Immortals Handbook - Grimoire (Artifacts, Epic Magic discussion)

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya Adslahnit!

Speaking of the Progress Level chart on the website, I noticed that Earth is only listed as 0.5 on the Kardashev Scale when it should really be 0.7 on the scale. In addition, some of the sci-fi civilizations have their Kardashev Scale ratings severely underestimated (the Earth Alliance should be Type I, the Federation and the Empire should be Type II). So with this in mind, the table should be rearranged in either one of two ways:

Disciple = Kardashev 0.3
Prophet = Kardashev 0.4
Hero-deity = Kardashev 0.5 = Earth (Industrial Revolution)
Quasi-deity = Kardashev 0.6 = Earth (Modernity)
Demi-deity = Kardashev 0.7 = Earth (1989-Present)
Lesser Deity = Kardashev 0.8
Intermediate Deity = Kardashev 0.9
Greater Deity = Kardashev Type I = Earth Alliance (Babylon 5), Gaia (Isaac Asimov's Foundation series)
Elder One = Kardashev Type II = Federation (Star Trek), Republic/Empire (Star Wars), Ringworld (Larry Niven)
Old One = Kardashev Type III = Culture series (Iain M. Banks), Manifold: Time (Stephen Baxter)
First One = Kardashev Type IV = Time Lords and Dalek (Dr. Who), Xeelee Sequence (Stephen Baxter)
Time Lord = Kardashev Type V = Q Continuum (Star Trek)
High Lord = Kardashev Type VI
Supreme Being = Kardashev Type VII
Akashic Records = Kardashev Type VIII

Disciple = Kardashev 0.5 = Earth (Industrial Revolution)
Prophet = Kardashev 0.6 = Earth (Modernity)
Hero-deity = Kardashev 0.7 = Earth (1989-Present)
Demi-deity = Kardashev 0.8
Quasi-deity = Kardashev 0.9
Lesser Deity = Kardashev Type I = Earth Alliance (Babylon 5), Gaia (Isaac Asimov's Foundation series)
Intermediate Deity = Kardashev Type II = Federation (Star Trek), Republic/Empire (Star Wars), Ringworld (Larry Niven)
Greater Deity = Kardashev Type III = Culture series (Iain M. Banks), Manifold: Time (Stephen Baxter)
Elder One = Kardashev Type IV = Time Lords and Dalek (Dr. Who), Xeelee Sequence (Stephen Baxter)
Old One = Kardashev Type V = Q Continuum (Star Trek)
First One = Kardashev Type VI
Time Lord = Kardashev Type VII
High Lord = Kardashev Type VIII
Supreme Being = Kardashev Type Type IX
Akashic Records = Kardashev Type Type X

So which one would you recommend using as a guideline for Divine Rank - Kardashev Scale conversion?

To be honest I don't really like either. None of them really gel with Progress (tech) Levels from d20. Based on the evidence, the Q seem to be Time Lords. So I would have to go with the first list.

Its something that probably needs to be re-evaluated.

 

[Farealmer3]

Is this helpful?

Only marginally, all you've really done is outline the four possiblities based on physical/cognitive limits. These really don't need to be pointed out. No offense but all you've really done is point out things most of us know.

This is kind of thinking along the lines of a four part box using Ltheb's distinction between cognitive and physical limits.. I don't know how to replicate a box in thread but here's the idea.

A four part box for example isn't really necesary, the concept of four possibilites based on two intersecting choices is simple enough that using a physical object to help visualize it seems like saying envision a orange when thinking about the color orange.

 

[historian]

Only marginally, all you've really done is outline the four possiblities based on physical/cognitive limits. These really don't need to be pointed out. No offense but all you've really done is point out things most of us know.

Sorry it didn't meet with better reception.

Of those four possibilities outlined which one best fits you view of things? It's either possibility # 1, 2, or 4 but I can't tell which -- my best guess would be either #1 or #2 but I can't rule out #4.

A four part box for example isn't really necesary, the concept of four possibilites based on two intersecting choices is simple enough that using a physical object to help visualize it seems like saying envision a orange when thinking about the color orange.

The box was really only an organizational tool. Think about it however you think about it.

 

[Farealmer3]

Sorry it didn't meet with better reception.

Don't get me wrong, i don't hate it. It just seems like simplifing for the sake of simplifing. It's your time, i just think that it was a bit unecessary to type it out.

I also notice you make a point to mention in all but three that smarter beings will always be ahead of stupider ones. I think we all agree on that. I've never said they aren't my point of contention is the examples you use being static for the most part and thus not making any effort to stay ahead. All the intellegence in the universe won't help you if you have no desire to build. Reed does and that why i see him(or someone like him) eventually surpassing the Celestials or Galactus.

Of those four possibilities outlined which one best fits you view of things? It's either possibility # 1, 2, or 4 but I can't tell which -- my best guess would be either #1 or #2 but I can't rule out #4.

If i had to choose one i would pick 4. My point of contention is that Galactus tech simply isn't the cognitive peak(it may be the physical one though). But it's not like i don't believe one exists. Saying that humans can understand anything or build anything is an absolute that i don't support. But i acknowledge that even the limit i think we have might not be the one we accually have and of course their's cheating.

