Quote from: jhkim;1104919OK, this is from Mistborn, right? I'm not familiar with the series, but how is this irrational? It sounds like it follows consistent, reproducible rules. Effects like telekinesis or other psionic powers don't fit with real-world science. But they could exist in a rational universe.

I would picture it like this. Suppose there was a perfect virtual reality computer simulation. Inside that computer simulation, simulated people can do things like use telekinesis - where effect exceeds cause. The computer simulation can be programmed to allow telekinesis to work. If that's true, then I would say it's rational. If it could be run as a virtual reality, then it doesn't have to *be* a virtual reality. There could be an alternate universe where those are the actual laws.

An irrational issue might be something like Looney Tunes or surrealism, where the world itself isn't internally consistent.

What you describe is valid logic, but not sound logic.

Your system has an irrational premise. You can act logically in that universe, you can work with the rules logically, but the universe is irrational.

In our universe, we assume it to be Scientific. That is why the definitions of science tie so close to reality. It's possible that reality has to be the way it is to be fully rational. We don't know that yet because we do not fully understand how things work. But in Science, and in sound logic, something does not come from nothing. That's why Creationism will never be a part of Science. It can be true, but violates the basic premise of Science that the world is rational. The other way it could fit into Science is to figure out where the something came from to suddenly be here.

That's part of the problem with "effects exceeding causes". You've created something from nothing because even kinetic energy is a thing.

*tangent: There is an argument that simulated realities aren't real, thus don't exist, and are rationally a mental construct not a rational thing. That of course assumes that our reality is real and not a mental construct.

And that's why I posted... "Science" itself is a perspective of limited objectivity seeking, greater objectivity - limited by the subjective scope of the person engaging in it.

Quote from: tenbones;1104426I'll go out on a limb here...

Science-Fiction presumes materialist methodology to create effects by working known (if occluded) laws (or in the case of fiction - conceits) of the setting that correspond to what we know or theorize to be possible in the real world. Systematization rules the day. The assumptions are that objective reality is closer to what we understand and project via our rational understanding of science as the primary conceit.

Gray Area - That point where the conceit of the setting presumes materialistic methodologies to affect change through theories that are unproven, or in some cases completely non-sequiter through the logic we currently understand. So Phlogiston is not real, but it purports to explain, rationally, certain material conditions through a false premise, through the use of fantastical devices that work off that false premise in a logical order. Psionics falls into this category. Mysticism as well.

Fantasy - Where the attempts to change reality require no materialist methodology, or any other methodology other than internal logic that corresponds to cultural mores and beliefs to describe their respective cosmology. As an example - cultures that embraced logic and mathematics gravitated towards more and more systemic approaches of viewing their own cultures beliefs - eventually supplanting them. Cultures that generally did not - created their own internal systems completely free of mathematical and in some cases material context. Which in the case of fantasy CAN and OFTEN IS more true as a conceit than what we call standard "science".

Often they can co-exist in Fantasy settings in varying degrees.

TL/DR

Science-Fiction - presumes in-setting logic that entirely operates from established real-world principles applied to create effects which MAY exceed what we consider currently possible.

Fantasy - presumes in-setting systems of logic that established IN-SETTING that do not require any real-world principles as we understand them to be objectively operative. The Force is part of the Star Wars setting. Purely subjective in description of function. Lucas tries to slide it closer into the gray-area (which only created a dumb narrative filter that explained nothing about the Force itself) by introducing Midi... I can't even finish typing it... But you get the idea. There is no evolutionary explanation needed to explain Dragons in most fantasy settings... but there are sci-fantasy settings that do exactly that: Prince of Nothing's Wracu are "dragons". They're created through genetic engineering as beasts of super-destruction by alien badguys. The denizens of the world call them 'dragons'.

There's gray area in-between where writers want to lean heavier on one or the other by explanation of the internal logic of these systems. With varying degrees of success - but that's not really the point.

Quote from: jhkimI would picture it like this. Suppose there was a perfect virtual reality computer simulation. Inside that computer simulation, simulated people can do things like use telekinesis - where effect exceeds cause. The computer simulation can be programmed to allow telekinesis to work. If that's true, then I would say it's rational. If it could be run as a virtual reality, then it doesn't have to *be* a virtual reality. There could be an alternate universe where those are the actual laws.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1104924What you describe is valid logic, but not sound logic.

Your system has an irrational premise. You can act logically in that universe, you can work with the rules logically, but the universe is irrational.

In our universe, we assume it to be Scientific. That is why the definitions of science tie so close to reality.

