A discussion of metagame concepts in game design

[Maxperson]

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

For sure you could play it that way, but Gygax wrote the the elemental planes were the building blocks for the others. That sounds as small as it gets, which to me would include the atoms, molecules and elements. Especially when you consider that in 1e the elemental plane of earth has all of the gems, minerals and metals of the prime planes in it as native sources to find. Lastly, I found this gem in the 1e Manual of the Planes, "Toward the positive material plane, the water becomes warmer and more agitated until cohesiveness between water molecules breaks down and the plane of quasi-elemental steam is reached." It doesn't get clearer than that. Atoms and molecules exist on the elemental planes, just as they do on the prime planes.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Aw, man, there's a TLJ Luke quote for this.

 

[Emerikol]

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

No. First all mathematics of all sorts exists as truth whether human minds conceive of it or not. It is true that on a plane in all universes the shortest distance between a point is a straight line.

You can conceive of a non-Euclidean universe and that is fine but the math for a plane is still true math. It may not be as useful in a different universe it is still true. The same for math used to describe alternate realities. It would all be true in all universes.

There is a concept in philosophy of necessity. Something that has the property must exist in all universes. Depending on your views that will only include abstract concepts or something more.

 

[Kobold Boots]

No. First all mathematics of all sorts exists as truth whether human minds conceive of it or not. It is true that on a plane in all universes the shortest distance between a point is a straight line.

You can conceive of a non-Euclidean universe and that is fine but the math for a plane is still true math. It may not be as useful in a different universe it is still true. The same for math used to describe alternate realities. It would all be true in all universes.

There is a concept in philosophy of necessity. Something that has the property must exist in all universes. Depending on your views that will only include abstract concepts or something more.

I'm not intending to start a lengthy discussion about math and truth. But since you're expressing your opinion, I'm expressing things I've been taught over the years by folks that thought they were math and english professors.

- Math does not exist without sentient thought. It's a language. Don't confuse the nature of reality with the math that models it. Two entirely different things.

- Math is not truth. In order for truth to exist as a function, fallacy needs to exist. This is not the same thing as correct vs. incorrect. Something can be incorrect without being a fallacy. The difference is intention and the universe does not intend to lie to anyone. It's good marketing for math and science to be in the "truth" camp but it's really just a way for us to not be in the dark and model our understanding of the world around us. The moment science becomes "truth" we will have nothing left to learn.

- Philosophy is great, but it's absolute garbage. The minute someone goes "philosophy" on you, you know they haven't got a leg to stand on. There's a reason why math and science research papers are usually less than 20 pages and liberal arts papers are usually hundreds of pages long. More words = nonsense being passed as fact.

(edited due to filtered language)

 

[Satyrn]

More words = nonsense being passed as fact.

So, to hide the fact that I'm spouting nonsense, I should keep my posts short?


I can do that.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Nice!

If I hadn't already thought this all through a long time ago, this would be my jumping-off point to do it now.

 

[Shasarak]

- Math is not truth. In order for truth to exist as a function, fallacy needs to exist. This is not the same thing as correct vs. incorrect. Something can be incorrect without being a fallacy. The difference is intention and the universe does not intend to lie to anyone. It's good marketing for math and science to be in the "truth" camp but it's really just a way for us to not be in the dark and model our understanding of the world around us. The moment science becomes "truth" we will have nothing left to learn.

The good news is that as long as we are filtering Science through humans then there will always be something to learn.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not intending to start a lengthy discussion about math and truth. But since you're expressing your opinion, I'm expressing things I've been taught over the years by folks that thought they were math and english professors.

- Math does not exist without sentient thought. It's a language. Don't confuse the nature of reality with the math that models it. Two entirely different things.

- Math is not truth. In order for truth to exist as a function, fallacy needs to exist. This is not the same thing as correct vs. incorrect. Something can be incorrect without being a fallacy. The difference is intention and the universe does not intend to lie to anyone. It's good marketing for math and science to be in the "truth" camp but it's really just a way for us to not be in the dark and model our understanding of the world around us. The moment science becomes "truth" we will have nothing left to learn.

- Philosophy is great, but it's absolute garbage. The minute someone goes "philosophy" on you, you know they haven't got a leg to stand on. There's a reason why math and science research papers are usually less than 20 pages and liberal arts papers are usually hundreds of pages long. More words = nonsense being passed as fact.

(edited due to filtered language)

In general, I agree with this. There is no real "Science," just the scientific method which is a tool, not truth. You shouldn't believe in science any more than you should believe in your hammer. It's also not the sole or even best approach to truth in general -- the scientific method is excellent for observing our universe, but cannot offer answers on other things. \

However, if you really think math and science papers are just shorter, I'm going to have to disagree on that point. I read quite a few beasts in my time.

And, further furthermore, to the thread in general, I find it absolutely ridiculous that this thread has devolved into arguments about whether modern physics exists or doesn't in made up elf games just so that one side or the other can show that a preference for non-magical fighter abilities is wrong or right. Why the hell are we inventing stupid arguments about the nature of reality in elf-games just to prove another's preferred method of explaining something in that elf-game is wrongheaded? What your end goal? I love to drop bombs about Galileo when I get the chance, but it just dawned on me why it even came up in this thread, and I'm left befuddled as to the point.

 

[Maxperson]

And, further furthermore, to the thread in general, I find it absolutely ridiculous that this thread has devolved into arguments about whether modern physics exists or doesn't in made up elf games just so that one side or the other can show that a preference for non-magical fighter abilities is wrong or right. Why the hell are we inventing stupid arguments about the nature of reality in elf-games just to prove another's preferred method of explaining something in that elf-game is wrongheaded? What your end goal? I love to drop bombs about Galileo when I get the chance, but it just dawned on me why it even came up in this thread, and I'm left befuddled as to the point.

Actually, the idea on whether physics and other sciences exists in D&D is completely a side discussion I believe. Yes, it's in the thread about metagaming, but this portion did a strong right turn off topic, which often happens in threads of any significant length.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

There is no real "Science," just the scientific method which is a tool, not truth. You shouldn't believe in science any more than you should believe in your hammer. It's also not the sole or even best approach to truth in general -- the scientific method is excellent for observing our universe, but cannot offer answers on other things.

This is a sweeping, unsupported, epistemological assertion; I can make those too, but it doesn't make them true.

What "other things" did you have in mind which are not part of "our universe?"