 

[historian]

It just seems like simplifing for the sake of simplifing. It's your time, i just think that it was a bit unecessary to type it out.

Just trying to put some "apparents" into better focus.

In terms of time it took about 8 minutes maybe.

I also notice you make a point to mention in all but three that smarter beings will always be ahead of stupider ones.

I also am very clear that, assuming an infinite time resourse, mortals will inevitably reach the pinnacle of technology in option # 1. In #2 there is no physical limit to reach but likewise mortal technology is boundless. In #4 mortals might or might not reach the pinnacle of technology depending on the relationship of the physical limit to the cognitive limit.

It's only in #3 where mortals are necessarily relegated to less than the pinnacle of technology.

I also notice you make a point to mention in all but three that smarter beings will always be ahead of stupider ones. I think we all agree on that.

But Farealmer, it's not clear that we all agree that smarter beings will always be ahead of stupider beings.

In option #4, which is where you are leaning, assuming an infinite amount of time and assuming the cognitive limit of the stupier being is at least equal to the physical limit then at some point the stupider being will catch up. Depending on how low the physical limit is the stupider being might draw even very early in history.

In option #1 assuming an infinite timeline the stupider being will necessarily catch up no matter how high the physical limit is.

I've never said they aren't my point of contention is the examples you use being static for the most part and thus not making any effort to stay ahead.

I have never suggested that I thought Reed or Doom or humanity for that matter would stay static. That would be idiocy.

Neither do I believe that those innately brighter than Reed and Doom, Galactus included, stay static. Moreover, I believe that the pace at which they innovate, due to being inherently brighter, is necessarily faster paced than lesser beings like Reed and Doom.

If we're in a #2 or a #3 world Reed doesn't catch up. Reed (or his successor) could catch up in a #4 world if the cognitive limit is higher than the physical limit, but it could take a loooong time.

It's only in a #1 world where Reed (or successor) necessarily catches up.

All the intellegence in the universe won't help you if you have no desire to build. Reed does and that why i see him(or someone like him) eventually surpassing the Celestials or Galactus.

Saying that Galactus and the Celestials have no desire to build isn't supportable unless they've reached the physical limit and they know it. They couldn't have reached the physical limit unless we're in a type #1 or #4 world.

Galactus and the Celestials have built and continue to build and do so on a scale dwarfing Marvel's mortal populations.

Galactus' incentive to build, like humanity, are due to self preservation. He has attempted to devise technology to eliminate his hunger as well as to protect himself from multiversal predators like Abraxas.

The Celestials incentives to build might be more esoteric but they are in the process of trying to genetically engineer a perfect race.

If i had to choose one i would pick 4.

You surprised me a bit with this one honestly. I would have bet even money on #1 or #2.

As you've probably guessed, I'm type #3 which means I likely don't have much of a future as a science fiction writer.

Saying that humans can understand anything or build anything is an absolute that i don't support.

This is where we really agree is that there are some things beyond the comprehension of mortals. Hence, the problem probably lies in the selection of Galactus as representing the higher technology.

My point of contention is that Galactus tech simply isn't the cognitive peak(it may be the physical one though).

I agree that his tech is not the limit of the cognitive peak. I don't believe it's the physical peak for that matter either.

 

[Farealmer3]

But Farealmer, it's not clear that we all agree that smarter beings will always be ahead of stupider beings.

In option #4, which is where you are leaning, assuming an infinite amount of time and assuming the cognitive limit of the stupier being is at least equal to the physical limit then at some point the stupider being will catch up. Depending on how low the physical limit is the stupider being might draw even very early in history.

In option #1 assuming an infinite timeline the stupider being will necessarily catch up no matter how high the physical limit is.

Your really going there huh?

Neither do I believe that those innately brighter than Reed and Doom, Galactus included, stay static. Moreover, I believe that the pace at which they innovate, due to being inherently brighter, is necessarily faster paced than lesser beings like Reed and Doom.

I disagree. Being smarter=/=staying ahead unless you show you want to or even can. And he really doesn't, infact in billions of years he hasn't even cured his hunger. Which is either a limit on his smarts or his motivation.

 

[paradox42]

I've had a few more thoughts that I think will contribute to the debate and I would credit all who have weighed in.

This is kind of thinking along the lines of a four part box using Ltheb's distinction between cognitive and physical limits.. I don't know how to replicate a box in thread but here's the idea.

First, ask whether you believe there is or isn't a physical limit. Second, ask whether you believe there is a cognitive limit for mortals. This yields four possibilities:

1. There is a physical limit but no cognitive limit -- this leads to the inevitable conclusion that mortals, given enough time, will reach the limits of technology. At any given point in time until infinite tech is reached then mortals might well lag behind other beings all other things remaining equal.

2. No physical limit and no cognitive limit -- this is a philosophical conundrum as far as I can tell but I'm guessing there are firghtening technologies in such a world. Things remaining equal mortals will always lag behind beings who process information faster but will also catch up and surpass prior iterations of faster processed technology. If there is a limit to time, mortals will finish behind more advanced beings.

