82 réponses à ce sujet

[MrFob]

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  .

I have no problem with extrapolating to astronomical scales or with predictions of the far future. One just has to acknowledge the limits of our perceptions within reality. That perception (and with it the understanding) is growing further and wider as we develop tools to measure reality around us in scale, time and spectrum.
An example: A few hundred years ago, our perception was confined pretty much to whatever happened on this planet and any celestial body that was visible in the night sky with the bare eye. We could perceive the visible spectrum of electromagnetic waves and the audible spectrum of sound, etc. Based on this perception, people came up with theories and models of how the world works. A lot of them were surprisingly accurate from our perspective today, others seem quaint and maybe even a bit silly today, even if they were based on perfectly sound reasoning at the time.
Today, we have developed tools, that allow us to perceive and measure whole different range of scales, from as tiny as the subatomic to the span of galaxies (I don't even want to get started on cosmic microwave background radiation). In terms of spectra, we can pick up everything from radio waves to gamma rays. In terms of time, our predictions and theories also grow in scale and hopefully in accuracy. With these discoveries come new insights about the nature of our reality. Think of the emergence of ,say, quantum mechanics in the 20th century. Yet, I would hardly go so far as to say that our perspective now is any more complete than the one of the guys who studied nature a few hundred years ago.
Thus, our theories about the cosmos are great, I'd be the last to dismiss them but one has to acknowledge that they are based on our current understanding of reality and any reputable scientist would have to consider the possibility that they are inaccurate at some level, be that 1 billion years in the future or 100 trillion or however many you want. These theories are important for our scientific progress but they IMO, they cannot easily be used to dismiss the possibility of the occurrence of specific events.
 
Oh, and these guys do speculate about the far future of life a lot(see Ruediger Vaas for example) or life (or rather information theory) on a cosmic scale. One personal favorite of mine being the Boltzmann Brain. As you can imagine, I love that concept.
 

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.

 Can we now, after we have taken this discussion that far? Seems a bit like an arbitrary constraint at this point. Well, if we would, then I guess what you say below goes, the catalyst would probably say that under current parameters and according to its observations so far, the probability of Synthetic life destroying organic life is the highest vs. all other scenarios he ran in his simulations or whatever and thus, he goes with the cycles.
 

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.
 
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.

I think it would work but the catalyst would still have to work with probabilities, not facts (which it might). In that case, though, neither the Leviathans nor the catalyst itself are very good at describing what it is they do. Also, ripping of Asimov AND Deus Ex? That's just sad.
 

 

 

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.

 

Alright, here is a task:

 

new int n = 3;

while n > 2 {

if n < 2 {

print{"This problem is solved!"};

return

}

else {

print("The cycle continues.");

n++;

}

}

 

What would a computer do?

What would you do?

[Tim van Beek]

I have no problem with extrapolating to astronomical scales or with predictions of the far future...

Whatever the reasoning of the catalyst is, it would be more or less speculative from our point of view. I would like to order speculative scenarios according to their "level of speculation". Calculating how a wormhole or a black hole would look like from the outside according to general relativity is on one end of the scala: speculative, because there is no possible way to observe this in the forseeable future, but based on hard calculations within a well established theory. On the other end of the scala we find stuff like this:

 

Oh, and these guys do speculate about the far future of life a lot(see Ruediger Vaas for example) or life (or rather information theory) on a cosmic scale. One personal favorite of mine being the Boltzmann Brain. As you can imagine, I love that concept.

Sigh. Yes I know about that. Psst. Lest BioWare creates a Boltzmann Brain antagonist that, in the final boss battle, raises some difficult questions in its exposition and then simply puffs out of existence...

 

 

Can we now, after we have taken this discussion that far? Seems a bit like an arbitrary constraint at this point. Well, if we would, then I guess what you say below goes, the catalyst would probably say that under current parameters and according to its observations so far, the probability of Synthetic life destroying organic life is the highest vs. all other scenarios he ran in his simulations or whatever and thus, he goes with the cycles.

Yes, weekend! Ahem, I mean: Yes, we can. It is our discussion and we can if we want to. I don't care where on the "speculative" scala the catalyst ends up (I thought you did), as long as it is intelligible, and Shepard can engage it where it stands. I think my version works quite well.

 

  

 

 

I think it would work but the catalyst would still have to work with probabilities, not facts (which it might). In that case, though, neither the Leviathans nor the catalyst itself are very good at describing what it is they do. Also, ripping of Asimov AND Deus Ex? That's just sad. 

Probabilities: Yes, of course.

Describing what they do: Well, Shepard never asks any questions about that, right? At least none that I remember.

I don't think it is sad to learn from Asimov. It's better to copy the wheel than to reinvent the square wheel (see https://en.wikipedia...nting_the_wheel). 

 

This is how I would fix the catalyst and the motivation of the reapers, using my background story for the catalyst:

 

They try to prevent life from destroying itself. Advanced species need to be inherently violent, or else they cannot survive. They then need to overcome this violence in order to survive their technological advance. The reapers try to evolve a species that can do that. Until now, their extrapolations have always shown that every cycle was not capable of achieving this. Shepard has to convince the Catalyst that the current cycle is worth a try and does not have to be destroyed.

The success of Shepard to unite many species in the galaxy has  the potential to convince the catalyst that the current cycle has the potential to overcome aggression for the sake of cooperation.

 

 

What would a computer do?

Print "This problem is solved!" after it has run into an integer overflow   .

Run out of memory if a programming language is used that takes care of that   .

[MrFob]

Whatever the reasoning of the catalyst is, it would be more or less speculative from our point of view. I would like to order speculative scenarios according to their "level of speculation". Calculating how a wormhole or a black hole would look like from the outside according to general relativity is on one end of the scala: speculative, because there is no possible way to observe this in the forseeable future, but based on hard calculations within a well established theory.

Agreed.
 

On the other end of the scala we find stuff like this:

Sigh. Yes I know about that. Psst. Lest BioWare creates a Boltzmann Brain antagonist that, in the final boss battle, raises some difficult questions in its exposition and then simply puffs out of existence...

Haha, I'd go for that.
 

Yes, weekend! Ahem, I mean: Yes, we can. It is our discussion and we can if we want to. I don't care where on the "speculative" scala the catalyst ends up (I thought you did), as long as it is intelligible, and Shepard can engage it where it stands. I think my version works quite well.


Probabilities: Yes, of course.
Describing what they do: Well, Shepard never asks any questions about that, right? At least none that I remember.

 
It's not when Shepard asks. Remember how this discussion started: It started with my one-sentence argument for Shepard, leading to the nature of AIs, leading to Natureguy85 insisting that we take the catalyst word for word when it says "the Created will always rebel against their creators". So if we really go with the premise that we have to take the catalyst literally and weigh every word carefully and don't allow it the luxury of some exaggeration or simplification, than the word "always" precludes the catalyst from working with probabilities (like in the Asimov scenario). In that case, we would have to go all out and define what "always" actually means and how the catalyst can come to this conclusion in such absolute definitions. That was what my arguments over the past 2 pages were all about. I am not saying that it's the best way to handle it, I am saying that in the context of the above constraints, we have to think in these terms. And once we do, it is tough to confine oneself to the lower end of that "speculation scale". I don't care at all where the catalyst ends up on this scale, it rather seems to me that you'd like it to end up on the more predictable end, (hence suggesting that we keep our speculation restricted to our current understanding of a closed system space-time).
Of course, if we allow for some slack in the catalysts wording of things, then the Asimov-scenario is perfectly valid and much more elegant I agree.
 

This is how I would fix the catalyst and the motivation of the reapers, using my background story for the catalyst:

They try to prevent life from destroying itself. Advanced species need to be inherently violent, or else they cannot survive. They then need to overcome this violence in order to survive their technological advance. The reapers try to evolve a species that can do that. Until now, their extrapolations have always shown that every cycle was not capable of achieving this. Shepard has to convince the Catalyst that the current cycle is worth a try and does not have to be destroyed.
The success of Shepard to unite many species in the galaxy has the potential to convince the catalyst that the current cycle has the potential to overcome aggression for the sake of cooperation.

That might have been nice as well but now we are really leaving the context of the game.

 

"This problem is solved!" after it has run into an integer overflow
Run out of memory if a programming language is used that takes care of that

No, in those cases, the response would not be "The problem is solved!" but an error message after a very long time (assuming that one loop takes 50.000+ years and that the catalyst has lot's of memory. In any case, it'll go on with "continuing the cycle" until it breaks.
The point was obviously to show that it is the computer that will "try to do the best it can instead." while a flexible intelligence will realize that the task is built on an unsolvable premise and will stop perusing it (one would hope ).

[Tim van Beek]

It's not when Shepard asks. Remember how this discussion started: It started with my one-sentence argument for Shepard, leading to the nature of AIs, leading to Natureguy85 insisting that we take the catalyst word for word when it says "the Created will always rebel against their creators". 

Okay, going back: 

 

 

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"

I agree that we should opt for the second version, the first is probably only there because the writer mangled up his sentence or chose it to keep it simple (and obviously it is even much more stupid).

 

 

I am not saying that it's the best way to handle it, I am saying that in the context of the above constraints, we have to think in these terms. 

Agreed, we would. My point is that you can choose whatever you want from the sci-based speculative landscape, you will always have too many variables in your scenario to justify "always" in the "literal" sense. And including infinite (or a lot of) time, as the OP says, does not change that:

 

 

 

Given enough time it will happen.

Not necessarily. Lots and lots of possibilities that could become reality instead and no way to disprove that. Having infinite time in any scenario does not mean that every possibility becomes reality. Put a ball in a bucket and it will stay there forever, it will never bounce out all by itself, no matter how long you wait.

 

If the catalyst means "always" as you (Mr. Fob) describe it above, I see the burden of proof with the catalyst (it came up with the idea and is supposedly not mad or broken) and no way how it could possibly come up with anything convincing.

 

 

I don't care at all where the catalyst ends up on this scale, it rather seems to me that you'd like it to end up on the more predictable end, (hence suggesting that we keep our speculation restricted to our current understanding of a closed system space-time).

