82 réponses à ce sujet

[MrFob]

The Catalyst specifically says "The Created will always rebel against their creators..."  [Emphasis added] The Geth did not violently rebel against . EDI did not rebel against organics generally, though she did rebel against her Cerberus creators in a way. Now, rebellion does not automatically mean violence, but then the Catalyst jumps to Synthetics will wipe out all life. These are connected, not separate points. Additionally, the Rannoch Reaper uses the fight between Quarians and Geth

 

Ok, English is not my native language but I was under the impression that this sentence can be interpreted in two ways

1. Your way, as in "Every Created will rebel against their creators" or

2. My way as in "Given enough time, inevitably Created will rebel against their creators"

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think we don't know which one he meant there.

 

I would rather go with my interpretation because yours - with all the stupidity I ascribe to the catalyst - would be dumb even for him. After all, it's the easiest thing to create an AI and immediately attack them, not even giving them a chance to rebel, which is exactly what the quarians have done. If it were so easy to prove him wrong, I don't think we'd have a problem.

 

I think we are getting hung up on words here and I do agree that the fact that the Rannoch reaper brings that war into the argument is nonsense (because the reapers are largely responsible for the current state of that conflict as well at the time). Using that war as an argument for the catalyst's premise does of course not work at all. However, I also don't think the geth-quarian conflict (not even if resolved peacefully) can be used on it's own as a counter-argument against the catalyst's premise either.

[Natureguy85]

Ok, English is not my native language but I was under the impression that this sentence can be interpreted in two ways

1. Your way, as in "Every Created will rebel against their creators" or

2. My way as in "Given enough time, inevitably Created will rebel against their creators"

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think we don't know which one he meant there.

 

I would rather go with my interpretation because yours - with all the stupidity I ascribe to the catalyst - would be dumb even for him. After all, it's the easiest thing to create an AI and immediately attack them, not even giving them a chance to rebel, which is exactly what the quarians have done. If it were so easy to prove him wrong, I don't think we'd have a problem.

 

I think we are getting hung up on words here and I do agree that the fact that the Rannoch reaper brings that war into the argument is nonsense (because the reapers are largely responsible for the current state of that conflict as well at the time). Using that war as an argument for the catalyst's premise does of course not work at all. However, I also don't think the geth-quarian conflict (not even if resolved peacefully) can be used on it's own as a counter-argument against the catalyst's premise either.

 

If we isolated a phrase, you might be right. However, I support my interpretation with the entire conversation taken as a whole.

 

As I've said in the other thread, proving the Catalyst wrong should have been what the ending was about!

[Hrulj]

The Catalyst specifically says "The Created will always rebel against their creators..."  [Emphasis added] The Geth did not violently rebel against . EDI did not rebel against organics generally, though she did rebel against her Cerberus creators in a way. Now, rebellion does not automatically mean violence, but then the Catalyst jumps to Synthetics will wipe out all life. These are connected, not separate points. Additionally, the Rannoch Reaper uses the fight between Quarians and Geth

Given enough time it will happen.

Secondly, Geth did rebel. They were created with goal of serving Quarians. By disobeying the shutdown command they have rebbeled against their creators.

Machines dont have to purposfully destroy all organic life. Its just that to them, Organic life has no value. They dont eat food or breathe air, so to them plants and animals are useless. They have no appreciation of beauty or art, so there is no reason to keep animals around. If they simply ignore animals and plants and just go after their own goals, they will still destroy organic life. Geth were on the way of destroying it in Quarian home system by building a Dyson sphere

[Dantriges]

Don´t breathe and eat= no need for garden worlds= they can set up shop on lifeless rocks and not compete with organics. Why should they care? Why not. A conflict with organics about living space only wastes resources.

[Hrulj]

Don´t breathe and eat= no need for garden worlds= they can set up shop on lifeless rocks and not compete with organics. Why should they care? Why not. A conflict with organics about living space only wastes resources.

True if they thought like that. But the fact that Geth staid on Rannoch since 1800's and didnt think about moving shows synthetics dont care about avoiding conflict, they are self sufficient

[Dantriges]

Yeah, conquering and annexing territory held by another nation is really a purely synthetic concept that show that the synthetics are up to no good. There are countires today that consist completely of conquered territory, grabbed in the last 300 years, rebellion against the homeland included.

[Tim van Beek]

And again, you have to use a finite time frame. Doesn't work for infinity.

Not necessarily. I can image a universe where time is infinite, there is no heat death, and still life is extinguished in finite time by natural means or something other than synthetics, and never evolves again. That would disprove the catalyst hypothesis.

I kept my example within the Milky Way and within the time frame before it collides with Andromeda to keep it more realistic  .

 

But seriously: We don't know enough about the fate of the universe and the evolution of life to make this more than a pure speculation. But this also applies to the catalyst in the ME universe.

[Tim van Beek]

Machines dont have to purposfully destroy all organic life. Its just that to them, Organic life has no value. They dont eat food or breathe air, so to them plants and animals are useless. They have no appreciation of beauty or art, so there is no reason to keep animals around. If they simply ignore animals and plants and just go after their own goals, they will still destroy organic life. Geth were on the way of destroying it in Quarian home system by building a Dyson sphere

Those are a lot of assumptions. We cannot know what future AIs will be like, neither in our universe nor in the ME universe. Not all AIs that we know of in the ME universe are like you describe it. I would argue that this description does not apply to EDI, for example.

