435 réponses à ce sujet

[ImaginaryMatter]

congokong wrote...

The catalyst was designed to preserve organic life at any cost. That's why it hasn't but I get what you mean. You're saying that not all synthetics will inevitably eradictate organics because the catalyst hasn't. But the catalyst doesn't claim that EVERY synthetic ever created will end up killing organics; just that inevitably "synthetics" will eradicate organics if no intervention is made.

But if the Catalyst, the greatest AI to ever exist can be stopped by simple programming, why not apply that to every Synthetic as part of the solution? Azimov anyone?

Edit: Does anyone know if there are scripts for the Leviathan and Catalyst dialogues? It's very tedious to go back and forth through these conversations in video form.

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 17 janvier 2014 - 07:06 .

[Grizzly46]

Obadiah wrote...

Well, what level of proof are you demanding? An actual instance of Synthetics wiping out all organics?

The Catalyst has been alive for millions of years and has data from 10,000+ cycles. If you asked it for proof, do you think it's answer would be to just be stumped and with an "uh"... or maybe it will respond with reams and reams of data, mathematical predictive models, and accompanying explanations?

I think Leviathan expositioned that syntethics did wipe out thier creators among their thrall races ("tribute does not flow from a dead race"), and I think it's safe to assume that it has happened again during the cycles. That is, if the entire statment actually is "syntethics wipes out all organics" then that has never happened though - the synthethics have just destroyed their creators.

That doen't take away the fact however that the Catalyst is wrong (nevermind the reapers, they are just his tools), since it has determined that life = organic material.

[Comrade Wakizashi]

Obadiah wrote...

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...

The Catalyst has done absolutely no "long civilization" studies in which it bases it's assumptions. It bases itself solely on the war between Levithan thralls and their synthetics that happened millions of years ago, that's all. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it for me.

How do we know it hasn't done this? I think if we can think of a potential solution, the Catayst being more intelligent than us has probably thought of it as well, and if feasible probably attempted it.

The thing is that the Catalyst is by no means more intelligent than we are. It has a very narrow path of reasoning that its algorithms allow it to do. Whereas mankind and other living beings can actually think outside the box and can succeed in thinking about other possibilities when the parameters change. The catalyst couldn't even comprehend the concept of changing parameters until Shepard stood at its doorstep.

[Comrade Wakizashi]

Obadiah wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

bleetman wrote...
...

Obadiah wrote...
the Catayst being more intelligent than us

Citation needed.

That could just be Shepard's assumptions, after all, the only Reapers Shepard had met by that point were apparently exagerating or misinformed the entire time.

Or it might just be completely stupid to assume that the million year old entity that you're speaking to in the Decision Chamber that has outwitted 700 plus previous cycles including its creator is not more intelligent than us.

Outwitted? The Catalyst wasn't playing mind games for all these milltions of years. It wiped civilizations out through sheer brute forcen using an army of tens of thousands of doom machines. It helps in winning wars.

[Comrade Wakizashi]

Obadiah wrote...

This is way I look at it.

The Catalyst made two separate statements
- Creators will always rebel again their creators
- Synthetics will wipe out all organics

This does not mean that every synthetic that rebels will wipe out all organics, since Synthetics have already rebelled and not wiped out all organics life. It means that after these conflicts repeat themselves enough times, eventually some Synthetics will wipe out all organics. The Catalyst foresaw this and was trying to stop that from happening, but it only succeeded in delaying it.

I don't see why it's so implausible. In this cycle Organics that use Destroy will wipe out all Synthetics. The only difference is that when Synthetics do it to Organics, since they don't need organics, we won't get rebuilt.

My problem is that we have absolutely no reason to believe this. The only thing we have is the Catalyst telling us this would be true, and he bases this purely upon logical reasoning within his own "brain", not using any outside sources or evidence.

I don't know about you, but I have a hard time believed an AI who just wiped out pretty much half of planet Earth on its word. The only logical decision any clear-thinking man would take in the decision chamber would be Destroy. Because what the hell would you trust the Catalyst?

Modifié par Comrade Wakizashi, 17 janvier 2014 - 10:02 .

[Comrade Wakizashi]

Obadiah wrote...

Well, what level of proof are you demanding? An actual instance of Synthetics wiping out all organics?