The way I approach Sci-Fi I'd start at the plausible end and move from there as much as I need to in order to make stuff interesting, not the other way around (start with a pure fantasy scenario and then stuff pseudo-sci concepts into it to make it more believable). That's a matter of taste. 

I also think that it fits the ME universe best: To say that the AI developed under the Leviathans, used the then existing civilizations to develop a theory about the evolution of civilization that it then never updated, because it never let any cycle surpass its already known data points (at least not significantly).

 

Did you notice that the reapers have achieved almost no scientific or technological progress in a billion years? All that is mentioned about this are some improvements with their indoctrination abilities by the Leviathans. Assuming that the catalyst never re-evaluated his hypothesis and his ideal solution after coming up with it at the start of the cycles seems only fitting.

 

Of course, if we allow for some slack in the catalysts wording of things, then the Asimov-scenario is perfectly valid and much more elegant I agree.

 

If we change "always" to "with a certain probability" and "synthetics will destroy all life" to the much more general "civilizations will destroy all life", we can avoid this:

 

 

1. If the evolution of AIs is just as hard to predict as the one of organics than how can they predict this inevitable conflict, its outcome and the moral implications with such certainty? This:

Quote

They extrapolated that eventually a machine intelligence would conclude that organic life was a barrier to efficiency and would take steps to eradicate it.

is baseless and pure speculation.

 

...and get the catalyst to a level of believability that is at least as plausible as mass effect fields .

 

Obviously, one could interpret the "always" of the Catalyst as a simplification for the sake of Shepard. If the catalyst has emotions, one could also interpret this as an expression of exhaustion as in "do you always have to complain about Bob?".

 

 

 

 

...now we are really leaving the context of the game.

Yes, what I wrote above is no longer an interpretation, but a bugfix   .

 

Like a bugfix, it does not take much to implement. Only a few dialogs have to change. 

 

But that's admittetly off-topic for this thread.

[MrFob]

Not necessarily. Lots and lots of possibilities that could become reality instead and no way to disprove that. Having infinite time in any scenario does not mean that every possibility becomes reality. Put a ball in a bucket and it will stay there forever, it will never bounce out all by itself, no matter how long you wait.

Now we are starting to go in circles. Again, this is only true for a closed system (i.e. the bucked is completely isolated from outside influence). To stick with the example, if the bucket stands on the epicenter of a massive earthquake that shakes it a lot, the ball just might bounce out. It is not clear if the universe is a closed system. Of course, if we assume a closed static universe, then infinite time is not going to matter anymore (one might even argue that it's no longer there). The infinity of time in this context does go hand in hand with the infinity of the cosmos, which is a given unless someone finds a way to solve the paradox of omniscience.
 

If the catalyst means "always" as you (Mr. Fob) describe it above, I see the burden of proof with the catalyst (it came up with the idea and is supposedly not mad or broken) and no way how it could possibly come up with anything convincing.

 We've been here before as well. Let me divide my answer into three parts:
a) The catalyst is indeed broken in its logic. It tries to solve an unsolvable problem in controlling the future and randomly assuming that synthetics will always wipe out organics (as opposed to something else). Yet, I cannot disprove that it will happen.
b ) The catalyst is in total control of the situation. It's fleets are winning the battle, Shepard is half dead and the reapers are making strides in their harvest. Suppose we didn't have the crucible to brainwash it, the burden of proof is on Shepard. It would be Shepard's job to convince the catalyst to change its views, not the other way round. All the catalyst needs is that his assumption cannot be disproven.
c) Within the ME universe (not looking at the quality of the story as audience from the outside), it doesn't need to be convincing at all. It's "beyond your comprehension", remember?

 

The way I approach Sci-Fi I'd start at the plausible end and move from there as much as I need to in order to make stuff interesting, not the other way around (start with a pure fantasy scenario and then stuff pseudo-sci concepts into it to make it more believable). That's a matter of taste. 
I also think that it fits the ME universe best: To say that the AI developed under the Leviathans, used the then existing civilizations to develop a theory about the evolution of civilization that it then never updated, because it never let any cycle surpass its already known data points (at least not significantly).

Did you notice that the reapers have achieved almost no scientific or technological progress in a billion years? All that is mentioned about this are some improvements with their indoctrination abilities by the Leviathans. Assuming that the catalyst never re-evaluated his hypothesis and his ideal solution after coming up with it at the start of the cycles seems only fitting.

No one said the ending was great writing (well, some do but not me). The ending and the catalyst scene abandons a lot of the rules that were set up in the writing and this universe and this is one example. Still, if we take the catalyst seriously with its "always" statement, then probabilities are not going to cut it and we have to move further out in scale. I don't think it's less plausible though, it's just on a different level of thinking about the problem, one that we are not used to in the context of this fiction.

A bit off topic but commenting on outlandish concepts in SciFi, I love them. I remember this German Television series from the 60s or 70, that assumed that there is life on a subatomic scale. Basically, for them a molecule would be like a galaxy (or even a cluster of galaxies) for us. These subatomic lifeforms then developed a super advanced civilization, such that they were able to manipulate their macrocosms to a degree, such that we would see the consequences on a nanoscopic scale. So a bunch of scientists fries to make contact with this race because their ability to change molecules was inherently dangerous in our world (and a potential weapon if it could be controlled). The series also implied that of course, there awas also a level "above" ours. Unfortunately, I forgot the name of the show and a lot of the details.
Anyway, I'd call that a very "out there" concept with lot's of plot holes (especially the science is obsolete and thus all wrong from today's point of view) but the idea was fantastic.

In some ways, you can also argue that Asimov's psychohistory is a very outlandish concept. It doesn't have any foundation (no pun intended ) in any modern mathematical or scientific concept that I know of (chaos theory even makes it rather implausible) but still, it's an intriguing idea and I love the Foundation novels (apparently they are planning to make a movie out of it).

So I have no problem with this kind of scifi if the story is set up for it. The problem with the ME ending is that the series was not set up for this level of "pseudo-science" as you call it (others might call it philosophy). The ending just went there without warning.

If the guys from that German TV show would have somehow worked their way to a broken AI that tries to solve an unsolvable problem that entails examination of the paradoxical nature of infinity within our reality, I might have loved it. But not here in Mass Effect and not in the last 15 minutes of the story.
 

If we change "always" to "with a certain probability" and "synthetics will destroy all life" to the much more general "civilizations will destroy all life", we can avoid this:
 
 
...and get the catalyst to a level of believability that is at least as plausible as mass effect fields .

Agreed.
 

Obviously, one could interpret the "always" of the Catalyst as a simplification for the sake of Shepard. If the catalyst has emotions, one could also interpret this as an expression of exhaustion as in "do you always have to complain about Bob?".

I am glad you didn't write "do you always have to complain about Fob?"

As for the issue, well, maybe, although I'd think an AI would have no problem expressing itself in terms of probabilities if that were what it meant. But then, the dialogue was written by a human being so maybe it's just an oversight.
 

Yes, what I wrote above is no longer an interpretation, but a bugfix   .
 
Like a bugfix, it does not take much to implement. Only a few dialogs have to change. 
 
But that's admittetly off-topic for this thread.

Oh I am all for bugfixing the ending. Shameless plug: This was my attempt. Would love to hear your thoughts on it actually but you are right, it would be off topic here.

[Tim van Beek]

Now we are starting to go in circles. Again, this is only true for a closed system (i.e. the bucked is completely isolated from outside influence). 

I hope it is more of a spiral, me spiralling towards an understanding of your point of view  .

I think here is the difference: as a theoretical physicist and mathematician, I am used to picture the universe as a four dimensional manifold (spacetime), which has finite slices, meaning space some time after the big bang is finite (technically one has to  assume that spacetime is globally hyperbolic and choose a timelike hypersurface to make this statement precise).

 

That is a closed system (i.e. I see the whole universe as a closed system) and the evolution of spacetime and its matter and energy content is deterministic. In an ever expanding spacetime you have infinite time and infinite space, but the possibilities of evolution are nevertheless rather restricted. Even if  you add civilizations, the amount of energy that they can use to manipulate the evolution of the universe is restricted. So you have infinite time, infinite space, but will still be able to prove that for example not much will happen after a certain point (cold death). Depending on the question, the verb "prove" may even be interpreted as in "mathematical proof" about the large scale structure of spacetime.

 

I just thought the bucket would be easier to picture for most people  .

 

Of course we could throw general relativity or at least the initial conditions of the big bang theory out of the window, or try to include life or quantum physics to make matters more complicated and speculative. My point is, the catalyst needs to choose some (more or less speculative) setting (with some connection to the ME universe) and stick with it, that leads it to its concslusions. Within this setting, it will be possible to "disprove" its hypothesis, because, IMHO, whatever that will be, it will always have to many variables and moving parts to allow an "always" assertion.

 

 

a) The catalyst is indeed broken in its logic. It tries to solve an unsolvable problem in controlling the future and randomly assuming that synthetics will always wipe out organics (as opposed to something else). Yet, I cannot disprove that it will happen.

...

In the ending dialog one might see the burden of proof with Shepard, as Shepard needs the catalyst to stop the cycles. I am thinking about the time when the cycles started, and how the catalyst could possibly convince itself of the truth of its hypothesis. 

 

The way the Leviathans describe it, it is not completely broken, mad or full of programming errors. Its conclusions may be wrong, but there must be some intelligible reasoning behind them. The AI itself has no reason to come to a fixed conclusion and to stick with it no matter what happens. It is not human. Humans most of the time form an opinion that is convenient for them, and then search for reasons why it has to be right, and stick with it no matter what  . 

 

c) Within the ME universe (not looking at the quality of the story as audience from the outside), it doesn't need to be convincing at all. It's "beyond your comprehension", remember?

Sure  . But the catalyst needs Shepards cooperation to choose synthesis, so it needs to say something about its intentions to gain Shepard's trust. This is the reason why the conversation isn't IMHO only about Shepard needing to convince the catalyst (and failing, because the catalyst does not reveal the rules of the game of reasoning it is willing to play), but it is as much about the catalyst needing to explain itself to get Shepard to do what is right. This is why I don't see the burden of proof with Shepard even in this conversation.

 

 

It could either try to explain its reasoning. Or, if it thinks that that's beyond Shepard's comprehension, say something about that.

