77 réponses à ce sujet

[Wayning_Star]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Shepard's influence (along with the Prothean sabotage) has rendered the Catalyst's solution ineffective to its goal.

The purpose of the cycles is to reset the technological advancement of organic civilization. However, each cycle leaks information for the next (like the Prothean beacons and the Crucible blueprints). The Catalyst did not anticipate organics to be that resourceful, which is why inevitably one of the cycle's will successfully find a way to stop the Reapers. As per Refusal, even if Shepard doesn't set off the Crucible the next cycle wins anyway and the Catalyst knows this inevitability.

So a new "solution" is needed. The Catalyst is a synthetic that runs on cold logic so it's safe to assume it would assign preferences. Destroy is a "temporary" solution but a solution nontheless because now the Catalyst realizes that organics can just build another Crucible if a synthetic-organic war breaks out. Control is the 2nd best to the AI because it keeps the preserved races (Reapers) alive. Synthesis allegedly solves the problem outright because it keeps organics and synthetics at an even playing field.*

*That's the Catalyst's perspective. It's not MY view of things. So please respond accordingly.

would assign preferences? I thought with cold logic, the logic would control the catalyst, so any decision would OK with it, as apperently, they're all "logical", intellectually speaking? Logically it could not assign preferences, as it's original 'solution' will not work anymore. (those last four words coming from an ultra advanced Ai seems strange to me tho..)

[MegaSovereign]

Wayning_Star wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Shepard's influence (along with the Prothean sabotage) has rendered the Catalyst's solution ineffective to its goal.

The purpose of the cycles is to reset the technological advancement of organic civilization. However, each cycle leaks information for the next (like the Prothean beacons and the Crucible blueprints). The Catalyst did not anticipate organics to be that resourceful, which is why inevitably one of the cycle's will successfully find a way to stop the Reapers. As per Refusal, even if Shepard doesn't set off the Crucible the next cycle wins anyway and the Catalyst knows this inevitability.

So a new "solution" is needed. The Catalyst is a synthetic that runs on cold logic so it's safe to assume it would assign preferences. Destroy is a "temporary" solution but a solution nontheless because now the Catalyst realizes that organics can just build another Crucible if a synthetic-organic war breaks out. Control is the 2nd best to the AI because it keeps the preserved races (Reapers) alive. Synthesis allegedly solves the problem outright because it keeps organics and synthetics at an even playing field.*

*That's the Catalyst's perspective. It's not MY view of things. So please respond accordingly.

would assign preferences? I thought with cold logic, the logic would control the catalyst, so any decision would OK with it, as apperently, they're all "logical", intellectually speaking? Logically it could not assign preferences, as it's original 'solution' will not work anymore. (those last four words coming from an ultra advanced Ai seems strange to me tho..)

A machine knows that the integer 6 is greater than 5.

[CosmicGnosis]

What is your view of things, MegaSovereign?

[Boydsan]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Shepard's influence (along with the Prothean sabotage) has rendered the Catalyst's solution ineffective to its goal.

The purpose of the cycles is to reset the technological advancement of organic civilization. However, each cycle leaks information for the next (like the Prothean beacons and the Crucible). The Catalyst did not anticipate organics to be that resourceful, which is why inevitably one of the cycle's will successfully find a way to stop the Reapers. As per Refusal, even if Shepard doesn't set off the Crucible the next cycle wins anyway and the Catalyst knows this inevitability.

You assume it is the next cycle. It could be a few million cycles down the road - but they happens to find a relic from our cycle - and maybe other relics too.

I think most people need to stop thinking this as a finite and real situation and have faith.  Faith that stories can be told and not all stories are 100% accurate.  If the Crucible is activated, a male Stargazer is seen finishing his tale of "the Shepard" to a child. He states that it happened long ago, and that many of the details have been "lost" in time. The child asks to be told more, and the Stargazer replies that there is time for one more story.

If we assume Mass Effect 1 and 2 and 3 are stories told by the future and each story is told a bit different.  Maybe my stargazer thinks of Shepard has mostly a paragon and a biotic GUY.  While your Stargazer thinks of Shepard as a female vanguard who is mostly renegade.  Likewise, who knows what the Catalyst REALLY told Shepard.  If Shepard dies... and the Catalyst dies...  who knows the exact words the Catalyst says?