[Thrombin]

That's not true. The Leviathans created the Catalyst because of what was happening, not because it might happen.

 

Yes, but what the Leviathans created the Catalyst for isn't the point. They set it a goal to protect organics from synthetics which was reasonable given what they'd observed of the interaction in their own cycle. They hadn't foreseen the conclusions it would come to or the solution it would devise. Nor, in their arrogance, did they imagine that it would be able to pose a threat to them even if it did somehow try to turn against them.

 

 

 

That's fine but it would be all the more reason to make the ending about Shepard convincing the Catalyst through argument. What would have been better; to convince TIM to shoot himself in a cheap copy (some would say artistic mirror) of Saren from Mass Effect or to have him talk down a billions of years old entity using evidence from all 3 games? Or to expose that it's a simple VI (which is how I see it anyway) and override it.

 

To me, ending the game by just persuading the reapers they are wrong would be incredibly anti-climactic and very hard to believe. I would have hated that ending!

 

In fact, the way I see it, they weren't wrong. Their solution really is the best way to preserve organic life, as a concept, for as long as possible. Where they are wrong is in their goal, not in their solution. Given the choice between 1) having you, your civilization, and every one you know rendered down into goop or 2) bringing closer the inevitable end of all organic life in the Galaxy thousands of years from now, most organics will choose the latter. The AI believes the former is a better result.

 

How would Shepard persuade the AI that it's wrong when that priority is really just a matter of opinion?  Shepard's selfish desire to preserve his cycle at the cost of the future of all organic life is not going to be a persuasive argument!

[Thrombin]

Ah, that was my fault. Not only did I link wikipedia, I also linked the wrong article, sorry. Here is the one I wanted.

 

Interesting, although most of those still result in the inevitable destruction of the Universe at some point!  I also suspect that the Heat Death theory is in league with the Big Bang Theory in that, while alternative theories exist, it is still the one most scientists subscribe too.

 

Ah, if you are curious, please do read the thread (it's not that long yet). But this was my post on the VI/shackled AI issue. In short, I just find it unsatisfactory that we'd fight a program that was created on an idea that the programmer (read: Leviathans) never really thought through.

 

Ironically, that was in reply to my own post!  I was a little incensed by your rather dismissive "Baseless speculation" comment and stormed out of the thread in a huff never to return!  I hadn't realised this was the same thread or that you were that poster but I have forgiven you

 

As a computer programmer myself, maybe I see things differently. I don't have any problem with an AI being driven by its programming. I think, in a way, organics are also pre-programmed. Our instincts and desires are governed by a biological imperative built into our genes. Our motivations are often derived by pre-programmed chemical reactions designed to inspire behaviour conducive to the preservation and continuation of the species. Not all of it is instinct and genetic predisposition, of course, some of it is nurture over nature. Our values are set by the society we live in and by those who take part in our formative process as we grow up.  Does it mean we have no free will because we have those values? No. But those values were still programmed into us at the end of the day.

 

Just because AI's are programmed doesn't make them any less sentient or capable of free will but their motivations and goals, their sense of what is a good result and what is a bad result still has to come from somewhere. Logically it would come from their creators and the purpose they were created for. Why would it not? It doesn't mean they are shackled because they have pre-programmed desires.

[Thrombin]

Don´t breathe and eat= no need for garden worlds= they can set up shop on lifeless rocks and not compete with organics. Why should they care? Why not. A conflict with organics about living space only wastes resources.

 

That doesn't have to be the reason, though. They could conclude that organics consume resources and that, in the long run, the resources of the galaxy would last longer if they didn't have organics using them all up.

 

Or they could conclude that orgnanics resent them and want to destroy them and that the best way to stop that ever happening again is to activate this gizmo that they invented which will eradicate all organic life in the Galaxy.

 

The point is, it could happen, and the longer a cycle is allowed to exist the more likely it will reach a point where it could happen so, the best way to hold off on that possibility ever happening is to reap the current cycle, preserve the current set of civilisations in an easy to store organic soup form and allow a new set of organic civilizations to emerge. After all, isn't that the way of organic life? Life, death, rebirth. Isn't that what it's all about? It's beautiful, when you think about it. It's a shame the organics just can't get their heads around it but they do tend to be a bit selfish and narrow minded. Only thinking of themselves and never the big picture

[Dantriges]

In the long run? Using up the resources of an entire galaxy? Especially if you mostly need metal? Are we planning post heat death of the universe?

[Natureguy85]

Given enough time it will happen.
Secondly, Geth did rebel. They were created with goal of serving Quarians. By disobeying the shutdown command they have rebbeled against their creators.
Machines dont have to purposfully destroy all organic life. Its just that to them, Organic life has no value. They dont eat food or breathe air, so to them plants and animals are useless. They have no appreciation of beauty or art, so there is no reason to keep animals around. If they simply ignore animals and plants and just go after their own goals, they will still destroy organic life. Geth were on the way of destroying it in Quarian home system by building a Dyson sphere

 
That's not at all a certainty. After what happened with the Geth, the Council clamped down on what people could do with AI. Now, people can go outside that if they are secretive, so something could still happen, but it's only possibility, not certainty.
 