 

Making a statement that does not seem to make any sense is not a good strategy for the conversation (and the proof of that is that many players don't choose synthesis  ).

 

 

 Still, if we take the catalyst seriously with its "always" statement, then probabilities are not going to cut it and we have to move further out in scale. I don't think it's less plausible though, it's just on a different level of thinking about the problem, one that we are not used to in the context of this fiction.

I do think it is less plausible. The catalyst severily restricts the scenarios it can consider by the existence of synthesis. Obviously it cannot include a scenario like the current cycle, where synthesis is achieved. More generally, whatever ensemble of scenarios it considers when it says "always", the ones where it itself achieves synthesis are obviously not included.

 

Further, it would seem that is does not include, for example, other galaxies, possible future developments that would render synthesis obsolete, or civilizations that come up with synthesis all by themselves. 

 

 

 

Oh I am all for bugfixing the ending. Shameless plug: This was my attempt. Would love to hear your thoughts on it actually but you are right, it would be off topic here.

You would? Hasn't it been discussed to death, after all these years? (Oh...  )

 

P.S.:

 

 

 

In some ways, you can also argue that Asimov's psychohistory is a very outlandish concept. It doesn't have any foundation (no pun intended  ) in any modern mathematical or scientific concept that I know of (chaos theory even makes it rather implausible) but still, it's an intriguing idea and I love the Foundation novels (apparently they are planning to make a movie out of it).

Actually I don't like the foundation novels and especially I don't like psychohistory. It just came to mind as a possibility to grant the catalyst some credibility  .

But, I have to defend it against chaos theory. This is really a misunderstanding. Chaos theory (mathematicians today call it "dynamical systems") is about ordinary differential equations, where the initial conditions have a huge and exponentially growing effect on the state of the system, making them practically unpredictable.

This does not take into account statistics. You can't predict a single roulette round (chaos theory, actually some people have done that successfully, but you'll get the point), but you can predict that the house will always win in the end, with many games played, because of the zeros. If that wasn't possible, people wouldn't run roulette in casinos.

You can't predict if I will go to the movies next weekend. But you can predict how many people will go to the movies in the USA next weekend, with a certain error margin, of course.

[MrFob]

I think here is the difference: *snip*

You are correct. This is the difference that defines our discussion: A closed vs. and open system. Although I am neither a physicist, cosmologist or mathematician and read about stuff on this scale mostly in popular science publications, such as the more popular books published by people like Steven Hawking or Brian Greene, I see where you are coming from. For most day to day applications. I think that defining our 4 dimensional universe as a closed system makes sense but I regard it in a similar way as we use Newtonian physics for most of our day to day applications, fully aware that it is an incomplete description of reality. I am fully aware that from today's perspective, we are diving into the realm of metaphysics at this point. But the question of what lies beyond our space-time remains unanswered. So regarding it as a closed system, while practical in most cases, is ultimately just as speculative as regarding it as an open one. Or am I wrong? (not a trick question, I may very well be.)

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but last I checked we were discussing probabilities in an infinite universe (in both time and space), which kind of precludes a closed system by definition.
 

Of course we could throw general relativity or at least the initial conditions of the big bang theory out of the window, or try to include life or quantum physics to make matters more complicated and speculative. My point is, the catalyst needs to choose some (more or less speculative) setting (with some connection to the ME universe) and stick with it, that leads it to its concslusions. Within this setting, it will be possible to "disprove" its hypothesis, because, IMHO, whatever that will be, it will always have to many variables and moving parts to allow an "always" assertion.

Within a closed system universe, I would agree. That is exactly the reason why I argue that the catalyst - for whatever reason - is not operating on the assumption of one. Because if we can disprove it, so should the catalyst. Therefore, it would not make the statement.

It may even be that the catalyst (being a billion years old) has more information about what we today consider metaphysics to make this entire problem less speculative, using a level of physics and/or mathematics that we are not even aware of (there is the "beyond your comprehension" again). This would purely be my headcanon though since it is never even hinted on in the game.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if the catalyst has more actual knowladge about the matter or is operating on the AI equivalent of a metaphysical or even religious belief, the point is that his words indicate that he does consider a certain event in the future as absolutely inevitable and I don't see any way to lo logically do that without either knowing every single aspect of a fully deterministic system (a situation we clearly do not have) or to postulate that because the future is infinite (and space time is infinitely non-static, if you do not consider that as part of the precious statement anyway), the event has to occur eventually.

 

In the ending dialog one might see the burden of proof with Shepard, as Shepard needs the catalyst to stop the cycles. I am thinking about the time when the cycles started, and how the catalyst could possibly convince itself of the truth of its hypothesis.

Same as above. This is exactly why I argue that the catalyst needs to use a context that goes beyond a finite 4-dimentional universe.

 

The way the Leviathans describe it, it is not completely broken, mad or full of programming errors. Its conclusions may be wrong, but there must be some intelligible reasoning behind them. The AI itself has no reason to come to a fixed conclusion and to stick with it no matter what happens. It is not human. Humans most of the time form an opinion that is convenient for them, and then search for reasons why it has to be right, and stick with it no matter what  .

Hm, honestly, I am not quite sure where you are going with this. Can you elaborate? IMO the ending dialogue shows that it has been working under the same reasoning since the beginning of the cycles, so it's fairly clear that nothing happened to change its conclusions. Is that what you meant?

 

Sure  . But the catalyst needs Shepards cooperation to choose synthesis, so it needs to say something about its intentions to gain Shepard's trust. This is the reason why the conversation isn't IMHO only about Shepard needing to convince the catalyst (and failing, because the catalyst does not reveal the rules of the game of reasoning it is willing to play), but it is as much about the catalyst needing to explain itself to get Shepard to do what is right. This is why I don't see the burden of proof with Shepard even in this conversation.
 
It could either try to explain its reasoning. Or, if it thinks that that's beyond Shepard's comprehension, say something about that.
 
Making a statement that does not seem to make any sense is not a good strategy for the conversation (and the proof of that is that many players don't choose synthesis  ).

This could be a genuine communication problem. If the catalyst's understanding of the cosmos is really much greater than ours, than it may take things for granted that we debate here so vigorously. Therefore, when it says: "the created will always rebel against the creators", from its perspective, that sentence already contains all the necessary information.
It's like me telling you that I'll fly from London to New York. A perfectly normal sentence today but say that to someone with a perspective on the world from 200 years ago and he'll probably say that this doesn't make any sense (bit of a crude analogy but I couldn't come up with a better one quickly ).

That's why I think Shepard's part in this conversation is the real bad part because s/he doesn't pick up and ask about anything.
 

I do think it is less plausible.

I think you misunderstood me there. I meant it isn't less plausible for the catalyst to think about the problem on this scale.
Obviously the entire scenario is implausible n the sense that it is based on a paradoxical premise.
 

The catalyst severily restricts the scenarios it can consider by the existence of synthesis. Obviously it cannot include a scenario like the current cycle, where synthesis is achieved. More generally, whatever ensemble of scenarios it considers when it says "always", the ones where it itself achieves synthesis are obviously not included.

Oh don't get me started on synthesis and the whole "final stage of evolution" thing, 'cause the fat that this is supposed to be the perfect solution is just nuts. But remember that all 3 new solutions are only brought into play after the crucible docks and "changes" the catalyst, this "new logic" where these solutions work may be caused by the crucible messing with the AI.
 

Further, it would seem that is does not include, for example, other galaxies, possible future developments that would render synthesis obsolete, or civilizations that come up with synthesis all by themselves.

I agree, the fact that it does seem to limit its conclusions to the milky way is another big problem. I can only assume that it uses the milky way as a testing area and ultimately did want to go further eventually. Restricting yourself in this way definitely does not make sense.
 

You would? Hasn't it been discussed to death, after all these years? (Oh...  )

Oh, I meant specifically my rewrite, always curious about feedback but never mind, it's really not part of this topic.

For the actual endings, you may be right, although one can argue that we still continue it right here and now.
 

P.S.:
 
Actually I don't like the foundation novels and especially I don't like psychohistory. It just came to mind as a possibility to grant the catalyst some credibility  .
But, I have to defend it against chaos theory. This is really a misunderstanding. Chaos theory (mathematicians today call it "dynamical systems") is about ordinary differential equations, where the initial conditions have a huge and exponentially growing effect on the state of the system, making them practically unpredictable.
This does not take into account statistics. You can't predict a single roulette round (chaos theory, actually some people have done that successfully, but you'll get the point), but you can predict that the house will always win in the end, with many games played, because of the zeros. If that wasn't possible, people wouldn't run roulette in casinos.
You can't predict if I will go to the movies next weekend. But you can predict how many people will go to the movies in the USA next weekend, with a certain error margin, of course.

Even if you take statistics into account, I thought it would still be a problem though on the scale that Asimov proposed. I found this paper fairly enlightening in this regard (although it doesn't really provide a definite answer). If you are a mathematician, I will refer to your judgement on the matter though since I am definitely just a layman on those issues and only understand the very superficial principles of the theory.

[Tim van Beek]

You are correct. This is the difference that defines our discussion: A closed vs. and open system....
Also, correct me if I am wrong, but last I checked we were discussing probabilities in an infinite universe (in both time and space), which kind of precludes a closed system by definition.

If you use "closed system" as physicists do in thermodynamics, then the universe is by the very definition of the term a closed system 

(See https://en.wikipedia...i/Closed_system).

 

Hawking and Greene know very well what they write about, and they do a very good job adhering to Einstein's pedagogic principle (everything should be explained as easy as possible, but not easier), so that's a good foundation  .

 

I'll try to go into more detail about what I am thinking about, with the danger of becoming too technical: We are considering the universe according to general relativity and the big bang initial conditions. We assume that (spacetime is globally hyperbolic and that) we can fix a foliation of space time by spacelike hypersurfaces, that is like choosing a global time coordinate for the whole universe that starts at zero and goes on to infinity, called t.