If you pick Destroy, then the Catalyst is destroyed.  If your Shepard lives (a big IF) I am not sure if he will remember the conversation word for word. 

If you pick Control, the Shepard conscious may not be able to directly talk or communicate with anyone and only control Reapers by giving them base comands (such as repair this building, destroy that pirate ship, avoid stepping on people).

If you pick Synthesis - the Catalyst and Shepard were both destroyed to give their energies to the universe/galaxy? 

If you think of our stories as a folk lore - then who knows what really happened?

Think of our own history Beowulf. Is Beowulf a mere folk tale that somehow made it thru the ages and was not even "accurate" but so popular that there has been novels, stories, movies, and cartoons made about this tale?  There is even some suggestion that Beowulf might have been a real person and the folk tale might be somewhat true.

If you think of Shepard and Mass Effect (the video game 1 thru 3) as a modern day (or future age) Beowulf - a story told thru the ages.  Then the Catalyst may not have even been real.  The Catalyst and the Starchild may have been as "real" as Beowulf facing real life dragons in our real life world.  Of course, there are some people who say dragons might have been real...  

So... wrapping it up.  Was Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 real?  NO!  It is a video game, that tells a story.  Believe what you will, but read Beowulf and imagine that is the story told of Shepard and its 50,000+ years in the future.  I wonder how much of the story remained true.

[Maniccc]

Han Shot First wrote...

I think either intentionally or unintentionally, the the Crucible interacting with the Citadel somehow altered the Catalyst's programming.

Or least that was what I thought he was implying by saying that the Crucible changed him, and altered variables. I guess it went into his Reaper.ini file and changed the agression value from Over 9000 to 0.

BW, hire this man for lead writer of ME4.

[MegaSovereign]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

What is your view of things, MegaSovereign?

Trying to prevent conflicts from happening is impossible. It's likely the same conclusion the Catalyst came to before starting the Reaper harvest. But it thinks like a machine. It doesn't understand that the value of life isn't measured in the number of people you preserve. 

The best solution is to accept that conflict will exist between any factions and even within factions. Shepard has already proven that level-headed diplomacy can mitigate conflicts. The Catalyst actually attempted diplomacy before seeking other actions, but it failed due to the fact that it couldn't establish a connection since it was a synthetic.

In my canon, I choose Destroy largely because of those reasons.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 15 janvier 2013 - 03:26 .

[CosmicGnosis]

MegaSovereign wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

What is your view of things, MegaSovereign?

Trying to prevent conflicts from happening is impossible. It's likely the same conclusion the Catalyst came to before starting the Reaper harvest. But it thinks like a machine. It doesn't understand that the value of life isn't measured in the number of people you preserve. 

The best solution is to accept that conflict will exist between any factions and even within factions. Shepard has already proven that level-headed diplomacy can mitigate conflicts. The Catalyst actually attempted diplomacy before seeking other actions, but it failed due to the fact that it couldn't establish a connection since it was a synthetic.

In my canon, I choose Destroy largely because of those reasons.

Exactly why do you place Destroy above Control?

[MegaSovereign]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

What is your view of things, MegaSovereign?

Trying to prevent conflicts from happening is impossible. It's likely the same conclusion the Catalyst came to before starting the Reaper harvest. But it thinks like a machine. It doesn't understand that the value of life isn't measured in the number of people you preserve. 

The best solution is to accept that conflict will exist between any factions and even within factions. Shepard has already proven that level-headed diplomacy can mitigate conflicts. The Catalyst actually attempted diplomacy before seeking other actions, but it failed due to the fact that it couldn't establish a connection since it was a synthetic.

In my canon, I choose Destroy largely because of those reasons.

Exactly why do you place Destroy above Control?

Ethical reasons. As Mordin would have put it, the Reapers and the husks are an insult to the races of previous cycles.

I don't hate the Control ending. It's the typical pragmatism vs principle argument. Same one used to justify the Collector Base decision.

[Wayning_Star]

MegaSovereign wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

What is your view of things, MegaSovereign?