3. No physical limit but a cognitive limit -- in this world there are technologies that are simply beyond the comprehension of mortals.

4. Physical limit with a cognitive limit -- depending on whether the cognitive limit is higher or lower than the physical limit mortals will either reach the ends of technology or simply fail to understand its highest level. Mortals will continue to lag behind beings with higher cognitive limits but either will or won't catch up at some point given infinite time and depending whether the cognitive limit is higher or lower than the physical limit.


Is this helpful?

It certainly helps to structure the debate; by referring to the box options we can see where each individual comes from and better perceive where their arguments are going. It's very abstract of course, so won't help specific examples, but by knowing where each individual is trying to go the merit of individual examples can be discussed more specifically and rationally.

I'll weigh in as the first to pick #2- I don't honestly believe that the concept of "limits" even applies to an infinite universe. For the purposes of the IH, and related fiction, we're typically dealing with various "levels" or types of infinity, whether it be infinite planes, or an infinite number of finite universes existing within the same ultimate dimensional framework, or whatever.

The idea of a cognitive limit requires that there be a theoretical limit, a state wherein no further processing can yield new results. In a closed, finite universe, this limit certainly exists. If time is unbounded then the limit is the point at which no matter or energy is left to power processing, at which point the only way to have any information processing occur at all is a steady-state machine which always loops back around to its starting point. If time is bounded, by contrast, then the limit is essentially the maximum amount of processing that can occur during the maximum timespan the universe exists, and nothing beyond this is possible. However, when infinity comes into play, these limits both disappear- there will always be a way to acquire new matter or energy to process information, and/or you can never run out of time with which to process it. In this case, we come up against Godel's incompleteness theorems which prove that there exist some problems that theoretical frameworks can never solve with their base axioms- there will thus always be new "intellectual space," so to speak, to explore.

A physical limit is a concept that largely depends on what one accepts as the "real, true" base of the universe. My arguments along this line are less formulated at the moment, so I'll just leave expansion of this for another post. This one's long and dense enough already.

 

[historian]

It's very abstract of course, so won't help specific examples, but by knowing where each individual is trying to go the merit of individual examples can be discussed more specifically and rationally.

That's kind of what I was hoping for.

I'll weigh in as the first to pick #2- I don't honestly believe that the concept of "limits" even applies to an infinite universe.

Well said.

For the purposes of the IH, and related fiction, we're typically dealing with various "levels" or types of infinity, whether it be infinite planes, or an infinite number of finite universes existing within the same ultimate dimensional framework, or whatever.

Agreed.

The idea of a cognitive limit requires that there be a theoretical limit, a state wherein no further processing can yield new results. In a closed, finite universe, this limit certainly exists. If time is unbounded then the limit is the point at which no matter or energy is left to power processing, at which point the only way to have any information processing occur at all is a steady-state machine which always loops back around to its starting point.

Interesting, finite but boundless?

A physical limit is a concept that largely depends on what one accepts as the "real, true" base of the universe. My arguments along this line are less formulated at the moment, so I'll just leave expansion of this for another post.

Mine aren't particularly well developed either.

 

[paradox42]

Interesting, finite but boundless?

It's actually a consequence of an obscure part of information theory- processing requires energy, so to reach a different state than you were in before you have to have energy to spend on it. But in theory, if you do some processing that has no result, which is to say that it eventually "loops" the whole back around to its original state, then it is possible to have whatever processing you did during the loop take no energy whatsoever. This, in turn, would be the only type of process available after the final "heat death" of the universe, after which there is literally no energy (or matter to convert to energy) left to use. Any information process occurring after that point, therefore, would be required to think thoughts in circles- always coming back to the starting point.

This is a plot point in Stephen Baxter's novel Manifold: Time, within which the author suggested that the entities living in the processors doing these looping computations slowly went insane as the eons progressed because they were forced to think the same thoughts over and over again in cycles. I have to say that I agree with the conclusion, though technically sanity would be restored at the start of every cycle since by definition it would have to reach its starting state to be a cycle at all. Unless we assume the entities were insane to begin with, which may not be far off the mark, but that's neither here nor there.

And yes, it is possible to have a system be finite but also boundless- the point is that some aspects of it are and remain finite, but other aspects are not necessarily so. This is what the Elemental Planes in 2nd Edition were like- they were supposed to be infinite planes, but they had borders that bled into each other so that you could actually cross physically from one plane to the other just by traveling in the correct direction for a long enough distance. The way this can happen is that if the infinity is in the direction away from the rest of the planes, then each plane becomes like a three-dimensional slice out of an infinitely thick pie or cake- there is no contradiction with assembling this. Why people had trouble understanding this concept has, frankly, always been beyond me- I "got it" right away. But I know my mind has little to no trouble thinking in three dimensions (heck, every now and then I'm even capable of thinking in four), so perhaps that's it.

 

[jedrious]

Trade Goods

Will the Grimoire contain trade values(Cost per pound, Volume per pound) for the materials it describes as well as for Orichalcum and Neutronium