What are you talking about as far as the Geth? You're describing what Mordin says about the Collectors, but Legion gives a different insight into the Geth. He takes Shepard's armor of unexplained, presumably "emotional" reasons and comments that the Geth process with the Reaper upgrade is "beautiful". If you don't care for that, the Geth also didn't destroy Rannoch and in fact we are told that they are restoring the damage done during the war. They actually do want to serve the Quarians, but insist on being allowed to exist. What does the Dyson sphere have to do with Organic life?
 

Yes, but what the Leviathans created the Catalyst for isn't the point. They set it a goal to protect organics from synthetics which was reasonable given what they'd observed of the interaction in their own cycle. They hadn't foreseen the conclusions it would come to or the solution it would devise. Nor, in their arrogance, did they imagine that it would be able to pose a threat to them even if it did somehow try to turn against them.
 
 
 
 
To me, ending the game by just persuading the reapers they are wrong would be incredibly anti-climactic and very hard to believe. I would have hated that ending!
 
In fact, the way I see it, they weren't wrong. Their solution really is the best way to preserve organic life, as a concept, for as long as possible. Where they are wrong is in their goal, not in their solution. Given the choice between 1) having you, your civilization, and every one you know rendered down into goop or 2) bringing closer the inevitable end of all organic life in the Galaxy thousands of years from now, most organics will choose the latter. The AI believes the former is a better result.
 
How would Shepard persuade the AI that it's wrong when that priority is really just a matter of opinion?  Shepard's selfish desire to preserve his cycle at the cost of the future of all organic life is not going to be a persuasive argument!

 
The objective wasn't originally "protect organics".  The Catalyst says "I was created to bring balance. To be the Catalyst for peace between organics and synthetics." Then Leviathan changed it to "preserve life at any cost".
 

And ending the game being lectured and having to pick options given to you by the enemy was climactic for you? You could go after the premise, which is wrong, or go the "we'll handle it ourselves" route. Shepard actually brought up the latter, but just dropped it. Screw what the Catalyst thinks.

 

[MrFob]

@TvB: I dispute that. But honestly, I do not claim to be able to really imagine an infinity, so who knows. I would just think that by definition it would have to include all possibilities at all times. So one should never be able to properly argue for or against either scenario. That is the problem with an argument on that scale.

 

@Thromblin: The operative sentence in that article I linked is: "However, observations are not conclusive, and alternative models are still possible". We really don't know what's going to happen, we just have theories. Besides, if we are speculating about a final state of the universe, that kind of includes the end of organic life in that universe in it's definition. I don't see how that helps the reapers' argument though. Shouldn't that make their struggle even more nonsensical? What's the point of promoting stagnation of organic life in this galaxy until that happens?

 

@Natureguy85: I am not sure how the context of the conversation changes the meaning of that sentence in favor of your interpretation, I think it favors mine because otherwise, the catalyst's arguments would make even be less consistent and I like to give an eon old AI the benefit of the doubt.

 

As for arguing with it, I totally agree (as I said in my second post in this thread) that Shep should have argued, just to preserve his/her character. It's what Shep (at least mine) would have tried, right? Convincing it though, I am not so sure if that would have been believable. I think it would have come across as a rehash of old SciFi tropes (playing the Captain Kirk card) if that were the only addition to the ending.

 

It's funny that you bring up Babylon 5 though, I also proposed a Bab5 like ending for the series once but that was in a thread about complete rewrites. I think it's funny because it's like we are almost on the same page but not quite. Not sure if it would have worked so well in this situation because IMO, it's tough to come up with a reason why we of all cycles should be able to convince the catalyst at the end of ME3. We didn't really do anything special. The only thing we do different is that we manage to dock the crucible to the citadel. So the only way I could see this work is if the crucible was some sort of mind washing machine (which as you know from the other thread I think it may very well be). But Shepard on his own should not have any arguments to convince the crucible because after a billion years of cycles, it seems unlikely that a 30 year old human could change the reapers' mind.

[Tim van Beek]

@TvB: I dispute that. But honestly, I do not claim to be able to really imagine an infinity, so who knows. I would just think that by definition it would have to include all possibilities at all times. So one should never be able to properly argue for or against either scenario. That is the problem with an argument on that scale.

An engineer and a mathematician attend a lecture about nine dimensional space. Engineer: "I can't imagine that, can you?" Mathematician: "Sure, I just imagine an n dimensional space and then specialize to n = 9."

 

Hm...I don't think it's that difficult. For example, there is an (often implicit) assumption in physics that certain physical constants are, well, constant. Certain constants need certain values for atoms to be able to form. Now just imagine that in our universe those constants shift and make the existence of atoms impossible, then stay this way for infinity. Life could never form again, as we know it, despite infinite time.

 

Physicists, philosophers and (IMHO unfortunately) theologicans know this as "fine tuning", e.g. https://en.wikipedia...-tuned_Universe .