Trying to prevent conflicts from happening is impossible. It's likely the same conclusion the Catalyst came to before starting the Reaper harvest. But it thinks like a machine. It doesn't understand that the value of life isn't measured in the number of people you preserve. 

The best solution is to accept that conflict will exist between any factions and even within factions. Shepard has already proven that level-headed diplomacy can mitigate conflicts. The Catalyst actually attempted diplomacy before seeking other actions, but it failed due to the fact that it couldn't establish a connection since it was a synthetic.

In my canon, I choose Destroy largely because of those reasons.

only to nitpick... IF conflict in inevitable, wouldn't it be better if all concerned were connected, say, in sythesis, as many posters proclaim, such a connection and resultant 'perfection' would most likely be boring?

As well as the concept of being in direct communication with all other species of 'known' societies, their intentions would be known the instant they became THAT important? Say, like taking over, like the Krogan are known for and other more virulent species attempting Apex?

Even Shep cannot 'mitigate' Nature... (well unless we completely adapt TO nature..)

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 15 janvier 2013 - 04:02 .

[Ticonderoga117]

Wayning_Star wrote...
only to nitpick... IF conflict in inevitable, wouldn't it be better if all concerned were connected, say, in sythesis, as many posters proclaim, such a connection and resultant 'perfection' would most likely be boring?

As well as the concept of being in direct communication with all other species of 'known' societies, their intentions would be known the instant they became THAT important? Say, like taking over, like the Krogan are known for and other more verulent species attempting Apex?

Even Shep cannot 'mitigate' Nature... (well unless we completely adapt TO nature..)

That would stagnate the galaxy. No conflict? Then what's to drive anything? Besides, it might not even do that since people would still hate people, maybe.

[MegaSovereign]

Wayning_Star wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

What is your view of things, MegaSovereign?

Trying to prevent conflicts from happening is impossible. It's likely the same conclusion the Catalyst came to before starting the Reaper harvest. But it thinks like a machine. It doesn't understand that the value of life isn't measured in the number of people you preserve. 

The best solution is to accept that conflict will exist between any factions and even within factions. Shepard has already proven that level-headed diplomacy can mitigate conflicts. The Catalyst actually attempted diplomacy before seeking other actions, but it failed due to the fact that it couldn't establish a connection since it was a synthetic.

In my canon, I choose Destroy largely because of those reasons.

only to nitpick... IF conflict in inevitable, wouldn't it be better if all concerned were connected, say, in sythesis, as many posters proclaim, such a connection and resultant 'perfection' would most likely be boring?

As well as the concept of being in direct communication with all other species of 'known' societies, their intentions would be known the instant they became THAT important? Say, like taking over, like the Krogan are known for and other more verulent species attempting Apex?

Even Shep cannot 'mitigate' Nature... (well unless we completely adapt TO nature..)

Synthesis doesn't prevent conflict. It just gives organics the means to keep up with synthetics in terms of evolution. That's why it's the "ideal" solution to the Catalyst.

Conflicts between factions and even within factions is inevitable. It's why trying to create a utopia is impractical. That was basically the Catalyst's task given by the Leviathans.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 15 janvier 2013 - 04:04 .

[AshenShug4r]

Animositisomina wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

"You wouldn't know them, and there's not enough time to explain."

This was in response to who originally created the catalyst, not what variables Shepard has changed.

Whoosh...

Right over it.

[Wayning_Star]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Shepard's influence (along with the Prothean sabotage) has rendered the Catalyst's solution ineffective to its goal.

The purpose of the cycles is to reset the technological advancement of organic civilization. However, each cycle leaks information for the next (like the Prothean beacons and the Crucible blueprints). The Catalyst did not anticipate organics to be that resourceful, which is why inevitably one of the cycle's will successfully find a way to stop the Reapers. As per Refusal, even if Shepard doesn't set off the Crucible the next cycle wins anyway and the Catalyst knows this inevitability.