Science isn't an assumption. It's a methodology. We use the Scientific Method to determine how the universe functions. The reason why science ties closely to reality is because we can and do revise our assumptions to fit with what we discover empirically. Notably, many things were previously considered irrational that are now accepted parts of science -- like action-at-a-distance, non-Euclidean space, relativity, and quantum mechanics. If the universe worked differently and telekinesis were possible, then we could still apply the Scientific Method to it, and we would come up with different laws of science to describe how it works.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1104924But in Science, and in sound logic, something does not come from nothing. That's why Creationism will never be a part of Science. It can be true, but violates the basic premise of Science that the world is rational. The other way it could fit into Science is to figure out where the something came from to suddenly be here.

That's part of the problem with "effects exceeding causes". You've created something from nothing because even kinetic energy is a thing.

Kinetic energy is a mathematical description. The reason we call it a thing is because it fits the empirical data. If I drop a pencil, then I have created kinetic energy. Where did the energy come from? We describe the pencil as having previously had gravitational potential energy, but that's also just a mathematical description. If telekinesis were really possible, then most likely scientists would describe a telekinetic as having "psionic potential energy". There would be various rules that describe the limits of psionic potential energy, how it is transferred, and so forth. We would formulate laws around what we observe.

Quote from: jeff37923;1104893The square root of negative one.

That's imaginary not irrational. The square root of 2 and Pi are irrational.

Quote from: Bren;1104944That's imaginary not irrational. The square root of 2 and Pi are irrational.

You are right and I was wrong. Mea culpa.

(Do I owe you a beer now? )

Quote from: jhkim;1104940If I drop a pencil, then I have created kinetic energy. Where did the energy come from? We describe the pencil as having previously had gravitational potential energy, but that's also just a mathematical description.

No it is not merely a mathematical description. The conversion from Potential energy to Kinetic energy is all real and happens without a mathematical model. All the energy came from somewhere (as far as we know) no energy was suddenly created.

Psionics in Soft Sci-fi presumes that interaction with meta-dimensional energies via Faster than Light travel will cause something like psychic powers. It establishes the energy coming from outside know reality via a method that we have no way of knowing to be true or false yet. With no basis in current Science, it's not hard sci-fi, but it doesn't abandon rationality. Your example set up the premise of "effects exceeding causes" as long as that holds, your world is a Fantasy one or Science Fantasy at best.

Quote from: jeff37923;1104953You are right and I was wrong. Mea culpa.

(Do I owe you a beer now? )

But of course.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1104979Psionics in Soft Sci-fi presumes that interaction with meta-dimensional energies via Faster than Light travel will cause something like psychic powers.

I've seen tons of Sci-Fi with some version of psionics. I can't think of a single one that used FTL as the cause. What fiction uses this rationale?

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1104891I think I'm starting to wrap my head around this; the best example I can think of for an 'irrational physical law' that also meets most definition of magic would be 'effect exceeds causes,' or something along those lines, without any handwaving.

Suppose magic could overcome our basic laws of nature, create exceptions, but in spite of extensive research we fail to understand how and why magic works at all. It'd be like dark matter - our basic equations are fine, except for this x-factor which eludes us.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1104904Math isn't logic.

But it uses logic as its method.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1104904We use math to model some things in the real world. Neither numbers or irrational numbers exist, but an argument* can be made that the ability to count a thing means it does exist. Of course that rabbit whole goes deeper because you then have to explain how people can count things that don't exist and then your metaphysics professor Reeeees at you and says if it does not exist then it isn't a thing.

*I do not wholly endorse this argument.

Numbers are concepts and they exist as such. i exists as a "calculatory number", which is yet another concept - in this case a concept which does not readily apply to any observable real-world phenomenons.

Quote from: Bren;1104944That's imaginary not irrational. The square root of 2 and Pi are irrational.

All imaginary numbers are irrational; it's a strict subset. Any number that is not a rational (aka fractions) is by definition irrational.
(So drink that beer quickly before it gets taken back. )

Quote from: Bren;1105033I've seen tons of Sci-Fi with some version of psionics. I can't think of a single one that used FTL as the cause. What fiction uses this rationale?

Oh? Go through and check. In Mass Effect, the same energy that allows for FTL powers psionics. In Eldritch Skies FTL increases your meta dimensional exposure and allows for psionics. I personally keep referencing the explanation in Stars Without Number because it's the most thorough.

Check though in which Sci-fi you have seen where psionics were discovered both before FTL and have nothing to do with FTL. I think Flash Gordon would be the closest I know, but pulp Sci-fi is understood as Science Fantasy by a lot of people.