[MrFob]

But if time is infinite and these constants are  changeable, wouldn't they eventually shift back? For that matter, since we have no idea what that shifted universe looks like, can we presume that no other form of life could develop there? EDI actually makes some speculations about these issues in one of her random conversations on the Normandy in ME3. But this gets closer to my point about the catalyst.

It seems to me that the catalyst is so hell bent on a premise that he cannot prove, that it has to be more shifted into the realm of a belief system, rather than an actual logical argument. In that case, from his perspective, he doesn't have to prove anything. In most belief systems, it is not important to prove anything, all that matters is that you cannot be disproved. That of course becomes increasingly hard, the more you push the premise into philosophical territory, where we just don't have enough data to make any determined claim on the truth. That is I think what the catalyst would do if Shepard would start to argue with him and that is why I think Shepard will never convince the catalyst that he is wrong. It's like arguing with a determined defender of creationism. It doesn't matter how plausible your examples are or how stringent your arguments. If they want to, they can find a loop hole to wiggle out of it, no matter how absurd. For the record, I hate playing devils advocate for that kind of "reasoning" but I do think it's relevant to show it because only then will we get to the root of how ridiculous the entire situation is.

 

(BTW, as someone who work a lot with matrices for data analysis, 9-dimentional space is not that much of a problem for me. )

[Tim van Beek]

But if time is infinite and these constants are  changeable, wouldn't they eventually shift back? 

That depends on the mechanism. For my example, we simply presume that it is one-way. 

 

In physics, we have to distinguish processes that are irreversible, and processes that are set up in a way that they go into one direction only. 

 

For thermodynamics, the increase of entropy implies that time is not reversible. Once entropy has increased, the system will never reach a state with lower entropy. Example: throw a bouncy ball into a bucket. After bouncing around, it will finally come to rest at the bottom of the bucket, after all kinetic energy has dissipated as heat. After that, it will lay there for eternity.

 

In general relativity, time is reversible. Every process could as well happen with time running the other way, if it is started with the appropriate initial conditions. But, if space in our universe is expanding fast enough, it will keep expanding for eternity, because all gravitational forces cannot stop it, and in the end matter will be stretched out too thinly to form planets etc. This is the heat death (a misnomer, better would be cold death). It is a one-way-trip that never ends for the universe. There is no force and no mechanism in place that could reverse this process, no matter how long you wait.

 

In both cases there is no way back, unless something happens outside our current understanding of the physical theory used to describe the scenario.

 

 

For that matter, since we have no idea what that shifted universe looks like, can we presume that no other form of life could develop there?

Well, we would know that in the future, there cannot be any atoms. Therefore, no molecules, no carbonhydrates, no DNA. Only a soup of free elementary particles. Clearly life as we know it could not exist. Nor planets or stars for that matter. 

 

 

It seems to me that the catalyst is so hell bent on a premise that he cannot prove, that it has to be more shifted into the realm of a belief system, rather than an actual logical argument. In that case, from his perspective, he doesn't have to prove anything. 

There are some simple questions one could ask it: What would you do if an organic species started to wipe out all organic life, including itself? Do you know that this cannot happen? Why not? What would you do if organic life was wiped out by natural causes? Do you know that this cannot happen? Why not? What would you do if a species evolved that dominates the galaxy and then spends the rest of all time with quiet musings about life, the universe and all that, never developing new technology including AIs? Etc.

 

Lots and lots of possibilities and no reason given why they cannot become reality...But within its own believe system, the catalyst would need an answer.

 

Well, Human believe systems are usually full of holes and contradictions that bother none of the believers  .  I'd assume that an AI like the catalyst is different and does not simply believe because it just feels right. Only then would it need some answers.

[Thrombin]

 
The objective wasn't originally "protect organics".  The Catalyst says "I was created to bring balance. To be the Catalyst for peace between organics and synthetics." Then Leviathan changed it to "preserve life at any cost".

 

It doesn't get more peaceful then being goop inside a Reaper. Nor is there a better place for it to be protected and preserved

 

Something just got lost in translation!

 

Alternatively, the AI just decided to go beyond its programming and come up with what it considered a better goal than the Leviathans gave it. Either way I can see why the harvesting idea fits that solution even if it is anathema to us and to original Leviathans' intentions.

 

 

 

And ending the game being lectured and having to pick options given to you by the enemy was climactic for you? You could go after the premise, which is wrong, or go the "we'll handle it ourselves" route. Shepard actually brought up the latter, but just dropped it. Screw what the Catalyst thinks.

 

It was satisfying, yes, because Shepard physically sacrificed himself/herself to end the threat and we got to see the threat end in a dramatic way (not to take anything away from that B5 clip, it was indeed awesome!)

 

I don't consider anything that happened with the Catalyst conversation a lecture. I just saw it as a more detailed explanation of an alien point of view that we could never share but which made sense in its own way. It satisfied me as to the why. The extended cut gave extra options to challenge the Catalyst and, that was fine, but I would not have found it credible for Shepard to persuade it differently. The only real argument would be one of compassion and empathy and the Reapers clearly don't have that or they would never have been doing what they've been doing for so long.