So a new "solution" is needed. The Catalyst is a synthetic that runs on cold logic so it's safe to assume it would assign preferences. Destroy is a "temporary" solution but a solution nontheless because now the Catalyst realizes that organics can just build another Crucible if a synthetic-organic war breaks out. Control is the 2nd best to the AI because it keeps the preserved races (Reapers) alive. Synthesis allegedly solves the problem outright because it keeps organics and synthetics at an even playing field.*

*That's the Catalyst's perspective. It's not MY view of things. So please respond accordingly.

would assign preferences? I thought with cold logic, the logic would control the catalyst, so any decision would OK with it, as apperently, they're all "logical", intellectually speaking? Logically it could not assign preferences, as it's original 'solution' will not work anymore. (those last four words coming from an ultra advanced Ai seems strange to me tho..)

A machine knows that the integer 6 is greater than 5.

so? I think it's logic is more.. progressive..lol

[Wayning_Star]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

What is your view of things, MegaSovereign?

Trying to prevent conflicts from happening is impossible. It's likely the same conclusion the Catalyst came to before starting the Reaper harvest. But it thinks like a machine. It doesn't understand that the value of life isn't measured in the number of people you preserve. 

The best solution is to accept that conflict will exist between any factions and even within factions. Shepard has already proven that level-headed diplomacy can mitigate conflicts. The Catalyst actually attempted diplomacy before seeking other actions, but it failed due to the fact that it couldn't establish a connection since it was a synthetic.

In my canon, I choose Destroy largely because of those reasons.

only to nitpick... IF conflict in inevitable, wouldn't it be better if all concerned were connected, say, in sythesis, as many posters proclaim, such a connection and resultant 'perfection' would most likely be boring?

As well as the concept of being in direct communication with all other species of 'known' societies, their intentions would be known the instant they became THAT important? Say, like taking over, like the Krogan are known for and other more verulent species attempting Apex?

Even Shep cannot 'mitigate' Nature... (well unless we completely adapt TO nature..)

Synthesis doesn't prevent conflict. It just gives organics the means to keep up with synthetics in terms of evolution. That's why it's the "ideal" solution to the Catalyst.

Conflicts between factions and even within factions is inevitable. It's why trying to create a utopia is impractical. That was basically the Catalyst's task given by the Leviathans.

The catalyst doesn't appear to have an 'ideal' solution, other than crowd control with harvests. The crucible changes all that for some reasons..as in the choices. If the catalyst was imaginative, it would 'act' on it's own, during the choices selection, not needing Shep 'to decide' as the crucible was the determining, if not logical to the catalyst.


The factions within factions undermines the effforts of Shep to quell violence amongst the Geth/Quarians, that peace wouldn't last either, apparently?

The evolution, if any during synthesis is for the universe it's self 'advance' beyond inanimate, that is be in 'collusion' with articulate organic and synthetic life during their quest for survival. All life competes, what would undermine that competition and cicumvent the need for 'life' be obstructed by natural evolutionary properties? Fear of death? Need for shelter? Need for tools? To "compete" with nature to survive, or better yet evolve.

Why build tools if you don't need them? Like the Levaithan submit, the universe is their "tool"...why is that?

[txgoldrush]

Knubbsal wrote...

I remember the Catalyst saying the Crucible opened up new possibilities (in a mysterious way) that the Catalyst couldn't accomplish by itself (for some reason). Shepard standing there (where ever it was) meant that Shepard could have involvement in changing the future (for no particular reason).

In other words, nobody knows. They pretend it's too complicated for us to understand so they don't have to bother explaining what doesn't exist. We should just imagine whatever fits in this black hole of reasoning.

Wow...why can't this board even get the obvious?

The Catalyst says that the Crucible opened up new possibilites and new options to solve the dilemma he was programmed to do.

The reason why he needs Shepard is also obvious...he won't destroy himself, he already controls the Reapers, but he needs a synthetic-organic hybrid....you know, Shepard...to enact Synthesis.

Shepard can be involved in changing the future because of his or her hybrid nature...making Control and Synthesis available.

So easily explanable and obvious...the Crucible gave him new alternatives to the cycle and he found someone who can enact these options (Shepard).

[Wayning_Star]

Boydsan wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Shepard's influence (along with the Prothean sabotage) has rendered the Catalyst's solution ineffective to its goal.