The Catalyst has been alive for millions of years and has data from 10,000+ cycles. If you asked it for proof, do you think it's answer would be to just be stumped and with an "uh"... or maybe it will respond with reams and reams of data, mathematical predictive models, and accompanying explanations?

To be honest, I'm pretty sure it would reply something like "It is inevitable", "It is the logical way of the galaxy", "It is the fate of all organics", etc etc.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it isn't a logical assumption in the Catalyst's mind. I totally get why it thinks the way it does. I'm just saying it has no evidence whatsoever.

That, added to the fact that harvesting life to "save" it (with the fale assumption that life is merely a collection of genetic material, and that's it) makes absolutely no sense, and I think it's safe to say the Reapers aren't right in any way.

[Lord Watson]

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...

I don't know about you, but I have a hard time believed an AI who just wiped out pretty much half of planet Earth on its word. The only logical decision any clear-thinking man would take in the decision chamber would be Destroy. Because what the hell would you trust the Catalyst?

The Catalyst SAYS the door on the right equals dead Reapers.  Are you going to trust the Catalyst to tell you how to destroy the Reapers?

By your logic, refusal is the only real option. 

Modifié par Lord Watson, 17 janvier 2014 - 10:24 .

[Farangbaa]

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...
To be honest, I'm pretty sure it would reply something like "It is inevitable", "It is the logical way of the galaxy", "It is the fate of all organics", etc etc.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it isn't a logical assumption in the Catalyst's mind. I totally get why it thinks the way it does. I'm just saying it has no evidence whatsoever.

This.. again?

Ok, I'll tell you again: The Leviathan noticed it, more times than once. That's why they created the Catalyst in the first place. Then the Catalyst comfirmed it happend, more than once. And then it created the cycle. You constantly act as if the Catalyst made everything up on the spot and from that it decided to start the cycle.

Modifié par Psychevore, 17 janvier 2014 - 10:29 .

[Farangbaa]

Lord Watson wrote...

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...

I don't know about you, but I have a hard time believed an AI who just wiped out pretty much half of planet Earth on its word. The only logical decision any clear-thinking man would take in the decision chamber would be Destroy. Because what the hell would you trust the Catalyst?

The Catalyst SAYS the door on the right equals dead Reapers.  Are you going to trust the Catalyst to tell you how to destroy the Reapers?

By your logic, refusal is the only real option. 

This.

[Lord Watson]

Psychevore wrote...

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...
To be honest, I'm pretty sure it would reply something like "It is inevitable", "It is the logical way of the galaxy", "It is the fate of all organics", etc etc.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it isn't a logical assumption in the Catalyst's mind. I totally get why it thinks the way it does. I'm just saying it has no evidence whatsoever.

This.. again?

Ok, I'll tell you again: The Leviathan noticed it, more times than once. That's why they created the Catalyst in the first place. Then the Catalyst comfirmed it happend, more than once. And then it created the cycle. You constantly act as if the Catalyst made everything up on the spot and from that it decided to start the cycle.

Javik also says something similar about synthetic creations rising up against their creators during his cycle.  

It's not exactly news to Shepard at this point. 

Gotta love how every thread has to turn into an ending sucks argument.

Modifié par Lord Watson, 17 janvier 2014 - 10:45 .

[Comrade Wakizashi]

Psychevore wrote...

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...
To be honest, I'm pretty sure it would reply something like "It is inevitable", "It is the logical way of the galaxy", "It is the fate of all organics", etc etc.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it isn't a logical assumption in the Catalyst's mind. I totally get why it thinks the way it does. I'm just saying it has no evidence whatsoever.

This.. again?

Ok, I'll tell you again: The Leviathan noticed it, more times than once. That's why they created the Catalyst in the first place. Then the Catalyst comfirmed it happend, more than once. And then it created the cycle. You constantly act as if the Catalyst made everything up on the spot and from that it decided to start the cycle.

So because it happened millions of years ago, that means it's necessarily bound to happen for rest of eternity, and the only possible solution is complete and total galactical genocide? Talk about determinism...

[Comrade Wakizashi]

Lord Watson wrote...

Psychevore wrote...

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...
To be honest, I'm pretty sure it would reply something like "It is inevitable", "It is the logical way of the galaxy", "It is the fate of all organics", etc etc.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it isn't a logical assumption in the Catalyst's mind. I totally get why it thinks the way it does. I'm just saying it has no evidence whatsoever.