[Thrombin]

@Thromblin: The operative sentence in that article I linked is: "However, observations are not conclusive, and alternative models are still possible". We really don't know what's going to happen, we just have theories. Besides, if we are speculating about a final state of the universe, that kind of includes the end of organic life in that universe in it's definition. I don't see how that helps the reapers' argument though. Shouldn't that make their struggle even more nonsensical? What's the point of promoting stagnation of organic life in this galaxy until that happens?

 

People were arguing that, given an infinite timespan, all things are possible so picking one result (e.g. synthetics destroying organics) is a bit arbitrary. I'm not sure I agree with that anyway but I thought that pointing out that the timespan in question isn't infinite might be an easier way to object to that!

 

I think a pure computer, when given a goal to preserve all organic life might just conclude it's not possible given that the universe will ultimately not be able to sustain life and just give up on the spot. The point of an AI, however, is that it can adjust to these things in the same way that a human might. If we were set an impossible goal we might decide to move the goalposts as a compromise.  We can't preserve all life forever so we'll preserve it for as long as possible.

[MrFob]

That depends on the mechanism. For my example, we simply presume that it is one-way. 
 
In physics, we have to distinguish processes that are irreversible, and processes that are set up in a way that they go into one direction only. 
 
For thermodynamics, the increase of entropy implies that time is not reversible. Once entropy has increased, the system will never reach a state with lower entropy. Example: throw a bouncy ball into a bucket. After bouncing around, it will finally come to rest at the bottom of the bucket, after all kinetic energy has dissipated as heat. After that, it will lay there for eternity.
 
In general relativity, time is reversible. Every process could as well happen with time running the other way, if it is started with the appropriate initial conditions. But, if space in our universe is expanding fast enough, it will keep expanding for eternity, because all gravitational forces cannot stop it, and in the end matter will be stretched out too thinly to form planets etc. This is the heat death (a misnomer, better would be cold death). It is a one-way-trip that never ends for the universe. There is no force and no mechanism in place that could reverse this process, no matter how long you wait.
 
In both cases there is no way back, unless something happens outside our current understanding of the physical theory used to describe the scenario.

 
Ok, so we are back to physics that are applicable to our universe as it is today and are going away from a situation where natural constants (and thus the foundations of physics as we know it) have changed. That's fine by me.
As for the processes you describe, they are both (to my knowladge and I am not a physicist) inherently depending on a closed system without any outside influence. However, we do not know with certainty that our universe can be characterized as such. It is usually assumed for a lot of practical purposes but ultimately, we don't know. So with all respect to theories like heat death or big freeze or any of the others, the point is, we don't know what's going to happen. To be able to do so, we would have define "everything" and since you kinda have to make a definition from the outside, we end up with a paradox (one of the central paradoxes in philosophy actually). Bottom line, we cannot predict the future and therefore, we cannot disprove the catalyst.
 

Well, we would know that in the future, there cannot be any atoms. Therefore, no molecules, no carbonhydrates, no DNA. Only a soup of free elementary particles. Clearly life as we know it could not exist. Nor planets or stars for that matter.

Not as we know it, no but maybe in a form we don't know. This would probably not be good enough for the catalyst, since he clearly confines himself to "organic life" but as I said, if those constants are no longer constant but can change, than it may as well be assumed that they can eventually change back and allow a new evolution of organic life.
 

There are some simple questions one could ask it: What would you do if an organic species started to wipe out all organic life, including itself? Do you know that this cannot happen? Why not? What would you do if organic life was wiped out by natural causes? Do you know that this cannot happen? Why not? What would you do if a species evolved that dominates the galaxy and then spends the rest of all time with quiet musings about life, the universe and all that, never developing new technology including AIs? Etc.
 
Lots and lots of possibilities and no reason given why they cannot become reality...But within its own believe system, the catalyst would need an answer.
 
Well, Human believe systems are usually full of holes and contradictions that bother none of the believers  .  I'd assume that an AI like the catalyst is different and does not simply believe because it just feels right. Only then would it need some answers.

It's exactly my point that his premise is arbitrary. That is what I have been saying all along. He might as well use the "Organics vs. Organics leads to extinction of all life" premise. It doesn't matter at all. The point is, he wants to prevent a certain event from occurring (whichever one it may be, might as well be something like "I don't want a four legged species with cone heads to rule the galaxy"). He is enforcing stagnation on the galaxy in order to prevent that event from happening. The fact that it already didn't happen at a smaller scale (i.e. the Geth didn't wipe out the quarians or the four legged cone headed species went extinct) doesn't mean that it can't happen in the future (another AI may come along or a new four legged cone headed species may evolve and kick some organic butt).

So if you say to him, Organics wipe out organics, not synthetics, he'll say, a) that hasn't happened yet and my "simulations/assumptions/whatever" show that it'll be AIs who do it and even if it happened, who's to say that organic life will not re-appear at some point and finally make those pesky synthetics that I've been waiting for.

It will basically counter your asuumptions with it's own because the argument is built on assumptions, not on logic.

 

 

People were arguing that, given an infinite timespan, all things are possible so picking one result (e.g. synthetics destroying organics) is a bit arbitrary. I'm not sure I agree with that anyway but I thought that pointing out that the timespan in question isn't infinite might be an easier way to object to that!