The purpose of the cycles is to reset the technological advancement of organic civilization. However, each cycle leaks information for the next (like the Prothean beacons and the Crucible). The Catalyst did not anticipate organics to be that resourceful, which is why inevitably one of the cycle's will successfully find a way to stop the Reapers. As per Refusal, even if Shepard doesn't set off the Crucible the next cycle wins anyway and the Catalyst knows this inevitability.

You assume it is the next cycle. It could be a few million cycles down the road - but they happens to find a relic from our cycle - and maybe other relics too.

I think most people need to stop thinking this as a finite and real situation and have faith.  Faith that stories can be told and not all stories are 100% accurate.  If the Crucible is activated, a male Stargazer is seen finishing his tale of "the Shepard" to a child. He states that it happened long ago, and that many of the details have been "lost" in time. The child asks to be told more, and the Stargazer replies that there is time for one more story.

If we assume Mass Effect 1 and 2 and 3 are stories told by the future and each story is told a bit different.  Maybe my stargazer thinks of Shepard has mostly a paragon and a biotic GUY.  While your Stargazer thinks of Shepard as a female vanguard who is mostly renegade.  Likewise, who knows what the Catalyst REALLY told Shepard.  If Shepard dies... and the Catalyst dies...  who knows the exact words the Catalyst says?

If you pick Destroy, then the Catalyst is destroyed.  If your Shepard lives (a big IF) I am not sure if he will remember the conversation word for word. 

If you pick Control, the Shepard conscious may not be able to directly talk or communicate with anyone and only control Reapers by giving them base comands (such as repair this building, destroy that pirate ship, avoid stepping on people).

If you pick Synthesis - the Catalyst and Shepard were both destroyed to give their energies to the universe/galaxy? 

If you think of our stories as a folk lore - then who knows what really happened?

Think of our own history Beowulf. Is Beowulf a mere folk tale that somehow made it thru the ages and was not even "accurate" but so popular that there has been novels, stories, movies, and cartoons made about this tale?  There is even some suggestion that Beowulf might have been a real person and the folk tale might be somewhat true.

If you think of Shepard and Mass Effect (the video game 1 thru 3) as a modern day (or future age) Beowulf - a story told thru the ages.  Then the Catalyst may not have even been real.  The Catalyst and the Starchild may have been as "real" as Beowulf facing real life dragons in our real life world.  Of course, there are some people who say dragons might have been real...  

So... wrapping it up.  Was Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 real?  NO!  It is a video game, that tells a story.  Believe what you will, but read Beowulf and imagine that is the story told of Shepard and its 50,000+ years in the future.  I wonder how much of the story remained true.

that's where I got the idea that the star gazer scene was an old guy telling a kid about the trip "our" Shep experienced and it was passed down through, who knows how many, generations later in 'real time', as the scene is supposed to 'shift' to real time, not game/story time. It also was to reflect that more stories 'could' be told TO the kid about Sheps adventures.(i.e., DLC, most definitely,ME 4?... not so much

Beowolf, notwithstanding.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Cerbrus operative wrote...

When Shepard asks The Catalyst why is he helping him, The Catalyst say that Shepard altered the variables.
Does anybody have any idea what those "variables" are and how Shepard altered them?

"I don't mind speculative answers to this question"

They were either the variable constants or the constant variables.

[Wayning_Star]

txgoldrush wrote...

Knubbsal wrote...

I remember the Catalyst saying the Crucible opened up new possibilities (in a mysterious way) that the Catalyst couldn't accomplish by itself (for some reason). Shepard standing there (where ever it was) meant that Shepard could have involvement in changing the future (for no particular reason).

In other words, nobody knows. They pretend it's too complicated for us to understand so they don't have to bother explaining what doesn't exist. We should just imagine whatever fits in this black hole of reasoning.

Wow...why can't this board even get the obvious?

The Catalyst says that the Crucible opened up new possibilites and new options to solve the dilemma he was programmed to do.

The reason why he needs Shepard is also obvious...he won't destroy himself, he already controls the Reapers, but he needs a synthetic-organic hybrid....you know, Shepard...to enact Synthesis.

Shepard can be involved in changing the future because of his or her hybrid nature...making Control and Synthesis available.

