASED ON OUR IN-GAME CHOICES PLZ KTHNX

I'm with the fermented dairy navy chief here. I don't really care who picks what anymore. It's a game with an ambiguous ending. You're arguing over something far more minor than any political or sociological issue. Nobody is going to change their mind at this point. People will disrespect your decision. This is the way life is. If people agreed on everything, life would be boring and we would all still have fuedal monarchies.

Make your decision. Deal with the consequences, such as people virulently disagreeing with you or that nagging doubt at the back of your mind that makes you second-guess your decision. Don't like it? Don't read the forums where people discuss the decisions. Problem solved.

[SpamBot2000]

Substituting the actual ending with stuff you just make up just isn't satisfactionin' me right these days. Call it vestigial regard for authorship or whatever.

[KingZayd]

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

inko1nsiderate wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...


I don't need to do that, you should have gotten the idea 2 posts ago.
Now you're dragging it out, you have no point.

The point that you're trolling me?  I mean, if I said something that was factually incorrect, I'd love to hear it.

You didn't say anything that we know as factually incorrect or factually correct, but that doesn't mean it isn't  nonsense.

It's not incorrect, but it's nonsense? Does that just mean you don't understand what he's writing? I'm not aware of why his post is nonsensical.

If I say there is unicorns in space, that is not factually correct or incorrect.

I'm not sure how that statement relates to the posts you were dismissing?

[inko1nsiderate]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Substituting the actual ending with stuff you just make up just isn't satisfactionin' me right these days. Call it vestigial regard for authorship or whatever.

I'm not going to argue with you because I love this sentence.  A lot.

[Ieldra]

SpamBot2000 wrote...
Substituting the actual ending with stuff you just make up just isn't satisfactionin' me right these days. Call it vestigial regard for authorship or whatever.

Substituting - no. Expanding - yes. As I said, there are three levels of using your imagination to color the endings: plausible speculation based on evidence in the games, expansion with no evidence but which doesn't contradict anything shown or told, and substituting things you don't like.

[CosmicGnosis]

Ieldra2 wrote...

inko1nsiderate wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...
You see, that's probably my biggest problem with the endings. I don't know if I should take everything as literally as possible, or consider thematic interpretations. If I take it literally, then I'd like to put the choices up for a vote, and Destroy would most certainly win. If I use thematic interpretations, then Synthesis wins because it's about taking a risk and leaping into the unknown.

Could you try doing both?  I play some of my Shepards more literal minded, while others are more swept up in the big ideas, and others are more swayed by a need for order and pick control.  Personally, I oscilalte between a more literal and a more symbolic interpreation depending on my mood.

I support this. You get the most out of all this if you take different perspectives. That's why I'm always saying that all endings are good endings. All end the cycle, and everything else depends on perspective. Adopting different perspectives is a part of roleplaying.

Well, I guess I can feel better about all this by having multiple canon Shepards. I just want my ultimate canon Shepard to pick what I would actually pick. If I remember correctly, BioWare have said that we're not supposed to take absolutely everything literally in the endings, and that there is some intentional symbolism.

Which brings me to Michael Gamble's statement about Synthesis. I think he said something about Synthesis being "just life". So maybe it's more about perception? Something literal took place, but the ending is more about the fact that the perceived distinction between organic and synthetic no longer matters. One's physical make-up is not a factor anymore.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 09 novembre 2012 - 11:07 .