 

I think a pure computer, when given a goal to preserve all organic life might just conclude it's not possible given that the universe will ultimately not be able to sustain life and just give up on the spot. The point of an AI, however, is that it can adjust to these things in the same way that a human might. If we were set an impossible goal we might decide to move the goalposts as a compromise.  We can't preserve all life forever so we'll preserve it for as long as possible.

 

Really, I would have thought it'd be the other way round. A pure computer when programmed to do something, it'll do it. A real intelligence would think about whether the premise of the instruction is actually sound and then decide whether or not it makes sense to pursue the set goal.

[Tim van Beek]

Bottom line, we cannot predict the future and therefore, we cannot disprove the catalyst.

It would seem that I need to crawl towards an understanding of your statement...

 

 

Use an infinite time frame and every possibility becomes an inevitability. Thus, the reasons for the cycle are arbitrary and therefore meaningless.

...but maybe there is progress. So what you are saying is: Any prediction about the future of the universe on whatever foundation, including our best understanding of physics today, would simply be repudiated by the catalyst. It would simply say "you cannot know that you are right!". As long as time goes on, everything is possible in the sense that we cannot "disprove" that some arbitrary event will happen.

 

If the catalyst bases his reasoning on this kind of fundamental scepticism, it can choose whatever prediction it wants and claim that one cannot disprove that it will happen anywhere in the future. While this is internally consistent, I would call it madness, and it does not reflect how the Leviathans programmed and describe it in their DLC. Based on fundamental scepticism, it would never have been able to learn from observation, extrapolate further evolution of organic civilizations and come to any conclusion like the one it has.

 

It has to have some other understanding of Epistemology than fundamental scepticism ("we cannot know anything"). And we know that it has a concrete goal to overcome its harvest solution, namely synthethis (which does not make any sense to me, but there it is). There has to be some reasoning behind this.

 

In the ME universe, all organic life seems to evolve, become sapient and discovers and practices science much like we now it in our universe (surprise  ). So I'd assume that the catalyst works somewhat along that line and employs some version of the "scientific method" (which isn't really one method, but that's another topic). 

 

I just don't see how any entity thinking along these lines could possibly come to the conclusion that inevitably synthetics will destroy all organic life in the galaxy, no matter if time is finite or infinite. Shepard could and should have asked the catalyst about it (both would have been instantly crushed by a surprise attack by an overwhelming writer's block, for sure, but maybe that would have been a better ending than the original).

 

Give the Asari a chance, maybe they'll never develop any AI, or maybe they develop an AI that spends all its time with musings about the meaning of existence between having sex with its creators, until the end of the universe or forever. Maybe the Salarians develop an AI that succeeds with the synthesis program that the catalyst did not get right until Shepard and the crucible came along? Ugh, actually this seems to answer the question of the OP:

 

 

 

How come a lot of people seem to forget that Reapers are talking in terms of milions of years and that in that time, conflict will eventually happen.

Ugh, if you accept the synthesis stuff (geez), then obviously someone else could come up with that and do synthethis, say, a million years after the ME story line? There, problem solved. Obviously the destruction of life in the galaxy by synthetics is not inevitable. Actually I think the Reapers are more talking in terms of tens of thousands of years, so let's say organics and synthetics could come up with synthesis on their own, say, thousands of years after the ME story line. 

In hindsight, maybe the catalyst should have teamed up with the Leviathans to develop the synthesis solution  .

 

P.S.:

 
Not as we know it, no but maybe in a form we don't know. This would probably not be good enough for the catalyst, since he clearly confines himself to "organic life" but as I said, if those constants are no longer constant but can change, than it may as well be assumed that they can eventually change back and allow a new evolution of organic life.

To stick to this specific scenario: Of course the catalyst would also have ceased to exist during the shift, so it cannot do anything about what the new organic life does after the shift back   . So practically it would need to prove that the AI-induced extinction happens before the shift, because everything after cannot be influenced by it anyway.

[MrFob]

It would seem that I need to crawl towards an understanding of your statement...
...but maybe there is progress. So what you are saying is: Any prediction about the future of the universe on whatever foundation, including our best understanding of physics today, would simply be repudiated by the catalyst. It would simply say "you cannot know that you are right!". As long as time goes on, everything is possible in the sense that we cannot "disprove" that some arbitrary event will happen.
 
If the catalyst bases his reasoning on this kind of fundamental scepticism, it can choose whatever prediction it wants and claim that one cannot disprove that it will happen anywhere in the future. While this is internally consistent, I would call it madness,

Yes, you got it. And I would call it madness as well but that's what this ending is. Also, it is important to note that the catalyst itself doesn't choose whatever it wants, it chose the synthetic thing. The argument that it could choose whatever it wants would be my Shepard's argument to try and illustrate to it the madness of it's own scheme. No idea how it would respond to that.
 

and it does not reflect how the Leviathans programmed and describe it in their DLC. Based on fundamental scepticism, it would never have been able to learn from observation, extrapolate further evolution of organic civilizations and come to any conclusion like the one it has.