So easily explanable and obvious...the Crucible gave him new alternatives to the cycle and he found someone who can enact these options (Shepard).

sounds good, but many fans want written codex entries supported with known lore to emphasise thes sentiments. Most would consider such thinking as head canon, only/mostly because they can..often because it conflicts with their head canon..or even maybe the actual story canon? Thats what all the fighting is about..imho

[Wayning_Star]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Cerbrus operative wrote...

When Shepard asks The Catalyst why is he helping him, The Catalyst say that Shepard altered the variables.
Does anybody have any idea what those "variables" are and how Shepard altered them?

"I don't mind speculative answers to this question"

They were either the variable constants or the constant variables.

I just bit my tongue..but I'm OK!!

[MegaSovereign]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Cerbrus operative wrote...

When Shepard asks The Catalyst why is he helping him, The Catalyst say that Shepard altered the variables.
Does anybody have any idea what those "variables" are and how Shepard altered them?

"I don't mind speculative answers to this question"

They were either the variable constants or the constant variables.

Am I the only one that thinks of Computer Science when I hear the term "variable?"

[txgoldrush]

Wayning_Star wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Knubbsal wrote...

I remember the Catalyst saying the Crucible opened up new possibilities (in a mysterious way) that the Catalyst couldn't accomplish by itself (for some reason). Shepard standing there (where ever it was) meant that Shepard could have involvement in changing the future (for no particular reason).

In other words, nobody knows. They pretend it's too complicated for us to understand so they don't have to bother explaining what doesn't exist. We should just imagine whatever fits in this black hole of reasoning.

Wow...why can't this board even get the obvious?

The Catalyst says that the Crucible opened up new possibilites and new options to solve the dilemma he was programmed to do.

The reason why he needs Shepard is also obvious...he won't destroy himself, he already controls the Reapers, but he needs a synthetic-organic hybrid....you know, Shepard...to enact Synthesis.

Shepard can be involved in changing the future because of his or her hybrid nature...making Control and Synthesis available.

So easily explanable and obvious...the Crucible gave him new alternatives to the cycle and he found someone who can enact these options (Shepard).

sounds good, but many fans want written codex entries supported with known lore to emphasise thes sentiments. Most would consider such thinking as head canon, only/mostly because they can..often because it conflicts with their head canon..or even maybe the actual story canon? Thats what all the fighting is about..imho

but did they pay attention to the Catalyst's explanation of synthesis?

Its all in the narrative.

[Ticonderoga117]

txgoldrush wrote...
but did they pay attention to the Catalyst's explanation of synthesis?

Its all in the narrative.

"Wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff." - Definition of Synthesis.

It's BS. Made up. And even worse, is not in line with the rules set forth by the narrative earlier.

[Gewehr_fr]

I guess the crucible being docked and Shepard reaching the catalyst means his solution doesn't work anymore because the reapers which are the only things preventing the galaxy from falling into chaos could now be potentially destroyed (from the catalyst's logic not mine), which it believed to be impossible. So it simply underestimated the potential of the organics in his programming, these are the only variables that were altered. The synthetics vs organics problem remains unchanged.

Therefore it still needs to find a new solution and it needs Shepard to activate two of them, Control and Synthesis.

Why does it still present Destroy to you ? Likely because it is forced by its programming to present to you all the possibilities, instead of leading you straight to synthesis. The AI strongly disapproves destroying the reapers but it can not lie to you.

That's my interpretation of the matter anyway.

[txgoldrush]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
but did they pay attention to the Catalyst's explanation of synthesis?

Its all in the narrative.

"Wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff." - Definition of Synthesis.

It's BS. Made up. And even worse, is not in line with the rules set forth by the narrative earlier.

What rules? The ones you make up?

[Ticonderoga117]

txgoldrush wrote...
What rules? The ones you make up?

The rules the narrative itself put up.

"Here's eezo. It makes things have less mass. This is the biggest divergence between real life in our game. Here are the rules it goes by. It does not allow you to change the entire galaxy into cyborgs. It does allow FTL and the ability to lift objects. There are a few funkier bits, but they don't completely derail the suspension of disbelief."

Synthesis says "To hell with all of that, here's this totally implossible event because we said so. Deal with it."