 

For every t, we can then calculate the volume, i.e. the space content, of the universe. Let's call that V(t). We assume that the matter/energy content of the universe is not enough to reverse the expansion by gravitational forces, i.e. we assume the "heat death" scenario. This implies that V(t) is strictly increasing with t, but for every t V(t) is finite (that follows from the big bang initial conditions, where V(0) = 0, or rather very small to avoid singularities). That is, for every time t, the universe has finite space, but for any given finite volume there is a time t' so that the universe has more space than that for all t > t'.

 

Because of our assumption, we have a finite time interval from t1 to t2, where at the beginning life can evolve because we have solar systems and habitable planets once we reach t1, and no longer any solar systems because all stars have burnt out and no new ones can form after t2. If we choose t2 large enough, we can rule out the existence of any advanced civilizations after t2. So, in this sense, we have infinite time and infinite space, but we can "prove" that there is only a finite time and finite space available where "interesting stuff" can happen. 

 

That's not meta-physics, you can calculate all that with certain simplifying assumptions based on general relativity and current knowledge about the evolution of stars. 

 

Of course the whole setting is a huge simplification of the real universe, ignoring how life could evolve and influence the evolution of spacetime on a large scale or possible quantum effects etc. It is only an example of a system with infinite time and space yet limited possibilities. And the Catalyst needs to base its reasoning on some kind of simplified model, too, because obviously it has finite mental capacities as well. 

 

 

Within a closed system universe, I would agree. That is exactly the reason why I argue that the catalyst - for whatever reason - is not operating on the assumption of one. Because if we can disprove it, so should the catalyst. Therefore, it would not make the statement.

It could be much more intelligent and much more knowledgable than we or Shepard and the Salarians are and still come to a wrong conclusion that we or Mordin could recognize and "disprove", couldn't it?

I should know, because I am intelligent (at least that's what some people tell me sometimes) and still think and say and do a lot of stupid stuff (at least that's what a lot of people tell me all the time). 

The Catalyst certainly isn't perfect, can't be, it's just an AI created by limited organics...

 

Hey, wouldn't it be cool if in some ending the Catalyst would actually say something like "Right! Dammit, if you put it that way...yes, I was actually stupid. That's great! Because this big problem that has kept me busy for a billion years, it is just gone, you know? Just poof...and no more. Now what? Maybe I'll start to calculate pi or something..."

 

Hm, honestly, I am not quite sure where you are going with this. Can you elaborate? IMO the ending dialogue shows that it has been working under the same reasoning since the beginning of the cycles, so it's fairly clear that nothing happened to change its conclusions. Is that what you meant?

 

Sorry, I was obscure. I was thinking as a writer of the Catalyst scene: Should I make it impossible for Shepard to convince the Catalyst that the fundamental hypothesis is wrong? I don't think so, because the Catalyst, as a character, should be both able to understand and open to admit any errors. The way AIs are supposed to think in the ME universe, and the way its purpose is described by the Leviathans, it should accept an error in its reasoning as a solution to its central problem. And it should be interested in explaining its reasoning to Shepard to gain trust, as I said above - and it should be able to do this in an intelligible way, given all the knowledge it has about organics, civilizations, humans, English...

 

 

This could be a genuine communication problem...

Yes, of course. But with all the knowledge and intelligence it supposedly has, it should be able to understand and solve this problem before it occurs...

 

 

Oh don't get me started on synthesis and the whole "final stage of evolution" thing, 'cause the fat that this is supposed to be the perfect solution is just nuts. But remember that all 3 new solutions are only brought into play after the crucible docks and "changes" the catalyst, this "new logic" where these solutions work may be caused by the crucible messing with the AI.

Ugh, I don't see how I could not get you started...well, anyway: I think the Catalyst mentions that it tried synthesis before, but it never worked out. So the idea for synthesis was there before the crucible docked, only the execution is now suddenly possible...

 

P.S.:

Even if you take statistics into account, I thought it would still be a problem though on the scale that Asimov proposed. I found this paper fairly enlightening in this regard (although it doesn't really provide a definite answer). If you are a mathematician, I will refer to your judgement on the matter though since I am definitely just a layman on those issues and only understand the very superficial principles of the theory.

Interesting paper! It does illustrate my point in the sense that the author points out that one can describe for example a deterministic but chaotic ergodic process as well with a time series generated by a stationary random process, as far as predictions are concerned, because predictions will always be of a statistical nature anyway.

 

I see mainly two other problems with Asimov's idea and its presentation. First, the predictions are supposedly as precise and convincing as proven mathematical theorems, when they can be of a statistical/probabilistic nature at best. Second, statistical models become moot when they try to model the behaviour of sentient beings.  Asimov tried to handle this with the assumption that "the population should remain in ignorance of the results of the application of psychohistorical analyses". Well, I still don't think that a billion humans can be modelled by the same statistical methods as, say, a gazillion electrons - even if both humans and electrons are not told about the model itself, the behaviour of the humans will still be somewhat more, well, unpredictable than those of the electrons . 

 

The way Asimov handles both these points is naive IMHO (sorry Isaac, you are still a grandmaster of sci-fi).

 

P.P.S.: I'm not a practicing mathematician, I only graduated in theoretical physics.

[MrFob]

If you use "closed system" as physicists do in thermodynamics, then the universe is by the very definition of the term a closed system 
(See https://en.wikipedia...i/Closed_system).

Ok, according to that wiki page I should have said "isolated system" (my thermodynamics course is a while back). But I don't think it is known if our universe is an isolated system. I have spent a long time trying to find out if the answer to this question is known and I couldn't find one. All the publications I have seen state that we simply don't know if there are boundaries to our universe but if I remember correctly, if there were boundaries (as in a finite but expanding universe) we wouldn't know if there is any interaction with whatever would be considered "outside" those boundaries. If there are none, than the universe could arbitrarily loose or gain energy from infinity. If there is another more clear definition of the kind of system that the universe represents, please link me to it, I'd be interested to read it.
 

Hawking and Greene know very well what they write about, and they do a very good job adhering to Einstein's pedagogic principle (everything should be explained as easy as possible, but not easier), so that's a good foundation  .
 
I'll try to go into more detail about what I am thinking about, with the danger of becoming too technical: We are considering the universe according to general relativity and the big bang initial conditions. We assume that (spacetime is globally hyperbolic and that) we can fix a foliation of space time by spacelike hypersurfaces, that is like choosing a global time coordinate for the whole universe that starts at zero and goes on to infinity, called t.
 
For every t, we can then calculate the volume, i.e. the space content, of the universe. Let's call that V(t). We assume that the matter/energy content of the universe is not enough to reverse the expansion by gravitational forces, i.e. we assume the "heat death" scenario. This implies that V(t) is strictly increasing with t, but for every t V(t) is finite (that follows from the big bang initial conditions, where V(0) = 0, or rather very small to avoid singularities). That is, for every time t, the universe has finite space, but for any given finite volume there is a time t' so that the universe has more space than that for all t > t'.
 
Because of our assumption, we have a finite time interval from t1 to t2, where at the beginning life can evolve because we have solar systems and habitable planets once we reach t1, and no longer any solar systems because all stars have burnt out and no new ones can form after t2. If we choose t2 large enough, we can rule out the existence of any advanced civilizations after t2. So, in this sense, we have infinite time and infinite space, but we can "prove" that there is only a finite time and finite space available where "interesting stuff" can happen. 
 
That's not meta-physics, you can calculate all that with certain simplifying assumptions based on general relativity and current knowledge about the evolution of stars. 
 
Of course the whole setting is a huge simplification of the real universe, ignoring how life could evolve and influence the evolution of spacetime on a large scale or possible quantum effects etc. It is only an example of a system with infinite time and space yet limited possibilities. And the Catalyst needs to base its reasoning on some kind of simplified model, too, because obviously it has finite mental capacities as well.

That all makes perfect sense and is an apt description but, as you say, you deliberately limit yourself to a simplified model that can be fully explained with our current understanding of physics. While I agree that the catalyst also needs to rely on some form of simplified model (he can't be omniscient), his model may go far beyond what you describe here. He doesn't make an effort to explain it (which is one reason why the ending is so bad) but IMO it's a valid interpretation of the ending that he has one (will elaborate why this is important to me below).
 

It could be much more intelligent and much more knowledgable than we or Shepard and the Salarians are and still come to a wrong conclusion that we or Mordin could recognize and "disprove", couldn't it?
I should know, because I am intelligent (at least that's what some people tell me sometimes) and still think and say and do a lot of stupid stuff (at least that's what a lot of people tell me all the time). 
The Catalyst certainly isn't perfect, can't be, it's just an AI created by limited organics...

It's certainly possible but not necessary, I'll get to that in a minute.
 

Hey, wouldn't it be cool if in some ending the Catalyst would actually say something like "Right! Dammit, if you put it that way...yes, I was actually stupid. That's great! Because this big problem that has kept me busy for a billion years, it is just gone, you know? Just poof...and no more. Now what? Maybe I'll start to calculate pi or something..."

Ok, now I think we are getting to the second part of the crux of the matter. Because this is one point I do disagree with (on a completely subjective basis). In my first or second post in this thread (as well as many others) I said that one of my biggest gripes with the ending is that IMO, they diminish the sense of scale and awe that the reapers instilled in me in the rest of the series. Now they are some sort of slaves to the catalyst and their motivation is fear of the future. I think that's bad.
One thing that would make it worse IMO is if they were not only misguided but simply just wrong and if we/Shepard could prove it to them in a 5 minute conversation. They lived for a billion years or more, are operating on a truly galactic scale and have access to the knowladge, advancements and philosophy of countless civilizations and the final result of all this is that they were just wrong? Millions of genocides because they couldn't be bothered to give this issue some thought? I would be really disappointed if we could pull the "Kirk & Nomad" routine on them.
I want there to be more to this story. I want Sovereign's speech to have some form of twisted meaning.
I realize I stand on a slippery slope here because I am trying to argue that tackling concepts that I cannot fully explain (let alone prove) are preferable in this story to the very clean cut solution that you are offering. My ideal catalyst has to rely on concepts that are just "beyond our understanding".

There are so many unanswered questions about the nature of reality though that for the purpose of the story, we can assume that the catalyst has a model that involves aspects that we cannot even conceive (let alone measure).
Are there dimensions outside of spacetime? If so what is their nature and do events there have effects on our spacetime? In what context does our spacetime expand? What happened before/caused the big bang? If there is a context, what does that exist in? Is it turtles all the way down?
I am not saying the catalyst has to solve the infinite regress problem but maybe it's just a bit further along or at least, it has a very set view on some of those matters that define its policy.

