A discussion of metagame concepts in game design

[pemerton]

So you say that Mathematics can not be scientific truth? At least it is consistent with what humans believed for the majority of their existence I guess.

Mathematics in itself tells us nothing about the world. As Hilbert said, if you can't substitute "beer mugs" et al for "points, lines, et al" then you haven't got to the heart of the mathematical proposition (or something to that effect).

Mathematical physics tells us about the world because it is anchored in measurement.

The Ancient Greeks had excellent geometry, but they were able to use it to determine the circumference of the earth because they took measurements. Conversely, their astronomical theories suffered from the limitations of their observations, which were not sufficient to displace the geocentric theory.
[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] - the observation of moons around Jupiter is sufficient to disrupt the basic geocentric framework. Once other planets have moons in orbit about them, the posit of the earth as the centre of all orbits breaks down. (There is also the technical challenge of incorporating the moons of Jupiter into the then highly epicyclic state of geocentric theorising - I don't know enough of the history of that period to know if this was seriously attempted.)

 

[pemerton]

As I've said before, this is all fine and dandy for the typical inhabitant of the game world - even the typical average-intelligence PC, for all that.

But for the DM behind the scenes it's not enough, because to build a consistent world/universe she's better off if she thinks through at least the basics and how they will (or can) relate to both our real world and to magic

GMing would be no harder for a 17th century GM than a 20th century one.

For all I know Gygax had never heard of the strong and weak nuclear forces, yet was able to GM pretty well by all accounts.

JRRT certainly had never heard of nuclear forces when he started working on his fantasy stories (given the relevant dates), but seemed to do OK also on the world-building front.

Common sense and a familiarity with a variety of historical and fantasy tropes will get you a long way!

any of the following might be true:

1. The word "elements" has multiple meanings; or
2. The default meaning of the word "elements" has changed over time; or
3. The term is being mis-used, either in Aristotle's day or in ours.

I think most of us would agree it's #1 above.

Appendix IV of the PHB includes the following:

The Positive Material Plane is a place of energy and light, the place which is the source of much that is vital and active, the power supply for good.

The Negative Material Plane is the place of anti-matter and negative force, the source of power for undead, the energy area from which evil grows.​

This is in an appendix, so optional, but the source of stuff that's gone on to be treated as rather canonical. The description of the positive material plane seems rather vitalistic (still a going theory in the latter part of the nineteenth century) rather than biochemical. And the notion of anti-matter and "negative force" that is put forward doesn't seem to overlap in substance (as opposed to terminology) with modern physics.

Between this and the elemental planes - which are the inner planes, the building blocks of all creation - I find it hard to take seriously that this is a world which is aptly described by a modern physics or biology textbook!

 

[Maxperson]

Between this and the elemental planes - which are the inner planes, the building blocks of all creation

So you're argument is that the PCs wear earth armor and fight with earth weapons purchased with earth pieces? Me, I think that elemental earth consists of the physical, made up of atoms and molecules(born out by molecular agitation), and elements(born out by the myriad of elements used by Gygax in the game).

I find it hard to take seriously that this is a world which is aptly described by a modern physics or biology textbook!

I find it hard to take seriously that you are still using this tired Red Herring. Let the poor fish rest!

 

[Ovinomancer]

Mathematics in itself tells us nothing about the world. As Hilbert said, if you can't substitute "beer mugs" et al for "points, lines, et al" then you haven't got to the heart of the mathematical proposition (or something to that effect).

Mathematical physics tells us about the world because it is anchored in measurement.

I have no idea where your idea of modern mathematical purity comes from, but it's entirely wrong. There are lots and lots of theories that are based solely on mathematical models that do a pretty good job of predicting behaviors but aren't based on observation. Heck, take the flow of electricity -- we still don't know what "direction" electricity flows or if it's even a net flow of electrons or a net flow of "holes" where electrons aren't. But we have math that we can make work, and it does a good enough job that you can read this on your computer. Don't even get started on RF communication theory. Seriously, don't, there's a few things I was shocked to learn that we just use statistics because it results in a useful answer but can't even begin to describe the phenomenon -- and that's before we get to quantum theory.

There's a modern belief that our science is really truth and should be held up. That's wrong. Science is a tool, a damn good one, but it's only as good as the craftsman using it. Our theories may look just as stupid to future people in a few hundred years as Geo-centrism looks to us.

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] - the observation of moons around Jupiter is sufficient to disrupt the basic geocentric framework. Once other planets have moons in orbit about them, the posit of the earth as the centre of all orbits breaks down. (There is also the technical challenge of incorporating the moons of Jupiter into the then highly epicyclic state of geocentric theorising - I don't know enough of the history of that period to know if this was seriously attempted.)

Nope. You can't point to one piece of evidence that isn't supported by other necessary evidence and claim it's sufficient. That's quackery. At the time, even with the discover of moons around Jupiter, the overwhelming evidence was that the planets and the stars and the sun orbited the Earth. It's normal to resist facts when they attack a strongly held belief in how things were, and you've likely always heard that Galileo proved helio-centrism and that the Church punished him to suppress it. But, that's wrong. Galileo gathered some evidence, but not enough, and was a loud quack with a good guess. He got himself in trouble with the Church by mocking the Pope. That's it.