This.. again?

Ok, I'll tell you again: The Leviathan noticed it, more times than once. That's why they created the Catalyst in the first place. Then the Catalyst comfirmed it happend, more than once. And then it created the cycle. You constantly act as if the Catalyst made everything up on the spot and from that it decided to start the cycle.

Javik also says something similar about synthetic creations rising up against their creators during his cycle.  

It's not exactly news to Shepard at this point. 

Gotta love how every thread has to turn into an ending sucks argument.

I don't think the ending sucks at all, actually. In fact I like the ending of ME3. And the fact that it shows that even the worst enemy of the galaxy is, in fact, fallible.

[Comrade Wakizashi]

Lord Watson wrote...

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...

I don't know about you, but I have a hard time believed an AI who just wiped out pretty much half of planet Earth on its word. The only logical decision any clear-thinking man would take in the decision chamber would be Destroy. Because what the hell would you trust the Catalyst?

The Catalyst SAYS the door on the right equals dead Reapers.  Are you going to trust the Catalyst to tell you how to destroy the Reapers?

By your logic, refusal is the only real option. 

It's a risk to trust him there, indeed. But the fact you're destroying something in his apparatus is a pretty good indication that  he's probably right. It's a lot smaller a risk than "yeah sure, if you sacrifice yourself in a wave of gigantic energy, you'll be able to control us for all eternity!" or "yeah sure, just jump right into that beam up there, and all creation will reach a new phase of evolution, I promise!"

[Daemul]

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...

Lord Watson wrote...

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...

I don't know about you, but I have a hard time believed an AI who just wiped out pretty much half of planet Earth on its word. The only logical decision any clear-thinking man would take in the decision chamber would be Destroy. Because what the hell would you trust the Catalyst?

The Catalyst SAYS the door on the right equals dead Reapers.  Are you going to trust the Catalyst to tell you how to destroy the Reapers?

By your logic, refusal is the only real option. 

It's a risk to trust him there, indeed. But the fact you're destroying something in his apparatus is a pretty good indication that  he's probably right. It's a lot smaller a risk than "yeah sure, if you sacrifice yourself in a wave of gigantic energy, you'll be able to control us for all eternity!" or "yeah sure, just jump right into that beam up there, and all creation will reach a new phase of evolution, I promise!"

Eh, no, destroying something in the crucibles apparatus could have easily led to it's sabotage and the doom of the galaxy, it is not a smaller risk at all.

[Lord Watson]

Fair enough.

I would just think that if any of the options were a trick, it'd be the one that destroys the Reapers. Not the options that keep them around. If you're going to deceive Shep, why give him a legit destroy option in the first place?

[Ieldra]

So much flawed logic in here.

(1) "Synthetic life will eventually destroy all organic life" is not equal to "every synthetic must always contribute to the extinction of organics".

(2) The statement is not made unconditionally. "If no intervention by a power of surpassing cognitive ability is made" is implied, and the cycle is the intervention. There is no reason why the intervening agent can't be a synthetic. This does not invalidate the premise. 

Can we please stop treating the Catalyst's premise as self-defeating? That's just silly, a result of narrowing definitions until they fit someone's preconceptions. The prevailing reasoning is along the lines of "I don't like it, so it must not make sense". I call Bullsh*t.

The plain fact is that we don't have enough information to argue that the Catalyst is either right or wrong. There are no logical contradictions in its rationale for the cycle, and there is no reason why the probabilities of civilization dynamics couldn't be stacked against organics in this way. Within the story, it's a premise we can either accept or not, but we can't disprove it. If we try to do more, we would need to provide much more information, starting with questions about what the nature of synthetic life actually is, compared to organic life, and which traits are responsible for synthetic domination and/or organic extinction. The story doesn't give us enough of that, so any logically consistent line of argument that "disproves" the Catalyst is essentially a strawman attack.

That's not to say there isn't a problem with the premise, but it's a storytelling problem, not a problem of logic. The story of ME keeps telling us that we can co-operate in spite of being very different. It actually makes a big point of it with the theme of "unite all the species against the Reapers (including synthetics)", and that point is driven home against the message of inevitable conflict if you make peace on Rannoch. That's narratively significant and a critical storytelling problem, and I actually find it insulting that the story prevents me from mentioning this piece of evidence in the Catalyst conversation, but in the larger scheme of things it's quite possible that it's an insignificant and very temporary piece of evidence. 