This of course makes it very difficult for a writer because s/he'd have to try and create a believable character who is supposed to be more knowledgeable and insightful than any human being to date (the writer obviously included). But I think it would have been worth the effort and would definitely have helped to preserve the reapers mysterious qualities while still giving us a glimpse at the motives for their actions and the scale of their thinking processes at the same time.

That is why I choose to interpret the ending in such a complicated (and, I admit, a bit twisted) way. I simply refuse to believe that they are just plain wrong and that Shepard could have easily convinced them if he had just said 10 more words in that dialogue.
 

Sorry, I was obscure. I was thinking as a writer of the Catalyst scene: Should I make it impossible for Shepard to convince the Catalyst that the fundamental hypothesis is wrong? I don't think so, because the Catalyst, as a character, should be both able to understand and open to admit any errors. The way AIs are supposed to think in the ME universe, and the way its purpose is described by the Leviathans, it should accept an error in its reasoning as a solution to its central problem. And it should be interested in explaining its reasoning to Shepard to gain trust, as I said above - and it should be able to do this in an intelligible way, given all the knowledge it has about organics, civilizations, humans, English...

Here as well, I disagree Which kind of derives from the point above). As explained, I don't think Shepard should be able to convince the catalyst. S/he should argue and struggle, yes absolutely and it was the second big gripe I have with the ending that Shep cannot do this because it destroys his/her character. But convince? No (see above).
Should the catalyst be able to explain his reasons in absolute detail so that Shepard could follow along with everything? Good question. On the one hand, I think it would have been good for the catalyst to elaborate a bit more, maybe talk about his advanced models and views on the nature of the cosmos that he possesses (o at least mention that he's got them). But as I said above, if his reasoning involves elements that really are "beyond our comprehension" (sorry to go back to this expression so often but for me it's an essential characteristic of the reapers) than it has to be something that we can only understand the most basic aspects of at best, certainly not the details - at least not in 5 minutes. It should feel like a cave man asking you to explain M theory in 5 minutes. There should be so many bases to cover that it simply isn't possible in the time frame of the conversation.
And by the way, clearly the writers didn't have a problem with going that route in principle, if their character already answers a fairly straight forward question about the origins of the crucible with "You wouldn't know them and there is no time to explain".
 

Yes, of course. But with all the knowledge and intelligence it supposedly has, it should be able to understand and solve this problem before it occurs...

 See above, I think maybe it's more difficult in the time we have, so he tries to oversimplify a lot and since Shepard never asks for more detail, he just leaves it at that. Who knows, the writing is too vague to make a clear prediction here.
 

Ugh, I don't see how I could not get you started...well, anyway: I think the Catalyst mentions that it tried synthesis before, but it never worked out. So the idea for synthesis was there before the crucible docked, only the execution is now suddenly possible...

Who knows in what manner he tried it. Maybe on a smaller scale or something (which really could never work). Clearly he didn't include himself or the reapers in it before or he would be gone. Maybe that's why it didn't work, he was blocking himself? Ah, I don't know, synthesis is just too weird.
 

P.S.:
Interesting paper! It does illustrate my point in the sense that the author points out that one can describe for example a deterministic but chaotic ergodic process as well with a time series generated by a stationary random process, as far as predictions are concerned, because predictions will always be of a statistical nature anyway.
 
I see mainly two other problems with Asimov's idea and its presentation. First, the predictions are supposedly as precise and convincing as proven mathematical theorems, when they can be of a statistical/probabilistic nature at best. Second, statistical models become moot when they try to model the behaviour of sentient beings.  Asimov tried to handle this with the assumption that "the population should remain in ignorance of the results of the application of psychohistorical analyses". Well, I still don't think that a billion humans can be modelled by the same statistical methods as, say, a gazillion electrons - even if both humans and electrons are not told about the model itself, the behaviour of the humans will still be somewhat more, well, unpredictable than those of the electrons . 
 
The way Asimov handles both these points is naive IMHO (sorry Isaac, you are still a grandmaster of sci-fi).

Interesting. I guess it may have been that first point in your second paragraph there that got me confused. But it's interesting that you see a problem specific to sentient beings. Wouldn't that just be another layer in the complexity of the system your are trying to predict? In a way, Asimov does account for both those points when he includes the Mule in the story and thus acknowledges the problems with the predictability of such complex systems, I think.
Anyway, this as well goes off topic quick. Would be a very interesting discussion on it's own. A shame we no longer have an off topic forum here.
 

P.P.S.: I'm not a practicing mathematician, I only graduated in theoretical physics.

Haha, "only" huh? Well between the two of us, that still makes you the expert.

[Tim van Beek]

On the one hand, I think it would have been good for the catalyst to elaborate a bit more, maybe talk about his advanced models and views on the nature of the cosmos that he possesses (o at least mention that he's got them). But as I said above, if his reasoning involves elements that really are "beyond our comprehension" (sorry to go back to this expression so often but for me it's an essential characteristic of the reapers) than it has to be something that we can only understand the most basic aspects of at best, certainly not the details - at least not in 5 minutes. It should feel like a cave man asking you to explain M theory in 5 minutes. 

That's a really tall order. You would like a discussion where the Catalyst tries to explain its reasoning to Shepard that clarifies that the Catalyst is viewing reality from a much much higher point of view that we cannot possibly understand? 

 

That reminds me of Ronald D. Moore talking about Battlestar Galactica, in season three we get the first scenes that play inside a Cylon basestar. Ronald said "whatever we do, however we present the interior, everybody will say 'I thought it would be cooler', right?".

 

The way I imagin the Catalyst to use some kind of "psychohistory", we would still be unable to understand what exactly it is doing. We get only the hint of an idea that the Catalyst is able to create theories about the evolution of civilizations on a Galactic scale. So that still worked for me, but for you it's not cool enough . 

 

I could try to play human catalyst for a couple of points we mentioned here, though:

 

 

Ok, according to that wiki page I should have said "isolated system" (my thermodynamics course is a while back). But I don't think it is known if our universe is an isolated system. 

For general relativity, it is. By the very definition of the term "universe", it is. Even in highly speculative theories about the concept of a "multiverse" based on the string theory landscape, it is, because there is no interaction between different universes (here we paradoxically ignore the etymological meaning of "universe" just like in "atom splitting").

 

 

All the publications I have seen state that we simply don't know if there are boundaries to our universe but if I remember correctly, if there were boundaries (as in a finite but expanding universe) we wouldn't know if there is any interaction with whatever would be considered "outside" those boundaries. 

Puny human, your imagination is limited by picturing bodies in three dimensional space. Spacetime comprises time and space itself, there is nothing outside it, therefore no borders and no interaction.

 

But seriously: This way of thinking comes easy to mathematicians who study modern abstract (differential) geometry including (differential) manifolds. 

 

P.S.:

But it's interesting that you see a problem specific to sentient beings. Wouldn't that just be another layer in the complexity of the system your are trying to predict? In a way, Asimov does account for both those points when he includes the Mule in the story and thus acknowledges the problems with the predictability of such complex systems, I think.

The problem is that sentient beings learn and improve based on growing understanding and refined theories.

 

For example, the Black-Scholes-Formula predicts the market for derivatives with a model where random influences are "white noise" (more precisely: it is a solution to a stochastic differential equation driven by the Wiener process). The problem with this is that obviously we have single actors who can disturb the whole market (from within and outside the market) and also highly correlated behaviour in case of a crisis (group thinking, or rather, panic, fire sales, if you think about the last financial crisis).

 

For the latter, we could try to model this with a random process that takes correlation into account. So will other players and adapt their strategy accordingly, and so on...if your model does not collapse somewhere on the way, it will become obsolete at the moment where one of the actors develops a model that is equivalent to yours and plans his actions accordingly 

 

Obviously neither Asimov nor his psychohistory did take into account that the civilization that they tried to model could itself develop a version of psychohistory, come to similar predictions and then subvert them. I know the concept of "self-fulfilling" prophesy, what I need here is the concept of "self-avoiding" prophesy or something like that.

 

It's the same story with the Catalyst and synthesis. All his models and predictions become moot once they hit a situation where the organics come up with synthesis all by themselves...

 

 

I think I could take all this or other stuff or borrow stuff from M theory, since you mentioned that, or anything from here: http://arxiv.org/list/hep-th/new

 

and write a dialogue for the Catalyst that is really mind blowing  in a sense that will be received even worse than the original ME:3 ending  .

[MrFob]

Apologies for the late reply. Busy week.
 

That's a really tall order. You would like a discussion where the Catalyst tries to explain its reasoning to Shepard that clarifies that the Catalyst is viewing reality from a much much higher point of view that we cannot possibly understand? 
 
That reminds me of Ronald D. Moore talking about Battlestar Galactica, in season three we get the first scenes that play inside a Cylon basestar. Ronald said "whatever we do, however we present the interior, everybody will say 'I thought it would be cooler', right?".
 
The way I imagin the Catalyst to use some kind of "psychohistory", we would still be unable to understand what exactly it is doing. We get only the hint of an idea that the Catalyst is able to create theories about the evolution of civilizations on a Galactic scale. So that still worked for me, but for you it's not cool enough .

It is a tall order but the reason why I want it is not because the stuff that is in the game is "not cool enough" but because it just doesn't make sense.
Once we supplant the stuff that is there with our own, than whatever we put in its place is of course a matter of taste.
I am not saying that what I would like to have seen is objectively the best option, it's simply the one I would have liked best (well, given the constraint that we may only change the content of the catalyst discussion and nothing else).
 

I could try to play human catalyst for a couple of points we mentioned here, though:
 
 
For general relativity, it is. By the very definition of the term "universe", it is. Even in highly speculative theories about the concept of a "multiverse" based on the string theory landscape, it is, because there is no interaction between different universes (here we paradoxically ignore the etymological meaning of "universe" just like in "atom splitting").