The core evidence that things didn't orbit Earth is star parallax. If thing really didn't orbit the Earth, they'd be in slightly different places relative to each other and their position in the sky as Earth went around the sun. Direct telescope observation showed that this was NOT the case. Stars didn't shift. Now we know that's because they're so insanely far away that the shift is tiny and you need a very powerful and clear telescope to detect it, but that didn't mean the observational science of the time didn't do a good job and was upended because Galileo had an idea or saw some moons orbiting Jupiter. Heck, the Church even acknowledged the Galilean moons at the time, so that wasn't it. We keep giving Galileo prime place, but, again, Kepler did far better work that had even more evidence behind it. He, though, was more humble, and didn't tell everyone he was right because he couldn't prove it and knew it. All Galileo did was advance a theory that couldn't be proved. Do you know what we do with those today? Pretty much the same thing the Church did.

 

[Lanefan]

So you're argument is that the PCs wear earth armor and fight with earth weapons purchased with earth pieces?

On a 4-elements basis, yes. Those things are not water, nor fire, nor air - earth is all that's left.

Of the 4 elements, earth comes in the greatest variance of everyday-observable-to-the-average-person forms. Water has a few variants (beer, wine, etc.; maybe ice), air even less, and fire is - well, pretty much just fire.

Me, I think that elemental earth consists of the physical, made up of atoms and molecules(born out by molecular agitation), and elements(born out by the myriad of elements used by Gygax in the game).

That sounds more like a description of the Prime Material plane, from here.

I find it hard to take seriously that you are still using this tired Red Herring. Let the poor fish rest!

Lan-"sometimes guilty myself of using a red herring to flog a dead horse"-efan

 

[Maxperson]

On a 4-elements basis, yes. Those things are not water, nor fire, nor air - earth is all that's left.

Of the 4 elements, earth comes in the greatest variance of everyday-observable-to-the-average-person forms. Water has a few variants (beer, wine, etc.; maybe ice), air even less, and fire is - well, pretty much just fire.

That sounds more like a description of the Prime Material plane, from here.

If the prime plane is built from the 4 elements and it contains atoms, molecules and elements, then the elemental planes must also contain those things. It doesn't make sense for earth to spontaneously develop atoms, molecules and elements after it arrives on the prime plane. We also know from the books that the elemental plane of earth contains gems and such, so it's not just dirt and common stone.

 

[Kobold Boots]

I was waiting for that.

Einstein relied on observation. The Michelson-Morely experiement had shown that light had no velocity relative to the aether. And the constancy of the speed of light, whatever the motion of its source, is a key assumption in Einstein's thought experiments.

Plato thought that scientific knowledge was able to be generated by pure reflection on ideas. He was wrong.

Also, in checking the spelling of and attribution to Michelson-Morley I came across this interesting paper: Chasing a Beam of Light: Einstein's Most Famous Thought Experiment. In passing, it makes the following remark:

Maxwell's electrodynamics evolved over the course of half a century and built on a long series of experiments in electricity and magnetism. An emission theory must adjust the theory, but it cannot alter it too radically on pain of incompatibility with those experiments.​

Einstein was not proceeding in ignorance or disregard of experimental results and their theoretical implications!

The mistake you're making with your argument is that your position is based on the assumption that folks who are replying to you are disregarding experimental results and their theoretical implications.

If you go back through the thread, you'll note that if read impartially that you're the one using that assumption as the basis for your argument and all it's doing is inflating the post count as folks either take the bait or try to talk you back to a shared position.

It's called shifting the goal posts. When people who aren't good at it do it, people catch on and stop replying. You're really good at it so others' follow along.

Be well
KB

 

[Kobold Boots]

If the prime plane is built from the 4 elements and it contains atoms, molecules and elements, then the elemental planes must also contain those things. It doesn't make sense for earth to spontaneously develop atoms, molecules and elements after it arrives on the prime plane. We also know from the books that the elemental plane of earth contains gems and such, so it's not just dirt and common stone.

Usually I agree with your positions. In this case I present a possible basis for differences between the prime material and elemental planes.

The prime material has all four or five (in my personal model) elements. This mixing could if you wanted it to, be the basis for an entirely different set of rules around atomic theory in a game world.

2c
KB

 

[Emerikol]

Mathematics is not science. For example, mathematics is true in all possible universes. We can easily say that scientific laws could in theory be different in different universes.

Mathematics is a tool which we use to analyze the scientific universe. It is not scientific truth in and of itself. It is just a tool for analysis. That is why ALL of the sciences use math.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Mathematics is not science. For example, mathematics is true in all possible universes. We can easily say that scientific laws could in theory be different in different universes.

Mathematics is a tool which we use to analyze the scientific universe. It is not scientific truth in and of itself. It is just a tool for analysis. That is why ALL of the sciences use math.

I'd restate your initial premise thusly:

Mathematics is true in a multiverse model when any individual universe is analyzed through the lens of our specific universe.

KB