There are also cases where in Sci-fi, FTL was used before Psionics came about like in Star Trek or Babylon 5. That's fuzzier ground to stand on, but I would normally agree that unexplained psionics is just magic, so forgive me if I backfill a logical explanation onto Sci-fi that left it up in the air (though this explanation for Psionics started with HP Lovecraft whose works Eldritch Skies is derived from and Lovecraft predates most of the Sci-fi we are talking about. I guess over at TBP that would make Psionics racist.)

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1105065Numbers are concepts and they exist as such. i exists as a "calculatory number", which is yet another concept - in this case a concept which does not readily apply to any observable real-world phenomenons.

There is not different kinds of being. Something either is or is not.

Talking about different kinds of existence is a short-hand we use in common speech, but is not correct when we talk about metaphysical concepts.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1105076There is not different kinds of being. Something either is or is not.

Talking about different kinds of existence is a short-hand we use in common speech, but is not correct when we talk about metaphysical concepts.

This issue is controversial. (And is related to medieval controversy about universals.)

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1105102This issue is controversial. (And is related to medieval controversy about universals.)

Relevant theorem

Saying there is one kind of being does not contradict with Universals. There is a lot of problems with universals, but they aren't disproven. (I'm of the personal opinion that there is one universal and all things participate in it in different ways and amounts, but I am not convinced that we actually exist in the strictest definition of the term, but my theories are not academic)

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1105065

Quote from: Rhedyn;1104904Math isn't logic.

But it uses logic as its method.

Logic is a branch of mathematics. It might also be taught in a philosophy class, but it's still math.

 

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1105065All imaginary numbers are irrational; it's a strict subset. Any number that is not a rational (aka fractions) is by definition irrational.

BZZZZT!! Wrong! Back to high school for you.
Imaginary numbers are complex numbers, i.e a real number by the imaginary unit i (i = the square root of -1). Some are rational (those that can be expressed as a real number fraction x i) the others are irrational.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1105076Oh? Go through and check. In Mass Effect, the same energy that allows for FTL powers psionics. In Eldritch Skies FTL increases your meta dimensional exposure and allows for psionics. I personally keep referencing the explanation in Stars Without Number because it's the most thorough.

My mistake I thought you were talking about literary Science Fiction (or possibly movies or TV shows), not games. I don't really give a shit what fiction some game designer chooses to use to justify their psi abilities. I was thinking of works written by people like E.E. Smith, Andre Norton, Frank Herbert, David Weber, and many others. I suppose we could also include TV shows like Star Trek and Babylon 5, but generally the more popular the media the less thought out the setting details.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1105076That's fuzzier ground to stand on, but I would normally agree that unexplained psionics is just magic…

Agree with who? I didn't agree to that.

Quote…so forgive me if I backfill a logical explanation onto Sci-fi that left it up in the air (though this explanation for Psionics started with HP Lovecraft whose works Eldritch Skies is derived from and Lovecraft predates most of the Sci-fi we are talking about.

You just said a lot to disagree with in a short space. Let me take it point by point, but in reverse order.

1. Lovecraft doesn't predate sci-fi with psychic abilities, his writing is contemporary with it. Lovecraft died in 1937, Smith wrote the The Skylark of Space in 1920 and Triplanetary (the first novel in the Lensman series) was serialized in 1934.

2. I don't recall H.P. Lovecraft ever saying FTL was the cause of psychic abilities. That seems utterly contrary to his oeuvre. Neither "The Call of Cthulhu" nor the tales in "Dream Quest of unknown Kadath" reference FTL as a cause of extrasensory powers or experiences. In Lovecraft psychic abilities, like other non-Euclidean dimensions and extra-dimensional beings, are part horrible truth underlying this façade we call reality. I'd agree that in his works magic is irrational, because in his works the real world actually is irrational. Lovecraft has elements of science fiction in his works, but his aim was to write horror not science fiction.

3. When you backfill your explanation onto Sci-fi and then use your explanation as justification for other claims, that, right here, is the issue. It's also why a lot of your argument fails to make sense. Also, I don't find your explanation either satisfying or reasonable.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1105076Something either is or is not.

And in fantasy, magic is.

I've never understood all the various camps of SciFi and why people are so rigidly protective of them.

For me, it's just sciFi, in the same way that Fantasy is all just Fantasy.

So, I'll happily use Psionics in any SciFi game, in the same way that I'll use Bionics, Nanotech, Teleporters, Faster Than Light Drives, HyperSpace and so on.