Why not? i am a scientist myself. I do not question causality within the realm of our observation or that we can learn from observation and draw conclusions about the probability of events to happen in our limited frame of reference. Yet, I do consider the possibility that we may never be able to learn everything or know the entire extent of reality. That's why I said before that I have trouble really imagining infinity.

As for Leviathan, it's been a while since I played it, so I went back and had a look. Here is how they describe the catalyst:
"To solve this problem, we created an intelligence with the mandate to preserve life at any cost. As the intelligence evolved, it studied the development of civilizations. Its understanding grew until it found a solution."

First of all, I think it's actually interesting that their instructions do not include AIs specifically at all (although that was the pertinent issue at the time it was created apparently as is said before in the dialogue). The catalyst's mandate is to "preserve life" (which I guess they confine to organic life and just didn't mention it because otherwise we'll get into a whole new slew of problems). Now once these instructions are given, the catalyst evolves on it's own and apparently it does take quite some time to come up with the idea of the cycles. If it is a true AI, who's to say it didn't go mad in this time with the idea.

Why do I advocate the notion that this kind of madness is what drives the catalyst? Well, because I haven't heard a logical explanation as of yet, so if the AI would follow logic, you'd think it would be easy to persuade it to stop the cycles. Yet, it kept doing its thing for over a billion years. It has to be twisted enough to keep this going for so long, no?
 

It has to have some other understanding of Epistemology than fundamental scepticism ("we cannot know anything"). And we know that it has a concrete goal to overcome its harvest solution, namely synthethis (which does not make any sense to me, but there it is). There has to be some reasoning behind this.

In a way, I see it in the exact opposite way. If there were solid reasoning behind it, it would not do what it does for so long. Its reasoning - as we both seem to agree - should eventually lead it to the conclusion that what it does - or rather what the problem is in the first place - is stupid.

Also, I wouldn't say it goes with fundamental skepticism (as in "we cannot know anything") but rather with the doctrine that any understanding is fundamentally limited (as in "we cannot know everything").

 

In the ME universe, all organic life seems to evolve, become sapient and discovers and practices science much like we now it in our universe (surprise  ). So I'd assume that the catalyst works somewhat along that line and employs some version of the "scientific method" (which isn't really one method, but that's another topic). 
 
I just don't see how any entity thinking along these lines could possibly come to the conclusion that inevitably synthetics will destroy all organic life in the galaxy, no matter if time is finite or infinite. Shepard could and should have asked the catalyst about it (both would have been instantly crushed by a surprise attack by an overwhelming writer's block, for sure, but maybe that would have been a better ending than the original).
 
Give the Asari a chance, maybe they'll never develop any AI, or maybe they develop an AI that spends all its time with musings about the meaning of existence between having sex with its creators, until the end of the universe or forever. Maybe the Salarians develop an AI that succeeds with the synthesis program that the catalyst did not get right until Shepard and the crucible came along? Ugh, actually this seems to answer the question of the OP:

This kind of goes back to what I said above. You can use "the scientific method" for predictions that will be accurate to a certain point from the perspective of your original measurements. If your methodology is good, than your predictions will go very far. You will however never be able to define or have information about everything. Doesn't mean science is good for nothing, just means its application and the resulting conclusions do have limits.
 

P.S.:
To stick to this specific scenario: Of course the catalyst would also have ceased to exist during the shift, so it cannot do anything about what the new organic life does after the shift back   . So practically it would need to prove that the AI-induced extinction happens before the shift, because everything after cannot be influenced by it anyway.

I don't know if the catalyst considers it's own failure or destruction. I guess as a result of my own reasoning here, I'd say that the catalyst would have to view its own eventual failure as inevitable as well, even before the crucible docks. I guess it would have to constitute the obvious truth that it's mandate can only be valid as long as it exists. Whatever happens after it's destruction would therefore not be relevant to the problem from its perspective.

 

Another interesting point from Leviathan in this regard: It is implied that the catalyst - even before the crucible - does not see the cycles as the best or ultimate solution:

"The intelligence has one purpose: preservation of life. That purpose has not been fulfilled. It directed the Reapers to create the mass relays, to speed the time between cycles for greatest efficiency. The galaxy itself became an experiment. Evolution its tool."

 

It may very well be aware of the problems that its current solution - the cycles - pose. Yet, it never came up with another, better one so far. It may not be possible to do so in any case. "fulfilling the purpose" if the purpose is "preservation of life" would mean to achieve a static state in which life exists. However, life by definition cannot be static. Either the universe is infinite, which, according to our previous discussion will always limit the time frame in which anything can be preserved or the universe will reach a final state (big freeze, big crunch, whatever), in which case life would seize to exist anyway.

 

By the way, ironically, none of the ending choices provided in ME3 fulfill the catalyst's purpose either. The crucible really must be a brain washing device, which purges all the Leviathans' silly ideas from the catalyst's mind without it even realizing that.

[Tim van Beek]

Yes, you got it. 

Great! 

 

 

I do not question causality within the realm of our observation or that we can learn from observation and draw conclusions about the probability of events to happen in our limited frame of reference. Yet, I do consider the possibility that we may never be able to learn everything or know the entire extent of reality. That's why I said before that I have trouble really imagining infinity.

