Immortals Handbook - Grimoire (Artifacts, Epic Magic discussion)

[Farealmer3]

Easy peasy

exellenct, because i was seriously unwhelmed by the fact a arams tank shell does more damage than Mech and most starship weapons. I mean really, a tank shell doing more damage than a singularity cannon .

otherwise they mean nothing.

Absolutly, but unlike magic, tech can be more easily duplicated and mass produced as it doesn't need to be imbued with it's abilities from a specific high powered individual. That gives it the ability to transend the limits of it's catagory, especially when suffecently smart people get ahold of it. I mean look at humans the only real difference between us now and us in the stone age is our understanding. If we were to bring a human from the past here they could learn just as easy as anyone else.

 

[historian]

Hey U_K!

He has reason for a higher tech than Richards certainly, but that tech will be medieval compared to the likes of Galactus.

I like the reference.

Another comic book question U_K; how come Alucard never really dies? Seriously, it doesn't make sense.

Absolutly, but unlike magic, tech can be more easily duplicated and mass produced as it doesn't need to be imbued with it's abilities from a specific high powered individual. That gives it the ability to transend the limits of it's catagory, especially when suffecently smart people get ahold of it. I mean look at humans the only real difference between us now and us in the stone age is our understanding. If we were to bring a human from the past here they could learn just as easy as anyone else.

I might differ a twinge with you here Farealmer3.

When comparing two individuals of like capacity, and let's just use IQ as a proxy, I think you're argument probably holds up. You take thirty 100 IQ stone-ager and educate them cradle to grave and I would expect their aptitude for technology to be roughly the same as thirty 100 IQ moderners.

However, a 200+ IQ individual is likely to be able to develop technologies that would never be developed by a 100 IQ individual in any number of successive lifetimes. Imagine how that gulf broadens when dealing with 500 IQ alien intelligences and such.

In other words there are "transcendent" technology levels for the mortal mind.

 

[Farealmer3]

However, a 200+ IQ individual is likely to be able to develop technologies that would never be developed by a 100 IQ individual in any number of successive lifetimes. Imagine how that gulf broadens when dealing with 500 IQ alien intelligences and such

That only applies if you make the assumption that their is a type of technology that can never be explained to a lower intellegence. Which may well be impossible, as even if it relied on concepts that are too difficult to easily understand it can be simplified. Just like how people today and build or repair objects without knowing all the science behind it's workings. After all thats how progress works, with many simpler discoveries leading to larger more complex ones that couldn't be made without the intervening ones. After all you couldn't properly explain the workings of an nuclear bomb without explaining atoms .

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

exellenct, because i was seriously unwhelmed by the fact a arams tank shell does more damage than Mech and most starship weapons. I mean really, a tank shell doing more damage than a singularity cannon .

Yes its idiocy.

Absolutly, but unlike magic, tech can be more easily duplicated and mass produced as it doesn't need to be imbued with it's abilities from a specific high powered individual. That gives it the ability to transend the limits of it's catagory, especially when suffecently smart people get ahold of it. I mean look at humans the only real difference between us now and us in the stone age is our understanding. If we were to bring a human from the past here they could learn just as easy as anyone else.

I'm sort of with Historian here. Cutting edge science is basically nonsensical to the average graduate, let alone the proverbial man on the street. If you gave the schematic blue prints of a modern Personal Computer to Einstein 70 years ago theres no way he could create one, he may not even understand the half of it. If you gave a F-117 Stealth Fighter to the Nazis during WW2* they might be able to fly it but there is no way in hell they could create another plane let alone mass produce it.

*Yes I have seen the Philedelphia Experiment II.

Even Thanos admits that Galactus Tech is beyond his comprehension and Thanos makes Einstein look like George W. Bush.

 

[Farealmer3]

I'm sort of with Historian here. Cutting edge science is basically nonsensical to the average graduate, let alone the proverbial man on the street. If you gave the schematic blue prints of a modern Personal Computer to Einstein 70 years ago theres no way he could create one, he may not even understand the half of it. If you gave a F-117 Stealth Fighter to the Nazis during WW2* they might be able to fly it but there is no way in hell they could create another plane let alone mass produce it.

This is true, however i was more referring to a more primitive person meeting and learning from a more intellegent one. In scifi/superhero settings it's possible for a primitive soceity to meet and learn from a more advanced one. I wouldn't expect a single blue print or a single peice of technology to be able to allow them to make jumps. But thats because those exist in a vacuum without any context. Now if you included an engineer capable of making those items with them Einstein could understand the computer and the germans could understand the stealth fighter.

 

[historian]

That only applies if you make the assumption that their is a type of technology that can never be explained to a lower intellegence.

You're absolutley right. My thesis is that there are types of intelligence that are not merely separated by a matter of degree but are rather categorically different.

A better example, as opposed to the IQ differential, might be imagining the challenge associated with teaching a monkey to write and program complex supercomputer code. Perhaps Richards is closer to Galactus than a monkey is to Richards (or perhaps not) but that's the drift.

Our current technology seems vast, to be sure, but there is a big universe out there.

 

[Farealmer3]

My thesis is that there are types of intelligence that are not merely separated by a matter of degree but are rather categorically different.

Their is a problem with that. We couldn't run modern computer programs manually(as in input things as they would happen if they ran automatically) but we can build machines to do it for us, just like humans couldn't deadlift a 1 ton bolder but using machines we could. Even if we couldn't do something mentally we could design something that could.

A better example, as opposed to the IQ differential, might be imagining the challenge associated with teaching a monkey to write and program complex supercomputer code. Perhaps Richards is closer to Galactus than a monkey is to Richards (or perhaps not) but that's the drift

But thats more about sentience vs nonsentience. Once you get to past the sentience barrier things become less tiers and more like levels. Besides Galactus has been fooled, outmanuvered, and beaten enough times by lesser foes. Which means he isn't on some unobtainable tier intellegence wise.