My apologies, I assumed you were using the word universe as an equivalent of space-time. Of course, if we use the word universe as a hypothetical structure that contains everything, than yes, it would be isolated by definition, I guess, although it would be impossible to define what the universe is with certainty (we arrive again at the paradox of defining everything).
 

Puny human, your imagination is limited by picturing bodies in three dimensional space. Spacetime comprises time and space itself, there is nothing outside it, therefore no borders and no interaction.
 
But seriously: This way of thinking comes easy to mathematicians who study modern abstract (differential) geometry including (differential) manifolds.

Fair enough, the text I used as inspiration for that distinction was not very well thought out and I probably didn't go all the way thinking about it myself. In fact, I would agree that a finite space-time without boundaries is very much possible (and from what I read it's one of the leading models at the moment). This still doesn't answer the questions of whether or not there is anything beyond it though and it also doesn't exclude the possibility that whatever might be outside of our space-time could influence it. We simply wouldn't be able to measure anything like that (at the moment).
 

I think I could take all this or other stuff or borrow stuff from M theory, since you mentioned that, or anything from here: http://arxiv.org/list/hep-th/new
 
and write a dialogue for the Catalyst that is really mind blowing  in a sense that will be received even worse than the original ME:3 ending  .

Please do. If it is mind blowing, we could make a mod for it.

[Natureguy85]

As someone who studied some physics (midlevel courses and years ago at that), I do find your discussion on space and time, on probability and inevitability interesting. However, I must point out that it is entirely above the level of writing found in Mass Effect 3's ending.

 

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

 

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.

 

Lots of Reapers died in the battle. Why not make purely Synthetic Reapers and store the Organic goop in Dark Space? It would be like Braniac with his information orbs, in the Superman Animated Series, at least.. Unfortunately I can't find any clips of the episode to show what I mean. They are all of the stand alone movie.

 

What was dramatic about how the threat ended? I found it very anti-climactic.

 

It was a lecture because the Catalyst told Shepard how everything is and how it was going to proceed from there. Then Shepard picks from the Catalyst's choices or makes it wipe them all out. The real argument is that the Catalyst is wrong and stupid.

 

 

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.
 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

The Catalyst said Synthesis can not be "forced". They are taking from the Matrix with the "the problem is choice" idea. In order for Synthesis to work it must be chosen and in order to have a choice you must have options.

 

I think the Catalyst can't come up with anything new because it's actually a limited VI, not an advanced AI, but lets set that aside. It thinks it's solution is the best available because it can't achieve Synthesis.  The bigger question is if the Catalyst was aware of the Crucible, how did it not know what it was close to being able to do? If it's little more than a power source, then it should have been aware of the Citadel's part in Synthesis and allowed or even helped Organics to finish it.

 

Synthesis does achieve the Catalyst's purpose because the game says so. In Destroy and Control, the Catalyst is gone.

 

 

...leading to Natureguy85 insisting that we take the catalyst word for word when it says "the Created will always rebel against their creators".

 

Of course, if we allow for some slack in the catalysts wording of things, then the Asimov-scenario is perfectly valid and much more elegant I agree.
 

 

I insist because that's what the Catalyst says. This is bolstered by the Reapers returning every 50,000 years rather than waiting for some certain event (on that note, does the story ever say it's every 50,000 years or just that is how long since the last harvest? I know the ME3 intro says it, but I mean the actual story.) Also the Rannoch Reaper uses the Geth/Quarian conflict as evidence of the need for the cycle despite the fact that the Geth were losing. To be fair, this is after Shepard discusses Organics and Synthetics simply fighting without regard for reasons or consequences.

As I said at the start of the post, to think otherwise is to give the Catalyst way too much credit and make the ending deeper than it is. It's not our job to come up with a more elegant interpretation to a poorly written story.

 

I agree that we should opt for the second version, the first is probably only there because the writer mangled up his sentence or chose it to keep it simple (and obviously it is even much more stupid).

 

Agreed, we would. My point is that you can choose whatever you want from the sci-based speculative landscape, you will always have too many variables in your scenario to justify "always" in the "literal" sense.

Did you notice that the reapers have achieved almost no scientific or technological progress in a billion years? All that is mentioned about this are some improvements with their indoctrination abilities by the Leviathans. Assuming that the catalyst never re-evaluated his hypothesis and his ideal solution after coming up with it at the start of the cycles seems only fitting.

 

 

If we change "always" to "with a certain probability" and "synthetics will destroy all life" to the much more general "civilizations will destroy all life", we can avoid this:

Obviously, one could interpret the "always" of the Catalyst as a simplification for the sake of Shepard. If the catalyst has emotions, one could also interpret this as an expression of exhaustion as in "do you always have to complain about Bob?".

 

As above, that's giving the writing too much credit. It's not the audiences job to try and warp the story into something that makes more sense.

 

The bold part could have been a great plot point. Recall Mordin's comments on the lack of culture in regards to the Collectors. But most of the good ideas were dropped so we could have an AI talk at us.

 

So I have no problem with this kind of scifi if the story is set up for it. The problem with the ME ending is that the series was not set up for this level of "pseudo-science" as you call it (others might call it philosophy). The ending just went there without warning.

 

That was one of the major problems.

 

 

Hm, honestly, I am not quite sure where you are going with this. Can you elaborate? IMO the ending dialogue shows that it has been working under the same reasoning since the beginning of the cycles, so it's fairly clear that nothing happened to change its conclusions. Is that what you meant?

 

That's why I think Shepard's part in this conversation is the real bad part because s/he doesn't pick up and ask about anything.
 

Oh don't get me started on synthesis and the whole "final stage of evolution" thing, 'cause the fat that this is supposed to be the perfect solution is just nuts. But remember that all 3 new solutions are only brought into play after the crucible docks and "changes" the catalyst, this "new logic" where these solutions work may be caused by the crucible messing with the AI.
 

I agree, the fact that it does seem to limit its conclusions to the milky way is another big problem. I can only assume that it uses the milky way as a testing area and ultimately did want to go further eventually. Restricting yourself in this way definitely does not make sense.

 

I thought I saw someone bring it up but couldn't find it, but this is partly a result of cutting off development at 50,000 years every time. This would have been another good thing to question the Catalyst on.

 

Yes, Shepard's inability to argue was hard to swallow, particularly given the rest of the series and how influential Shepard is supposed to be.

 

You're right but the Catalyst already wanted Sythesis as presented in the ending. The Crucible just made it possible.

 

I never saw the Catalyst, the Reapers, or the Leviathans as working outside the Milky Way Galaxy. While Vigil was simply speculating that they "sleep" out in Dark Space, that's how I've always seen it. It's an argument after the fact, but I think Leviathan backs this up as well. The Leviathans were concerned with the Milky Way. It is likely that they, and therefore the Catalyst, didn't know of life in other galaxies.

[AlanC9]

 
Obviously neither Asimov nor his psychohistory did take into account that the civilization that they tried to model could itself develop a version of psychohistory, come to similar predictions and then subvert them.

Presumably that's where the Second Foundation comes in. Anybody who tries to re-create Seldon's work will suddenly find himself thinking that he isn't up to it.

[dorktainian]

the moment Shepard summons in the normandy to pick up his injured crewmates in the EC, only for it to take 5 seconds to get there from the heat of battle, any argument of time or understanding of time is irrelevant.  Mass Effect works at the speed of plot OP. 

 

As for Organics + Synthetics in conflict, conflict will always happen between whoever happens to exist at a certain time, organic or synthetic.  Peace is an ideal, not the norm.

[Tim van Beek]

The Catalyst said Synthesis can not be "forced". They are taking from the Matrix with the "the problem is choice" idea. In order for Synthesis to work it must be chosen and in order to have a choice you must have options.

Maybe the Catalyst meant cooperation?

 

The concept of choice in "The Matrix" triology is actually pretty deep, and none of it is to be found in ME: If you can see into the future, how does that not contradict free will? It does not, because while the decision we contemplate is in the future for the one who makes it, it is in the past for the one who can see into the future. But in order to see past it, you need to understand the motivations of the choice.

 

Gee, centuries of discussions of theologicans about how or if God's omniscience does or does not contradict free will, solved by the Wachowskis in a sci-fi blockbuster 

 

 

I insist because that's what the Catalyst says. This is bolstered by the Reapers returning every 50,000 years rather than waiting for some certain event (on that note, does the story ever say it's every 50,000 years or just that is how long since the last harvest? I know the ME3 intro says it, but I mean the actual story.)

Yes, but was it an oversimplification? (I have no idea. The intro also says that the Reapers destroy all organic life in the Galaxy, which is obviously wrong, because Humanity still exists - unless you think that Humanity and all organic life for that matter on Earth was created six thousand years ago by Jehova. If you don't, this piece of information from the narrator is obviously b***s, and everybody including all ME characters know that.)

[Tim van Beek]

My apologies, I assumed you were using the word universe as an equivalent of space-time. Of course, if we use the word universe as a hypothetical structure that contains everything, than yes, it would be isolated by definition, I guess, although it would be impossible to define what the universe is with certainty (we arrive again at the paradox of defining everything).

I did. Strictly speaking, space-time itself is an isolated system, even if it has infinite volume, right from the definition. It could be something that lacks some properties that you are used to from other isolated systems (like being spatially finite), and frankly the definition of "isolated system" is pretty much useless if applied to the whole universe, but technically it applies. 

 

Please do. If it is mind blowing, we could make a mod for it.

What we discussed here, and what people publish on the arxiv in the hep-th section for that matter, would only be technobabble to most of the players, that was my point. Most won't understand it, and it disturbs the emotional impact of the scene...

[MrFob]

I did. Strictly speaking, space-time itself is an isolated system, even if it has infinite volume, right from the definition. It could be something that lacks some properties that you are used to from other isolated systems (like being spatially finite), and frankly the definition of "isolated system" is pretty much useless if applied to the whole universe, but technically it applies.

 

OK, this is no longer really connected to the ME3 ending but I still don't see how space-time is by definition an isolated system. But maybe that is my mistake. I tend to imagine it as a four dimensional manifold, similar to the data matrices, that I usually work with (in the field of Neurobiology, just for reference). If I work with a 4 dimensional matrix, it is easy to set up a system with a fifth dimension that has parameters that exist for the first for and that can correlate. We use that a lot for multi-parametric clustering for example.  If the fifth parameter is changed (say in a model), it can have an influence on the other four.