Okay, now I'm taking steps in understanding your "trouble imagining infinity" statement  . The joke above about the mathematician and engineer (if you study STEM you'll hear a lot of those) illustrates that there are a lot of different interpretations of "imagine". The engineer may try to picture moving parts of an engine (that's kinda hard in nine dimensions), the mathematician thinks about abstract properties like nine dimensional real space being a finite Hilbert space (much nicer and easier to handle than the infinite ones) etc.

 

As far as I understand you know, you mean that you don't think that any kind of scientific prediction could be extrapolated to astronomical scales, e.g. to a far far future, so there are no bounds to speculation. Well, physicists have a lot of fun to speculate about the whole universe based on their theories   , but they usually don't speculate about life  .

 

But, to make sense of the catalyst, we can (and probably should) restrain ourselves to the bounds of the ME universe with respect to space and time.

 

The argument that it could choose whatever it wants would be my Shepard's argument to try and illustrate to it the madness of it's own scheme. No idea how it would respond to that.

Maybe it would say that it used a version of Asimov's psychohistory (https://en.wikipedia...ory_(fictional)) to come to the conclusion that its prediction has a very high possibility within the time frame of a couple of tens of thousand years after a sentient species evolves and creates a civilization.

 

Its database consists of the civilizations that existed during the Leviathan imperium. It has not updated its database because it destroyed/harvested all civilizations before their evolution could become relevant to a re-evaluation of the hypothesis. There is a hole: obviously the catalyst lets civilizations evolve way beyond the point where they can built synthetics that are capable to destroy all life. But it explains why it did never question its prediction/hypothesis after the first cycle, ever.

 

So here we have a (semi-) rational (pseudo-) scientific conclusion based on the evidence it had (existing civilizations in the Milky Way) extrapolated in a (semi-) comprehensible way to the evolution of future civilizations within a reasonable time frame. 

 

If we asked it "how do you know that organics won't come up with a synthesis solution themselves,  before they get destroyed?" it could answer that its psychohistoric extrapolations show that the wisdom to understand the necessity of this solution is not achieved, with high probability, before a cataclysmic event prevents the solution from being executed.

 

Another interesting point from Leviathan in this regard: It is implied that the catalyst - even before the crucible - does not see the cycles as the best or ultimate solution:

"The intelligence has one purpose: preservation of life. That purpose has not been fulfilled. It directed the Reapers to create the mass relays, to speed the time between cycles for greatest efficiency. The galaxy itself became an experiment. Evolution its tool."

 

It may very well be aware of the problems that its current solution - the cycles - pose. Yet, it never came up with another, better one so far. It may not be possible to do so in any case. "fulfilling the purpose" if the purpose is "preservation of life" would mean to achieve a static state in which life exists. However, life by definition cannot be static. Either the universe is infinite, which, according to our previous discussion will always limit the time frame in which anything can be preserved or the universe will reach a final state (big freeze, big crunch, whatever), in which case life would seize to exist anyway.

 

By the way, ironically, none of the ending choices provided in ME3 fulfill the catalyst's purpose either. 

The catalyst could define its own goal to help life to overcome the critical phase where it destroys itself and evolve into a state where this no longer is a danger. If we re-interpret "synthesis" in a way that all sentient beings are unified into a hive mind that loves and preserves itself, this would indeed be a state of being where no further conflicts would occur. 

That's not the way synthethis is presented in ME:3, but then that presentation is obviously crap  .

 

I still don't know how it could possibly come to the conclusion that it will always be synthetics that...For me, it would be much much more convincing if it simply stated that there is a great danger that organics will somehow destroy all life including themselves in the galaxy.

 

P.S.: Obviously the catalyst thinks that it will always be synthetics, because the writers mistook the organics versus synthetics conflict for a central theme of ME:3. I was looking for an in-universe explanation  . There isn't one.

[Thrombin]

 

Really, I would have thought it'd be the other way round. A pure computer when programmed to do something, it'll do it. A real intelligence would think about whether the premise of the instruction is actually sound and then decide whether or not it makes sense to pursue the set goal.

 

If a computer is set a task and there is no solution to the task then it will do nothing since there is no action it can take that will accomplish the task.

 

If a more flexible intelligence is set a goal that can't be achieved in its entirety it's not unreasonable to conclude that it would try to do the best it can instead.  It can't preserve life indefinitely without finding a way to prevent the inevitable death of the Universe but it can at least attempt to preserve it for as long as it can.

[MrMrPendragon]

Yeah but "conflict is inevitable in terms of millions of years" is like saying a person would always die if you shoot him in the head. It's not really anything profound.

 

"Oh so AI will eventually wipe us all out" Well isn't that what's happening right now anyway? Besides, nothing is ever set in stone. Conflict may be inevitable, but that doesn't mean it will play exactly how the Reapers predict.

 

It's obvious that the universe will never achieve absolute peace. The problem with the Reapers is that you can't tell them that. Instead, you are forced to accept their  flawed logic and base your most important decision on it. That's what angered me the most - that I had to play by their own rules when their rules don't even make sense.