 

[historian]

Their is a problem with that. We couldn't run modern computer programs manually(as in input things as they would happen if they ran automatically) but we can build machines to do it for us, just like humans couldn't deadlift a 1 ton bolder but using machines we could. Even if we couldn't do something mentally we could design something that could.

As can Galactus so can we design machines that can do things that we can't. This simply suggests the existence of intelligence, not the the category thereof.

Certainly we have yet to design a machine that rivals the totality of the human intellect.

I stand on my point that there are certain things monkeys simply can't learn to do.

But thats more about sentience vs nonsentience.

You don't think monkeys are sentient?!

Once you get to past the sentience barrier things become less tiers and more like levels.

I am unsure of the difference between "tier" and "level."

Besides Galactus has been fooled, outmanuvered, and beaten enough times by lesser foes.

I'm not so sure about this either. I mean, the Watcher has temporarily hidden the Earth from him, Richards has convinced him to spare the Earth before by threatening to use Galactus' own technology against him, the Elders, Ego, and In-Betweener have given him a devil of a time, but that's about all that comes to mind.

Galactus consumes planets about every month, many of which are armed with technologies far exceeding Earth. I'd say he is holding his own.

Which means he isn't on some unobtainable tier intellegence wise.

Well, see above. Anytime Galactus has been thwarted by mortals it has has hardly been a victory of mortal technology.

Moreover, I don't think it follows that beings with access to categorically better technology always win vs. beings with categorically worse technology. There are many other issues that bear on the battle like numbers, etc.

 

[Farealmer3]

Certainly we have yet to design a machine that rivals the totality of the human intellect.

A limit of progress level not a limit of ability.

I stand on my point that there are certain things monkeys simply can't learn to do.

Monkey's yes, humans no. I feel that anything could be learned or at least explained to humans by someone who has it.

You don't think monkeys are sentient?!

Wrong choice of words i was thinking about the D&D definition were sentience is interchangable with sapience. Sapience is what i was reffering to. Either way they don't have that special thing that allows them to remeber complex things and build upon them. Humans do and we can use this to learn about things even if we don't understand them at first.

I am unsure of the difference between "tier" and "level."

Think 2nd edition gods to 3rd edition ones. In 2nd you could never get power rivaling gods by leveling up they were on a seperate tier. In 3rd edition while their is still things only gods can do, it is possible to equal or exceed their capabilities and personal power at a high enough level.

Galactus consumes planets about every month, many of which are armed with technologies far exceeding Earth. I'd say he is holding his own.

I ain't refering to tech vs tech i am refering to the fact that his stuff can and has been used by others, and that he himself can be outmanuvered by lesser forces. Thus he isn't so much smarter than humans like Reed and Doom to the point they could never understand or match his tech if he explained it to them. I beleive he could even teach normal earth humans to use and replicate it given enough time. He wouldn't but i believe it's possible.

 

[historian]

A limit of progress level not a limit of ability.

Maybe, maybe not. I think reasonable inferences can be made. For example, the fact that we've never met a human from the future is highly suggestive that the ability to travel in time is beyond our abilities.

Monkey's yes, humans no. I feel that anything could be learned or at least explained to humans by someone who has it.

Again I go back to the IQ example. I don't believe that Stephen Hawking would find it possible to teach an individual of 100 IQ his more intricate theories no matter how much time he had to spend with them. They have totally different ceilings and no amount of time would mend the gap as diminishing marginal returns simply sets in at some point. I would also submit that the gulf between Stephen Hawking and a person with a 100 IQ is far less than the gulf between Stephen Hawking and an Old One with the "Technology" Portfolio.

Take any scholastic aptitude test for example. A person can better his scores through practice, but beyond a certain point there is no meaningful advancement. You just can't teach everyone to peg a 1600 on the SAT.

Even if we look at the collective contribution of human intellect there is a limit. There are synergies to working together to be sure but it's not as though a workforce of ten 100 IQ people will produce results equivalent to one with an IQ of 1000.

Wrong choice of words i was thinking about the D&D definition were sentience is interchangable with sapience. Sapience is what i was reffering to.

Gotcha.

I ain't refering to tech vs tech i am refering to the fact that his stuff can and has been used by others, and that he himself can be outmanuvered by lesser forces.

I thought this entire discussion was about tech by way of intelligence as a proxy.

Galactus' technology is so user friendly even a comparative insect like Reed Richards can use it. Just because someone can use it doesn't mean they could replicate it even by way of reverse engineering. Galactus has developed a plethora of technologies that Richards and humanity would have duplicated if he could. If Richards, and in particular Doom, could have replicated Galactus' technology they would have, believe me.

Thus he isn't so much smarter than humans like Reed and Doom to the point they could never understand or match his tech if he explained it to them.

I'm not sure what basis you have for concluding this. See U_K's post regarding Thanos' view of Galactus' technology.

I beleive he could even teach normal earth humans to use and replicate it given enough time.

There is a reason they don't let just anyone into places like Oxford. The run of the mill student might eventually graduate but you can give them here until eternity and they won't accomplish what the best and brightest will.

Changing gears a bit I'm going to refer to the Official Marvel Handbook from TSR circa 1980s.

Galactus has a reason score of Class 1000 translating to roughly 900 IQ. Richards is a 50 which translates to roughly 210 on the IQ chart. Richards has talents that would push his IQ to 75 or roughly 240 IQ in tech matters. This would make Richards perhaps the most intelligent human being in history but hugely inferior to Galactus.