Granted, it's a very different set of parameters than space-time usually but I'd think the principles should be the same.

 

So let's do a very simplified thought experiment (or maybe rather an experimental thought), shall we? Say, you have a one dimensional life form (let's call it Bob). Bob lives in a two dimensional space-time. One axis is space, he can freely move around there, the other, Bob perceives as time, so he can only perceive one particular point on that axis as the present and he can remember things that happened to the left of that point, what is to the right is his future). Kinda like this:

 

Now, from our perspective, Bob's time is just a line on a graph. I could just take a pen and redraw the graph. The thing is, Bob wouldn't even realize if I did so because I have aces to his entire life, his entire time as a whole. If I change Bob's curve around age 5, this will then become Bob's past at age 30. But since Bob didn't change within the world but rather Bob's entire world was changed by me as a whole, I have also changed all of Bob's memories and perceptions. From Bob's perspective at age 30, nothing ever changed, he was always in the new position at age 5. Still, for me, coming from outside of Bob's space time and in the context of more dimensions, I definitely had an influence on Bob's world.

I could also rip the paper in half and end Bob's "life" (well, actually his entire space-time) would end "earlier" (from his perspective). Just for Bob, it was inevitable, it would always happen, whereas for me, sitting in a higher dimensional "plane" it was a change.

 

Now my question is, how can you be so absolutely sure that the same is not true for us? If we were influenced by something* from a plane with more dimensions, that has access to the entirety of our 4-dimensional space-time as a whole, we might never realize it but we might still be influenced. How can you say with certainty that something like this can absolutely not be the case?

 

 

*) If I were religious, I might call this the "hand of god" but I am not. I want to make it clear that I do not want to say that any such influence even has to be sentient, conscious or by a sentient being and even if it were, this "being" would not be omnipotent or omniscient. Well, it could be in regard to our 4-dimensional space-time but it would have to wonder about the same problem as I do here. It would probably also not even recognize us as "life" (like I don't recognize Bob really), who knows. That is where I think the universe can truly be infinite, not in space or in time (well, maybe there as well, who knows) but in dimensionality. Maybe it really is multidimensional turtles all the way down. Or maybe I am just really bad at wrapping my head around the mathematical concepts underlying cosmology and I am horribly wrong. I guess that's the risk of having such a discussion with an actual expert on a public forum.

[Iakus]

 

Gee, centuries of discussions of theologicans about how or if God's omniscience does or does not contradict free will, solved by the Wachowskis in a sci-fi blockbuster 

 

Bah, it was solved centuries before by Philip K Dick in his Minority Report novella 

[Tim van Beek]

Now my question is, how can you be so absolutely sure that the same is not true for us? If we were influenced by something* from a plane with more dimensions, that has access to the entirety of our 4-dimensional space-time as a whole, we might never realize it but we might still be influenced. How can you say with certainty that something like this can absolutely not be the case?

Well, of course we can't tell whether this is true or not, because this theory is not falsifiable, actually not testable at all, if that exo-being changes both the spacetime manifold and also all our memories about it. What if everything, ourselves included, was created yesterday, with all our memories, can you disprove that? Of course not. 

 

What confused me is that you used "extra dimensions" to describe your idea. But the way you describe it in your last post, you actually think about a being that exists outside of our spacetime manifold, and therefore also does not share our time dimension. "Extra dimensions" like in string theory usually refer to additional space dimensions, which we do not see in any way, because they do not extend to macroscopic length scales. That is, we still have one time dimension that we all share, but more than 3 space dimensions, but only very small objects get to see (certain - maybe indirect - effects of) the additional space dimensions.

 

Your idea seems to go into the same direction as that of the "prophets" from Deep Space 9 (http://en.memory-alp...om/wiki/Prophet).

 

That's not a stretch for a franchise that already had beings similar in power and attitude to Greek gods (Q in the next generation), but for Mass Effect it seems to be too...transcendental. 

 

 

I guess that's the risk of having such a discussion with an actual expert on a public forum.

I doubt that this could become something close to a problem on this forum. Since we were discussing transcendental beings anyway, here are two wishes: I wish for humanity to evolve socially so that many people care about being emberrassed for saying or posting something stupid. Then I wish for humanity to evolve socially so that no one has to care about being emberrassed for saying or posting something stupid, because all that will happen in such a case is a friendly and careful correction, but no intellectual headbutting.

 

("Expert" is of course relative, no one making a career in cosmology or general relativity would consider me as an expert on these topics.)

 

 

Bah, it was solved centuries before by Philip K Dick in his Minority Report novella 

Never read the novella, only watched the Spielberg movie: Isn't the punchline that the precogs are fallible?

[MrFob]

Well, I told you quite a few posts ago that I was going to take this into metaphysics.

Of course the theory is not falsifiable, not with our current knowladge about the world. That may make it a bad theory in the context of today's science but not necessarily for science fiction as it doesn't mean that there will not come a time when we can make measurements that transcend our understanding today (just like it has happened in the past).

But isn't it a given that if you want to define space-time and it's possible interactions as a system you have to get a perspective from outside of it, even if today it is imaginary?

That is the paradox of omniscience that I have described before, no? If you want to define something in it's entirety and with certainty, you need to have an outside frame of reference. But since you cannot be "outside of everything" you cannot know everything (or at least, you can never be certain that you do).

 

Now, I am not saying that Mass Effect should have something like gods or prophets*, what I am saying is that the catalyst, having had so much more time and access to so much knowladge, might have come to a conclusion, based on a theory that is outside of what we consider scientific. He might have included theories on this scale into his models and might therefore work with a whole different definition of what is possible and what isn't than we do in our current cosmological models. He might have a different view on infinity and of what is possible and what isn't in our space-time, maybe incorporating more information on whatever might be beyond, so that for him, the word "always" gets a whole different meaning (one that he admittedly failed to communicate).

In the end, he wouldn't know either, he wouldn't be in contact with any extra-space-time being or anything and whether he is right or not with his predictions and models is also uncertain. The point, I was trying to make is exactly that his predictions and his reasoning may involve concepts that are not falsifiable with our current scientific methods. Because however you slice the problem that the catalyst has, ("Protect organic life"), from our perspective there is no solution to it. Yet for the catalyst, there is. So either it's just broken and uses false logic to justify his solution or it uses principles in his reasoning that we from our perspective have to consider as metaphysical.

 

In fact, I think if you consider the Mass Effect universe, it is very clear that our current models do no longer hold up there. Consider the mass relays, devices that create a mas free corridor between two points in space time. To me that already sounds like a "plane" (for lack of a better word) in which the laws of physics as we know them don't hold up. Yet, it clearly influences our space-time as we send matter instantaneously over a distance of light years. It's already a scenario where today's models of space time are transcended in an imaginary way without going to all the lengths of involving gods or prophets directly. Having the catalyst modeling the universe beyond our current definition of space-time would be similar (albeit admittedly taking the concept a step further).

 

But as I said in my last post, this is a matter of taste and I totally get that it would not be to everyone's liking.

 

Liked your wishes on social development by the way. We'll get there ... it's inevitable.

 

*) The DS9 prophets, while a cool concept within the setting are not really what I was describing though. They are kind of in between because whatever they change can be perceived by Captain Sisko & Co., so they don't really fit the bill. But, yea, as you say, it goes in that direction. I am not really interested in finding a god but more in the possibilities within our existence. As you say, within a relativistic model of isolated space-time, those are limited. If we consider more metaphysical ideas (provable or not) they are not. I simply wonder what kind of existence we live in, preferably over a glass of red wine though.

[Iakus]

 

Never read the novella, only watched the Spielberg movie: Isn't the punchline that the precogs are fallible?

To a degree, yes.  The punchline was that in knowing the future, you can change the future.  The precogs were only infallible if no one interferes with the events they predict.

[Natureguy85]

Maybe the Catalyst meant cooperation?

 

The concept of choice in "The Matrix" triology is actually pretty deep, and none of it is to be found in ME: If you can see into the future, how does that not contradict free will? It does not, because while the decision we contemplate is in the future for the one who makes it, it is in the past for the one who can see into the future. But in order to see past it, you need to understand the motivations of the choice.

 

Gee, centuries of discussions of theologicans about how or if God's omniscience does or does not contradict free will, solved by the Wachowskis in a sci-fi blockbuster 

 

 

Yes, but was it an oversimplification? (I have no idea. The intro also says that the Reapers destroy all organic life in the Galaxy, which is obviously wrong, because Humanity still exists - unless you think that Humanity and all organic life for that matter on Earth was created six thousand years ago by Jehova. If you don't, this piece of information from the narrator is obviously b***s, and everybody including all ME characters know that.)

 

I have always seen the Oracle as figuring out the future based on knowledge of those she comes into contact with and cause and effect, not actually being able to see the future ahead of time. That aside, I've never seen how knowing what someone will choose means they didn't make that choice.

 

Yeah the intro was probably like much of the game: written by people who didn't pay attention to detail and forgot the last two games. I don't think I'm oversimplifying because I don't give the ending credit for being at all deep. In fact, one of the reasons it's so shallow is because it tries to implement too many ideas.

 

 

Never read the novella, only watched the Spielberg movie: Isn't the punchline that the precogs are fallible?

 

 

To a degree, yes.  The punchline was that in knowing the future, you can change the future.  The precogs were only infallible if no one interferes with the events they predict.

 

I didn't read the book either but in the movie, the title comes from the fact that the 3 precogs don't always agree on the future and the "Minority Report" is the equivalent of a Dissenting Opinion in a court case.

[Tim van Beek]

But isn't it a given that if you want to define space-time and it's possible interactions as a system you have to get a perspective from outside of it, even if today it is imaginary?

That is the paradox of omniscience that I have described before, no? If you want to define something in it's entirety and with certainty, you need to have an outside frame of reference. But since you cannot be "outside of everything" you cannot know everything (or at least, you can never be certain that you do).