Relevant quote:

"If we ever encounter extraterrestrial intelligence it is overwhelmingly likely to be post-biological" -- Paul Davies, theoretical physicist, Arizona State University, 2013

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 janvier 2014 - 12:37 .

[Comrade Wakizashi]

So we have no evidence to prove the Catalyst is either right or wrong. Doesn't that mean the logical conclusion is not believing it is right? I mean, theories need to be proven before they are accepted. They are not generally accepted until they are proven wrong. I think the only logical and just thing to do is NOT believing the Catalyst and saving the galaxy from its clutches. Because if there is no evidence towards either side, why blindly trust the theory?

[Grizzly46]

Ieldra2 wrote...
The plain fact is that we don't have enough information to argue that the Catalyst is either right or wrong. There are no logical contradictions in its rationale for the cycle, and there is no reason why the probabilities of civilization dynamics couldn't be stacked against organics in this way. Within the story, it's a premise we can either accept or not, but we can't disprove it. If we try to do more, we would need to provide much more information, starting with questions about what the nature of synthetic life actually is, compared to organic life, and which traits are responsible for synthetic domination and/or organic extinction. The story doesn't give us enough of that, so any logically consistent line of argument that "disproves" the Catalyst is essentially a strawman attack.

Actually, we do, if we consider the exposition of Leviathan and the Catalyst to be 100% honest and that they didn't withhold anything.

The Cathalyst was created and programmed by the leviathan race to preserve organics. In this creation, one of the "laws" so to speak that was programmed into the Catalyst was that synthetic life would always destroy organic life, no matter your or my definition of the entire life concept.

A defintion is needed: "organic life" would in this snese always mean "creators of a certain specific synthetic life", otherwise the reapers (themselves syntethics) would have wiped all life eons ago, probably around the same time as the dinosaurs got really big. All that is a parenthesis here though.

The Catalyst's motive for the harvesting is known: harvesting intelligent life to preserve it before synthetics wipes them out. This is done by using synthetics (reapers) to wipe out organics, only preserving the genetical material in the reaper.

I think that this shows how flawed the entire premise by the Catalyst is, and is why I earlier asked if someone itrduced a serious bug in the Catalyst programming: a reaper is just a moving coffin that is not preserving life, but the Catalyst seems to believe that genetical material = life. And it doesn't, no matter how we define life.

Ieldra2 wrote...
"If we ever encounter extraterrestrial intelligence it is overwhelmingly likely to be post-biological" -- Paul Davies, theoretical physicist, Arizona State University, 2013

This quote is more relevant in our real world than the space opera that is Mass Effect (read. that oes not have anything like the mass effect), and it will swing both ways. We have sent the probe Voyager on a very long journey that might end up finding extra-terrestial life. There are no humans on it, and the probe might very well survive the death of our sun millions of years from now, still travelling somewhere. That would make it the only evidence left of our race, our species - and even possible our solar system.

[Vigilant111]

@Ieldra2: Well for one the premise with synthetics killing organics to save organics from being killed by synthetics IS logically flawed

Modifié par Vigilant111, 17 janvier 2014 - 01:07 .

[Ieldra]

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...
So we have no evidence to prove the Catalyst is either right or wrong. Doesn't that mean the logical conclusion is not believing it is right? I mean, theories need to be proven before they are accepted. They are not generally accepted until they are proven wrong. I think the only logical and just thing to do is NOT believing the Catalyst and saving the galaxy from its clutches. Because if there is no evidence towards either side, why blindly trust the theory?

The ME trilogy is a story, not a scientific paper. Do you have any idea what amount of data you'd need to give convincing evidence for a theory like this? The whole of ME3's word count would be barely enough to scratch the surface of the problem. No, in a story, it's usually enough that you can suspend your disbelief for the premise, and plainly the only reason why this is even a problem is that people don't want to believe it because they don't like the consequences. 

The story logic goes like this: the Catalyst has cognitive abilities far beyond humans. Thus, we can be expected to believe that its reasoning is valid at least to a point. That would usually be enough. The problem is that the story shoots itself in the foot by also making the Catalyst the Big Bad, which means we're conditioned to reject anything it says regardless of logic.

Consider the endings though. Destroy is, thematically, clearly a "there is no fate, we make our own" type of ending. You choose it because you think that free will trumps fate, implying that the Catalyst, as a machine, doesn't understand the fundamentally "chaotic" nature of organic life and has drawn the wrong conclusion, not because of any inherent flaw in its logic, but because there's an influence factor it doesn't - because it can't - take into account. The message is clear to me: if we tend towards Destroy, we are not intended to believe that the Catalyst's logic is inconsistent so much as that organic life is beyond the Catalyst's comprehension. The other alternative is "I'd rather die free", accepting the logic but choosing Destroy nonetheless. So...yeah, the story tries to convey the message that the Catalyst has a point. If you don't believe that free will always trumps fate, you aren't expected to choose Destroy. 

And actually, you're wrong about the scientific method. You can't prove a theory's correctness with finality. What you need is compelling evidence that your theory is a plausible description of reality and that existing knowledge doesn't falsify is. 

@Vigilant:
A typical example of narrowing the definitions as I described, resulting in a strawman attack. It presupposes that all synthetics are always the same, which is clearly wrong within the context of the story, and it presupposes that Reaperization equals death, which is heavily hinted as being wrong, and actually is canonically wrong from the Catalyst's perspective. Of course, people don't *want* to believe that if they have a strong emotional predisposition towards Destroy.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 janvier 2014 - 01:27 .

[NeroonWilliams]

Grizzly46 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
The plain fact is that we don't have enough information to argue that the Catalyst is either right or wrong. There are no logical contradictions in its rationale for the cycle, and there is no reason why the probabilities of civilization dynamics couldn't be stacked against organics in this way. Within the story, it's a premise we can either accept or not, but we can't disprove it. If we try to do more, we would need to provide much more information, starting with questions about what the nature of synthetic life actually is, compared to organic life, and which traits are responsible for synthetic domination and/or organic extinction. The story doesn't give us enough of that, so any logically consistent line of argument that "disproves" the Catalyst is essentially a strawman attack.

Actually, we do, if we consider the exposition of Leviathan and the Catalyst to be 100% honest and that they didn't withhold anything.

The Cathalyst was created and programmed by the leviathan race to preserve organics. In this creation, one of the "laws" so to speak that was programmed into the Catalyst was that synthetic life would always (eventually) destroy organic life, no matter your or my definition of the entire life concept.

Eventually is a much more apt description of what the AI is working against.

A defintion is needed: "organic life" would in this snese always mean "creators of a certain specific synthetic life", otherwise the reapers (themselves syntethics) would have wiped all life eons ago, probably around the same time as the dinosaurs got really big. All that is a parenthesis here though.

Nope.  Organic life is being preserved by NOT being harvested.  INTELLIGENT life is being preserved by being converted into new Reapers.

The Catalyst's motive for the harvesting is known: harvesting intelligent life to preserve it before synthetics wipes them out. This is done by using synthetics (reapers) to wipe out organics, only preserving the genetical material in the reaper.

The Harvest is actually happening to PREVENT intelligent life from building sufficient synthetics to destroy all organic life.  As I stated in my last comment, the preservation comes in the form of not harvesting species that are not in a position to begin building synthetics.

I think that this shows how flawed the entire premise by the Catalyst is, and is why I earlier asked if someone itrduced a serious bug in the Catalyst programming: a reaper is just a moving coffin that is not preserving life, but the Catalyst seems to believe that genetical material = life. And it doesn't, no matter how we define life.

I'll give you this one via semantics.  Each Reaper is preserving a CIVILIZATION (a culture and/or way of thinking) rather than a living species.  This isn't to say that this isn't an abhorrent idea, but it makes sense in that these different viewpoints have been added to its own in evaluating the "problem".

[NeroonWilliams]

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...

So we have no evidence to prove the Catalyst is either right or wrong. Doesn't that mean the logical conclusion is not believing it is right? I mean, theories need to be proven before they are accepted. They are not generally accepted until they are proven wrong. I think the only logical and just thing to do is NOT believing the Catalyst and saving the galaxy from its clutches. Because if there is no evidence towards either side, why blindly trust the theory?

For the same reason that we pay police and other security officers to search for and prevent terrorist actions.  A terrorist has to evade all such efforts just the one time they actually make an attack in order to be successful.  Counter-terrorists must be successful 100% of the time or they will be viewed as a failure.