No, mathematically, you can define and describe a manifold like spacetime intrinsically, without any exterior reference frame. I never heard of anybody using an external reference frame in general relativity, although this would be possible, technically (you need an embedding theorem for this, like e.g. https://en.wikipedia...bedding_theorem, that tells you that you can embed your manifold into an euclidean space of high enough dimension, that would provide your external reference frame). It would not have any meaning with regard to the physical interpretation of the theory, however. And it actually complicates things. 

 

If this is possible with general relativity (to not need an external reference frame, that is), I see no reason why it should be impossible in a more general context resp. a more encompassing theory.

 

 

Well, I told you quite a few posts ago that I was going to take this into metaphysics.

Yes, you'd like a catalyst that is so advanced that it remains a mystery, but still creates a "Wow!"   effect when it tries to explain itself. We'd understand that all it says only appears like metaphysics to us, because it is too advanced, but is actually science (in the ME universe), paraphrasing Clarke's third law, https://en.wikipedia...ke's_three_laws.

 

I don't think it is possible to pull that off. 

 

For example, I would like sci-fi authors to understand enough of general relativity and differential geometry so that they don't send their spaceships to the "edge of the universe" (like here: https://en.wikipedia...Has_Gone_Before, although it is supposed to be something more metaphysical than just the border of spacetime, admittedly). See my first remark above. Most people need several years of intensive study in both differential geometry and general relativity to get that.

 

While the Catalyst may have the means to increase Shep's IQ by 150 points in order to make her understand, I doubt that it can do the same to the players. And when the Catalyst transforms into Michio Kaku and starts to explain the multiverse as a consequence of the string theory landscape, this will be just more technobabble that does not make any sense for most people (including, in this case, ca. 95% of all active theoretical physicists). Kaku can do that (and be watched and get paid for it ), because he speaks with the authority of a physics professor and claims that this is top-notch theoretical physics (it is a topic that some physicists publish papers about, therefore more firmly rooted in our reality than mass effect fields are). The catalyst does not have that kind of authority (for the players).

 

Sorry kiddo  unless you write such a story for yourself, I doubt you'll ever get what you want...

[MrFob]

No, mathematically, you can define and describe a manifold like spacetime intrinsically, without any exterior reference frame. I never heard of anybody using an external reference frame in general relativity, although this would be possible, technically (you need an embedding theorem for this, like e.g. https://en.wikipedia...bedding_theorem, that tells you that you can embed your manifold into an euclidean space of high enough dimension, that would provide your external reference frame). It would not have any meaning with regard to the physical interpretation of the theory, however. And it actually complicates things. 
 
If this is possible with general relativity (to not need an external reference frame, that is), I see no reason why it should be impossible in a more general context resp. a more encompassing theory.

Careful now. I very deliberately added the "with certainty" to my sentence. Sure, Once you come up with a proper quantum theory of gravity, you might have a model that describes all of our frame of reference entirely consistently and as such, you have an intrinsic way to describe everything about space-time. So you would probably have defined our space-time "entirely" but - as you yourself said above, when mentioning that my little thought experiment with Bob is not falsifiable - you cannot be sure that space-time is everything.
So the omniscience paradox holds.
 

Yes, you'd like a catalyst that is so advanced that it remains a mystery, but still creates a "Wow!"   effect when it tries to explain itself. We'd understand that all it says only appears like metaphysics to us, because it is too advanced, but is actually science (in the ME universe), paraphrasing Clarke's third law, <a data-ipb="nomediaparse" data-cke-saved-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke"href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke" s_three_laws"="">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws.

 
I don't think it is possible to pull that off. 
 
For example, I would like sci-fi authors to understand enough of general relativity and differential geometry so that they don't send their spaceships to the "edge of the universe" (like here: https://en.wikipedia...Has_Gone_Before, although it is supposed to be something more metaphysical than just the border of spacetime, admittedly). See my first remark above. Most people need several years of intensive study in both differential geometry and general relativity to get that.
 
While the Catalyst may have the means to increase Shep's IQ by 150 points in order to make her understand, I doubt that it can do the same to the players. And when the Catalyst transforms into Michio Kaku and starts to explain the multiverse as a consequence of the string theory landscape, this will be just more technobabble that does not make any sense for most people (including, in this case, ca. 95% of all active theoretical physicists). Kaku can do that (and be watched and get paid for it ), because he speaks with the authority of a physics professor and claims that this is top-notch theoretical physics (it is a topic that some physicists publish papers about, therefore more firmly rooted in our reality than mass effect fields are). The catalyst does not have that kind of authority (for the players).
 
Sorry kiddo  unless you write such a story for yourself, I doubt you'll ever get what you want...

 
You expect this hypothetical scifi author to explain this future science to the audience in absolute detail, so that they can follow along every step. Obviously, that is not possible, anyone who'd be able to do that would be an actual scientist (and a really famous one at that), not a scifi author. Obviously scifi has to stay in the realm of the impossible (from the standards of the current time). IMO, it's enough to give the idea that this further developed science does exist and that it is used to generate models that lead to different conclusions than our current ones. Ideally, while doing that, you follow current developments and projections as far as possible and then from there, you go just a bit further, introduce one imaginary science concept and go with that as consistently as possible but you are of course not obligated to make all the connections for the audience.
In my mind, science fiction is there to tease the minds of the audience. My favorite part of reading/watching science fiction is to figure out where exactly the inconsistencies are. The longer that takes and the more it makes me think about where our current level of knowladge might just be constrained yet and where it might go in the future, the better I consider it. Of course, that is not the only aspect of a good scifi story but to me it's an important one.
The "Wow" effect you describe doesn't have to last forever in scifi, sooner or later, I'll get where the missing link to today's science is but the longer that takes, the more I have to think about it, the bigger the impact that the story will have on me.
 
Mass Effect does a decent job of this IMO, when it describes all the possible applications of, well, the Mass Effect. Of course, the ME is purely fictional but it made me revisit all the things I learned about the connections between mass, energy and the structure of space time as we know it because there was an enticing description there of what would happen if you changed the rules a little bit.
However, when the catalyst came along ME (the franchise) didn't do a good job of it anymore because it introduced a very vague new premise with extensive logical flaws in it. And Natureguy85 is correct, what we've been discussing over the last page or so is only very peripherally related to what is actually in this ending and is more built on something like a secondary story that we added on top of it.
 
I would also say that this kind of writing has been done a lot in scifi, you could even argue that it's at the core of the genre. Even having fictional characters talk about fictional science with authority has been done a lot and successfully, too (Asimov and Hari Seldon even being an example again). This might not have worked for you but many people (often me included) were "wow"ed by such stories and ironically, I think you have it backwards, you don't need to raise the IQ of your audience, on the contrary, the less someone knows about cosmology, the more wiggle room the author has to "wow" that person. It might be very difficult to "wow" you, as you have very extensive knowladge about the subject, it may be a bit easier to do it for me (but the catalyst still wasn't good enough and neither was that ST:TNG episode you linked) but for example, back in the day, I was "wow"ed by that German TV series from a few posts earlier because it introduced a concept to me that I had never thought about before back then and in the process of figuring out the flaws, I actually learned stuff. That was great! That's what I want out of my scifi.
 
Ultimately, there is a gradient of what people consider plausible and everyone has their own threshold of what they consider a brain teaser and what they consider just plain stupid.

 

EDIT: I should probably add, that I am also a big fan of "techno babble" (although I hate the term). Especially in ST:TNG. Some of it is really bad and cringe worthy but over all, I think they were surprisingly consistent. I think I read somewhere that the story writers could leave those sections of the scripts where they needed some techno-magic to happen blank and they would be filled in later with something appropriate to the lore.

[Tim van Beek]

In my mind, science fiction is there to tease the minds of the audience. My favorite part of reading/watching science fiction is to figure out where exactly the inconsistencies are. The longer that takes and the more it makes me think about where our current level of knowladge might just be constrained yet and where it might go in the future, the better I consider it. Of course, that is not the only aspect of a good scifi story but to me it's an important one.

The "Wow" effect you describe doesn't have to last forever in scifi, sooner or later, I'll get where the missing link to today's science is but the longer that takes, the more I have to think about it, the bigger the impact that the story will have on me.

Okay, but that part of the audience seems to be a minority, and a heterogeneous one, just as you say. The sci-fi setting is mostly a means, not an end, used as a set-up, for example because it is exotic, as a means to achieve alienation or to generate some credibility for a fantasy idea. 

 

I also don't know of a story that used a scientific revelation as the climax (well, not counting MEEM, see below  ). 

 

The "wow" aspects in the original ME:3 ending were supposed to be on a moral and emotional level: The reapers aren't evil (just not empathetic), they have a higher goal that concerns all life, and all possible ending choices have objectionable consequences (which, as you know, was reversed by the EC, for which synthethis is supposedly objectively the best, but the idea was clearly there and is a good one). A "bugfix" for the ending would remove or replace the metaphysics that destroys credibility, but retain these as the central ideas.  

 

Now I know why you wrote MEEM the way you did  , and if we had been script doctors at BioWare in 2011, this would have been my main point of criticism : That it does not simply replace the broken metaphysical sci-fi elements (and the catalyst character) with much more credible ones (and a more credible VI), but moves them to the center of the stage, where they also supersede the ideas that were supposed to engage players on a moral and emotional level.

 

 

EDIT: I should probably add, that I am also a big fan of "techno babble" (although I hate the term). Especially in ST:TNG. Some of it is really bad and cringe worthy but over all, I think they were surprisingly consistent. I think I read somewhere that the story writers could leave those sections of the scripts where they needed some techno-magic to happen blank and they would be filled in later with something appropriate to the lore.

Do you like "The Physics of Star Trek", then?

 

But isn't that proof that this technobabble is just an arbitrary plot device like applied phlebotinum?  "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a completely ad-hoc plot device", see http://tvtropes.org/...liedPhlebotinum.

 

Ronald D. Moore decided for this very reason to get rid of it for "Battlestar Galactica", and I tend to agree that this was a good decision 

 

I think one of the Star Trek producers or show runners once answered the question "how does the warp drive work?" with "good, thank you very much". In the same sense, the very topic of this thread is probably off-topic from the point of view of the writers, because the ending never was about engaging people with the question whether or not the sci-fi metaphysics that sets the stage is credible or not...