In the previous analogy the AI is acting as a counter-terrorist versus the "terrorist" of a singularity that has decided to destroy ALL organic life rather than just supplanting its creators.  Such a synthetic lifeform only has to arise ONCE in order to accomplish its goal.  Theoretical or not, that is something you don't want to take the chance of dismissing because "you can't prove to me that it could happen".

Modifié par NeroonWilliams, 17 janvier 2014 - 01:36 .

[Vigilant111]

@Ieldra2: the logical flaw in question isn't one where generalization has gone wrong, any rational being can recognize that in a way that any rational being would not agree with the reaper quote: "You are chaos".

Why do you say the position "reaperization means death" is unsound? I can relate to it quite well. I mean, is a husk really alive? If the ascendance provided by reapers really is that incredible then why even fight the reapers? and yes you are absolutely right that from the Catalyst's perspective the hazing to reaperhood isn't so bad considering what a wonderful afterlife you get afterwards, but from Shepard's point of view, yeah, it is death, as he or she said so on Rannoch

Modifié par Vigilant111, 17 janvier 2014 - 02:40 .

[CronoDragoon]

It is bizarre logic to suggest that the Catalyst being synthetic disproves his statement that synthetics will eventually wipe out all organics. His being synthetic does nothing but support his statement. "See here, I am synthetic, and if I chose I could wipe all of you out." Note that I don't believe he's self-aware enough to make this argument, but that is the state of affairs. Had his programming been slightly different, organic life would not exist anymore.

"But there's been no examples of synthetics wiping out organics!"

Seems like the cycles worked then, huh? Any data post-cycles is meaningless, because negative data supports the Catalyst. He's in an enviable position rhetorically: "if synthetics don't wipe out organics, it's because of me and it shows I am necessary. If they do I was right all along." Were he organic he'd be one insufferable smug son of a **** about it. Oh wait, he is anyway.

Also, don't conflate the Catalyst's two statements. 1) All created eventually rebel against creators (true so far as we've seen, and he makes the statement without assigning blame to synthetics. He simply states the fact) 2) eventually one of these synthetics will wipe out all organics (impossible to prove or disprove until it happens, but the Catalyst has already shown it is possible).

That being said, I of course don't agree with the cycles and believe they are unnecessary. But I can't disprove the Catalyst, because the Catalyst can NEVER be disproven. This is partially why he's such an infuriating villain.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 17 janvier 2014 - 02:31 .

[Ieldra]

CronoDragoon wrote...
It is bizarre logic to suggest that the Catalyst being synthetic disproves his statement that synthetics will eventually wipe out all organics. His being synthetic does nothing but support his statement. "See here, I am synthetic, and if I chose I could wipe all of you out." Note that I don't believe he's self-aware enough to make this argument, but that is the state of affairs. Had his programming been slightly different, organic life would not exist anymore.

"But there's been no examples of synthetics wiping out organics!"

Seems like the cycles worked then, huh? Any data post-cycles is meaningless, because negative data supports the Catalyst. He's in an enviable position rhetorically: "if synthetics don't wipe out organics, it's because of me and it shows I am necessary. If they do I was right all along." Were he organic he'd be one insufferable smug son of a **** about it. Oh wait, he is anyway.

Also, don't conflate the Catalyst's two statements. 1) All created eventually rebel against creators (true so far as we've seen, and he makes the statement without assigning blame to synthetics. He simply states the fact) 2) eventually one of these synthetics will wipe out all organics (impossible to prove or disprove until it happens, but the Catalyst has already shown it is possible).

That being said, I of course don't agree with the cycles and believe they are unnecessary. But I can't disprove the Catalyst, because the Catalyst can NEVER be disproven. This is partially why he's such an infuriating villain.

You might not be able to disprove it by deduction, but if we could show a pattern of organic and synthetic civilizations living in relative peace with each other, i.e. with no more, and no more unbalanced, attrition through conflict than between organic civilizations, then the evidence would be stacked in its disfavor more and more. You may be able to dismiss peace on Rannoch as a meaningless outlier, but against a pattern of similar occurrences where the peace actually holds a while and no species goes extinct from synthetic/organic interaction the theory would be hard-pressed to hold up.